At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth During Recovery Experience: A Vygotskian Interpretation Beverly E. Cox, Purdue University Zhihui Fang, University of Florida Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt, Purdue University

Abstract Metacognition (i.e., self-appraisal and self-management) implies the process of active control over one’s own cognition (Brown, 1980; Jacobs & Paris, 1987). This study described 17 at-risk first graders’ metacognitive growth in an early intervention program—. Each child was encouraged to relate an oral tale based in experience and then asked to dictate that oral monologue as a writ- ten-for-others text. Per Vygotsky’s (1962) developmental theory which relates speaking and thinking through the regulatory function of language and the internal- ization of others’ discourses, metacognition was observed in the children’s sponta- neous speech as they engaged in a challenging literacy task such as adapting an oral tale to a literate register text. Data were collected at the entry and exit of the Reading Recovery experience. Linguistic, statistical, and qualitative analyses were performed using Cox’s (1994) guidelines. Results revealed that the children exhibit- ed statistically significant and qualitatively distinct growth during the enrichment experience, not only in their knowledge about self, literacy task, and task related strategies, but also in their regulatory capacities to gain control over text content and to accommodate audience needs. Limitations and implications of the study are also discussed.

In recent years, the literacy problems implementation of Reading Recovery. of educationally disadvantaged popula- Reading Recovery (RR) is an early litera- tions have received added attention (e.g., cy intervention program developed by Smith-Burke, 1989) due to the projected New Zealand educator (Clay, shift in the demographics of school-age 1993a) to assist at-risk first grade chil- children in the coming decades (Pallas, dren in developing effective literacy Natriello, & McDill, 1989). One of the skills typical of successful learners. more significant developments in Research at the local, state, national, and addressing the literacy needs of at-risk international levels has demonstrated that children has been the introduction and RR is a viable alternative to traditional

An International Journal of Early Reading and ™ An Official Publication of the Reading Recovery Council of North America

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 55 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth remedial (e.g., Chapter 1) instruction metacognition refers to “one’s knowledge ous tasks and the different demands of metacognition. Vygotsky contends self- (e.g., Clay, 1990; Hiebert, 1994; Pinnell, concerning one’s own cognitive processes tasks), learning strategy variables regulatory speech is a universal phenom- Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994; and products … ” and to “the active mon- (Flavell, Green, Flavell, 1995; Schmitt, enon through which thought and lan- Schmitt, 1995). For example, Pinnell et itoring and consequent regulation and Younts, & Hopkins, 1994), and the regu- guage unite to exert control over behav- al. (1994) compared Reading Recovery orchestration of the processes in relation latory functions of planning, monitoring, ior. Specifically, young children talk to with three other instructional models and to the cognitive objectives on which they checking, evaluating, and revising (Baker themselves and to others as they engage found that the former was more effective bear … ” (p. 232). In other words, & Brown, 1984) one’s reading compre- in literate activities. Such “spontaneous than the latter. Specifically, the study metacognition encompasses two aspects: hension or construction of comprehensi- utterances” (Dahl, 1993) or “private reported the RR children’s performance self-appraisal (i.e., awareness) and self- ble text for a reader. speech” (Berk & Spuhl, 1995) on four measures (sentence dictation, management (Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Metacognition is important in educa- express(es) inner cognitive processes and basal-adapted text reading, Gates- Paris, Wasik, & Westhuizen, 1988). The tion for at least four reasons. First, effec- serve as a “directing force” for action. MacGinitie, and Woodcock) was statisti- first refers to children’s declarative tive learning depends on successful For example, children routinely use oral cally significantly better than any other knowledge (knowing what), procedural orchestration of cognitive operations language as a vehicle for discovering and treatment groups (Reading Success, knowledge (knowing how), and condi- (Dembo, 1994). Second, numerous stud- negotiating emergent written language Direct Instruction Skills Plan, tional knowledge (knowing when and ies have reported that metacognition is understandings and for getting meaning Reading/Writing Group) and the control why). The second aspect, often equated closely related to being a more proficient on paper (Cox, 1994; Dyson, 1983, group. Shanahan and Barr (1995) con- with executive control (Brown, 1983; reader (e.g., see Haller, Child, & 1991). Further, the development of higher cluded from their meta-analysis that the Cox, 1994; Garner, 1994), refers to chil- Walberg, 1988; Paris, Wasik, & mental processes such as metacognition effects of Reading Recovery are “compa- dren’s strategic planning, on-line moni- Westhuizen, 1988 for reviews) and better originates in social experience and is rable to those accomplished by the most toring, and regulating action. The exis- writer (e.g., Cox, 1994; Flower & Hayes, transferred from the interpersonal to the effective educational interventions” (p. tence of regulatory action presupposes 1981). Third, metalinguistic comments by intrapersonal psychological planes by 959). knowledge of cognition. That is, if there young children have been documented in means of self talk (Vygotsky, 1978). With While RR’s contribution to chil- is evidence of cognitive regulation, some terms of early literacy behaviors (Clay, the aid of such private speech, children’s dren’s developing reading and writing level of knowledge about self, task, or 1972; Teale & Sulzby, 1986). Fourth, self-regulatory capacity expands over skills is well documented, few studies strategy must exist, albeit without con- recent research indicates that as young time. Berk and Spuhl (1995) explained, (e.g., Schmitt, Younts, & Hopkins, 1994) scious awareness. In the literacy context children develop literacy skills, they are As children experiment with speech-to- have focused on what and how the RR (i.e., reading and writing), knowing what already exhibiting signs of emergent pro- self in order to cope with new tasks, experience contributes to children’s (declarative knowledge) is realized in cedural metacognitive awareness and some types of speech may effectively metacognitive development. Because aspects such as strategy and metalinguis- control over literacy processes and prod- transform behavior, others may be of rel- metacognition and literacy skills are tic awareness. Knowing how (procedural ucts (Cox, 1994; Cox & Sulzby, 1982; atively little consequence, whereas still closely related (Cox, 1994; Donaldson, knowledge) is realized through regulation Dahl, 1993; Gordon, 1990). The present others may be debilitating. As the coordi- 1978; Olson, 1994; Scribner & Cole, of both process and product (e.g., moni- study tracks evidence of RR children’s nation of utterances with action becomes 1981; Wood, 1988), it is especially toring the choice of more precise words developing emergent metacognitive con- increasingly refined, private speech important to examine at-risk children’s for an audience or applying a word trol over their literacy processes and achieves mastery over behavior and is metacognitive growth during the RR recognition strategy). Without awareness, products during their time in one Reading internalized. (p. 147) experience. students may lack a readiness to exercise Recovery program. Based on Vygotsky’s theory, control over or regulate their learning metacognition is observed in children’s Theoretical Framework (Gordon, 1990). Vygotskian Theory spontaneous speech as they engage in a Relative to literacy, metacognition is In this study, Russian psychologist challenging literacy activity such as con- Metacognitive Theory operationally defined as independent, Lev S. Vygotsky’s (1962) developmental structing what we call ‘a literate register strategic learning and involves the knowl- Metacognition, in its most general theory, relating speaking and thinking text’(i.e., one for others to read). edge of self (e.g., one’s strengths/weak- sense, implies the process of active con- through the regulatory function of lan- Particular utterances during and sur- nesses, interests, study habits), task trol over one’s own cognition (Brown, guage and the internalization of others’ rounding the literate activity can be dis- (information about the difficulty of vari- 1980). According to Flavell (1976), discourses, drives our interpretation of tinguished from the story and other dis-

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 56 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 57 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth course because of their intonation and nition as cognitive self-appraisal and self- nition. Schmitt, Younts and Hopkins demands and problems that children have their self- and other- regulatory functions management, a growing body of research (1994) examined one Reading Recovery to face when we try to teach them to read to monitor the story’s content/form and has documented what young emergent (RR) child’s development of metacogni- and write fluently” (p. 168). Further spec- specifically address planning, monitoring, readers and writers know (e.g., Dahl, tive knowledge related to reading and ifications of RR’s contributions promise evaluating, and revising. Further, a subset 1993; Goodman & Altwerger, 1981) and strategic regulation of the reading process to yield crucial instructional and research of these utterances directly suggests inter- what they do when they engage in literate over a span of 25 lessons. They reported insights that may (a) enhance our under- nalization of thinking processes through activities (e.g., Clay & Cazden, 1992; noticeable evidence of metacognitive standing of children’s literacy and cogni- their adoption of another’s speech Cox, 1994; Cox & Fang, 1996; Rowe, growth during the RR experience. tive development, and (b) allow us to bet- (Bakhtin, 1986; Wertsch, 1980, 1991). 1989). For example, Dahl (1993) exam- Specifically, they indicated that at the end ter assist other at-risk learners, who do This study differs substantively from ined the spontaneous utterances of first- of lesson 25, the child revealed some new not yet have RR available to them, to earlier psychological research which grade inner-city children in two urban insights about herself as an employer of a become more proficient readers and writ- often measured metacognition through sites. She found that these learners did variety of sensemaking strategies during ers. think-alouds, stimulated recalls, or retro- say aloud some of the things they were reading, demonstrated more knowledge spective interviews reporting conscious thinking and that nearly half of the 87 of task and greater use of task-relevant The Study metacognitive strategies during or after a categorized utterances were metacogni- strategies, and had begun to achieve inde- task (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1981), an tive statements indicative of children’s pendent, strategic control over the read- Research Questions operationalization that is beyond a child’s engagement in self-monitoring and ing process. The present study focuses on chil- grasp from Vygotsky’s perspective (Berk, awareness of written language. While research continues to favor dren’s developing emergent literacy relat- 1992) and which is suggested as less Cox’s (1994) recent work blended RR as an instructional model for at-risk ed metacognition during the RR experi- accurate in capturing thought processes Vygotsky’s developmental theory about children’s reading and writing develop- ence. It addresses the general question of (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). the relationship between language and ment (e.g., Pinnell, et al., 1994), there is whether the development of metacogni- thought with Halliday’s systemic and still little understanding with respect to tion comprises a part of what the RR Young Children and Metacognition sociolinguistic theory of language devel- RR’s contribution to at-risk children’s experience contributes to literacy devel- The issue of whether young children opment. She found that children as young metacognitive growth beyond problem opment. Specifically, three research ques- develop metacognition has been a subject as preschoolers already used regulatory solving reading strategies. Because tions were raised: (a) Do at-risk children of considerable controversy. utterances that implied procedural regula- metacognition and literacy skills are inex- make regulatory utterances to self or Psychological literature generally claimed tory thinking relative to producing a com- tricably related (Donaldson, 1978; other that explicitly regulate the text’s that young children do not have the abili- prehensible literate register text. She fur- Scribner & Cole, 1981; Wood, 1988), it is content, structure, or an issue of compre- ty to think about their own thought ther reported that many of these important to investigate what and how hensibility for a reader? (b) Are there processes and that they are limited in preschoolers made explicit self- or other- RR contributes to children’s metacogni- quantitative or qualitative differences in their ability to do anything about regulatory utterances that exerted control tive growth. Such investigation can give these children’s metacognitive utterances metacognitive knowledge (Baker & over (by planning, monitoring, checking, us a more complete picture of RR’s role between the entry and the exit sessions of Brown, 1984; Dembo, 1994; Flavell, evaluating, and revising) their dictated in children’s literacy ontogenesis. Toward the RR program? and, if so, (c) Are any 1985; Garner & Reis, 1981). For exam- texts’ content, form, and structure for this end, systematic analysis and research metacognitive gains statistically signifi- ple, Flavell (1985) argued that it is not their audience. Along the same vein, are needed to help determine and articu- cantly associated with gender, race, and until late childhood or early adolescence Rowe (1989) also reported that as young late (a) what it is that children have income variables that have been consis- that students become capable of assessing children developed reading/writing skills, learned and how have they improved; and tently identified as sensitive to the vicis- a learning problem, devising a strategy to they were already exhibiting signs of (b) which of these learnings, though not situdes of instruction (Dahl & Freppon, solve the problem, and evaluating their emergent metacognitive awareness and explicitly taught in the RR program, are 1995; Delpit, 1986, 1988). success. control related to writing in their own implicitly available in the instructional Recent studies of young children systems. context. As Wood (1988) noted, “By Participants using the socio-constructivist framework One recent study has specifically making explicit what is implicit in their Twenty-seven first grade children have, however, offered preliminary evi- addressed young at-risk readers’ potential [children’s] performance, we gain an from four suburban schools within one dence to the contrary. Defining metacog- for developing diverse forms of metacog- objective understanding of the tasks,

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 58 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 59 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth district of a midwestern city participated at equal intervals during the program (as language. Finally, the use of dictation comprehensibility of the text for the in the study. They were selected for each child reached level 5 and level 10), frees the child of demanding mechanical implied reader. These instances were then Reading Recovery according to their lev- and (c) once shortly after the child’s dis- concerns (e.g., spelling, forming letters, classified by two trained scorers into els of performance on Clay’s An missal from (i.e., successful completion punctuation). Thus, the task can be per- three categories: (I) externalized speech Observation Survey of Early Literacy of) or at the end of the program. All formed without prompting and interven- implying inner thinking and general plan- Achievement (1993b). Clay’s observation interviews were audio-taped and tran- tion of researcher probes. This enhances ning; (II) audible self- or other-regulatory survey provides individual information scribed for later analyses. For the purpose the reliability and validity of the research speech addressing audience needs; (IIa) about children’s letter knowledge, writing of this paper, only data from the entry data and maximizes the methodological audible and explicitly other-regulatory and reading vocabularies, ability to hear (session 1) and exit (session 4) were rigor of early childhood research. speech specifically directing the scribe to and record sounds in words, understand- used. At both of these sessions, the child In essence, the task provides a situa- address audience needs; and (III) audible ings about concepts of print, and skill in was encouraged to relate a vis-á-vis oral tion in which task difficulty was metalinguistic comments. Features and reading continuous text. The selection of tale about a personal experience. Then increased (i.e., from an oral tale to a writ- examples of these categories are fur- the children and their RR instruction the adult commented on the oral mono- ten-for-others text). The increase in task nished in Table 1. Interscorer agreement were monitored by RR teacher leaders logue tale’s interest and suggested he or difficulty may, per Vygotsky’s theory, was approximately 81% with 100% reso- and all 27 children were instructed by she knew some other similar-age children force a young child’s developing internal- lution achieved through discussion. certified Reading Recovery teachers. who would like to read that story. The ized self-regulation outward as audible All categories of regulatory speech Ten children were eventually with- adult then invited the child to dictate that self or other-regulatory speech. In addi- or metalinguistic comments were parsed drawn from the study because they either oral tale as a story for these other chil- tion, the only way to control the text was as T-units, per Cox (1994). A proportion moved away with their families before dren to read (i.e., a book-like or literate through the scribe. The task requested the score of metacognitive utterances relative completing the RR program or were register text). The adult acted only as child to, intuitively or consciously, take to the dictated story T-units was then cal- referred for psychological testing and scribe using a laptop computer, offering responsibility for constructing a literate culated. For example, if a child dictated a placement in special education. In terms no help beyond simply recording the register text while also allowing him or fifteen T-unit text with five T-units of of demographic composition, of the child’s words, re-reading the text aloud, her to review, monitor, and edit his or her metacognitive utterances embedded dur- remaining seventeen children, there were and inviting edits. This task has been text by making requests of the scribe. ing the composing process, the total six girls and eleven boys, seven African used successfully in previous studies metacognitive score would be 0.25, that Americans and ten European Americans, involving preschool and first grade chil- Scoring Procedures is, 5/(15+5). These proportion scores and five from low income families, and dren (e.g., Cox, 1994; Cox & Dixey, Linguistic, statistical, and qualitative were then submitted to multiple analysis twelve from middle income families. The 1994; Cox, Fang, & Otto, 1997; Cox & analyses of the data were conducted. of variance (MANOVA) for repeated level of children’s family income was Sulzby, 1984). Specifically, linguistic analyses, guided measures. The between-subjects factors indicated by their schools’ federal free The study’s task has several distinct by Cox (1994), were completed indepen- are gender, race, and family income. The lunch program. characteristics. First, the dictated text rep- dently by two trained scorers. First, all within subject factor is time. Because resents what the child is sufficiently utterances in the dictated stories and sur- repeated measures analysis of variance is Administrative Procedures familiar with regarding literate register rounding discourse that suggested strate- for determining the statistical significance Each child was interviewed by a language to use intuitively or indepen- gically regulatory metacognitive func- of change, the F-ratios for the between- familiar adult who had talked informally dently. Second, the task implicitly tions were identified. To ensure accuracy subjects factors (also called main effects) with groups of children and had estab- requests the child to code-switch from an in our judgement, audio tapes were are usually not of interest (Gall, Borg, & lished rapport with the target children oral monologue to a literate register one, replayed so that the child’s dictation into- Gall, 1996). Of interest instead is the prior to the data collection sessions. Data a challenging undertaking for young chil- nation became part of the linguistic con- interaction between time of measurement were collected at four sessions spanning dren from Vygotsky’s perspective. Third, text in which analyses were done. To be and between-subjects factors. In other an average period of approximately six the task maximizes the child’s opportuni- considered an instance, an utterance had words, what the study is primarily inter- months with a minimum of four months ty to use his or her literate register to be an implicit or explicit attempt by ested in is whether the difference for some children and a maximum of knowledge to control self-sponsored text, the child to strategically plan, monitor the between the entry and exit means of one nine months for others: (a) once before because it uses a child-selected memo- composing process, and regulate the group is significantly different from that the first RR instructional lesson, (b) twice rable experience developed first in oral

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 60 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 61 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth for the other group. Thus, the between- Results metacognitive speech directed at control- subvocal utterances such as “um,” “uh,” subjects effects were generally not report- ling their literacy products and processes. or “err”) or were metalinguistic com- ed unless they reached statistical signifi- Quantitative Repeated measures MANOVA ments in nature (primarily served by a cance. Significance level was set at 0.05 revealed that there is a statistically signif- story end marker “that’s all” or “the The means and standard deviations icant time effect, F (1, 11)=17.16, end”). Below is an example of an entry for all analyses. For all the statistical of metacognition scores for both the entry p=.002. This means that children showed session dictated text with embedded analyses, the SPSSX advanced software and exit sessions of Reading Recovery statistically significant growth in metacognitive utterances italicized and package version 4.0 was used. Finally, are provided in Table 2. For the entry ses- metacognition during their RR experi- categorized: cross-case comparisons and contrasts sion, fifteen of the seventeen children in ence. There is also a statistically signifi- (Miles & Huberman, 1984) were this study (88%) used some type of cant family income by time effect, F (1, Ted (African American boy) employed to determine if qualitative dif- metacognitive speech that indicated a 11) = 7.95, p=.017. This suggests that (Scribe prompts child to dictate) ferences existed in children’s metacogni- regulatory function. At the exit session, children from low and middle income Child: (dictates) We get to play every- tive utterances between the entry and exit all seventeen participants produced sessions of the RR experience. families demonstrated significantly dif- thing. ferent patterns of metacognitive growth Scribe: (repeats) We play everything. during the RR experience. No other main Child: (continues dictation) outside and effects or interaction effects were judged hot wheels. We get to play slide Table 1: Characteristics and Examples of Metacognitive Speech Categories to be statistically significant. and monkey bars and the tires. Category Features Examples Scribe: Okay. I externalized speech implying * …um … oh, I can’t think. Qualitative Child: (continues) And we play inside. inner thinking and general * I, uh, I throw his toys. Microanalyses suggest distinct differ- Scribe: Okay. planning * And … let’s see. ences in the quality of children’s Child (continues) Wel-l [I], we hit it metacognitive utterances between the and we kick it and we hit it with II audible self- or other-regulatory * And then I go (corrects himself) get entry and exit sessions of the RR pro- our hands and we hit it with out speech addressing audience in order gram. In general, at the entry session feet and … and … [I] … That’s needs (this category monitors, * My dog sleeps like him, like my cat. most metacognitive utterances tended to all [III]. checks, evaluates, or revises the * And my sister said that we gone … . indicate some form of general planning Scribe: (repeats) and that’s all. content and text to meet the are going to chew gum. (achieved primarily through the use of audience comprehension needs * We dropped, we dropped her off.

IIa audible and explicitly other- * I want to take that off (pointing to Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Metacognition Scores by Gender, regulatory speech specifically the word “grandpa” on the Race, and Family Income at Entry and Exit of Reading Recovery Program directing the scribe to address scribe’s computer screen) audience needs (this category * I want me and my sister (in the Entry Session Exit Session Gains monitors, checks, evaluates, or title). Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD revises the content and text Overall 0.37 0.22 0.51 0.18 0.14 0.24 through other regulation to meet Gender the audience’s comprehension Male 0.44 0.19 0.53 0.19 0.09 0.25 needs) Female 0.23 0.22 0.47 0.19 0.24 0.20 III audible metalinguistic comments * That’s the end. Race (this category signals the writer’s * (commenting on his own story) If African American 0.30 0.21 0.49 0.19 0.19 0.19 monitoring and understanding he (trapped dog) didn’t get European American 0.41 0.23 0.52 0.19 0.11 0.27 of some aspects of writing, text, his head out free, it (story) and the writing process) would not be as good. Family Income * The first one (letter) is big and the Middle Income 0.42 0.21 0.47 0.16 0.05 0.20 second one’s little. Low Income 0.25 0.23 0.61 0.21 0.36 0.18 * Adapted from Cox (1994)

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 62 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 63 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth Child: (continues) and we play blocks two examples below help illuminate the ers went up to get the truck. almost took up a whole page,” “But that’s and we play, we play … [I] point. Scribe: OK supposed to be a K [child pointing to the everything inside. We play Duck Child: (continues) to load the truck up computer screen],” “Like him, (spell) H- Duck. Jeffrey (European American boy) with our stuff. An … d (drawn I-M,” “The first one’s [letter] big and the Scribe: Now just a minute. What did you (Scribe prompts child to dictate) out), and we moved up to other one’s [letter] little,” “ … to my say? “And we play blocks … ” Child: (dictates) We traveled for two Indiana [I]. Errrh … [I]. That’s grandma, period”). Child: and we play outside in the tire. days. Ahh, and … and then [I] all [III]. More remarkably, many children Child: (continues) We go back inside we went to Florida. (Scribe rereads and invites edits) appeared to be acutely cognizant of what and then we sit down and take a Scribe: Okay? Child: Umm … [I]. That’s enough. a story is or what a good story should be break and then they call our Child: (continues) Then we went in a Scribe: Do you want to change anything? like (e.g., “That part’s funny,” “I think name to go pick a station. place. Child: (shakes head) no. they [audience] will enjoy it [story],” Scribe: Okay. Scribe: Okay. Scribe: That’s just the way you want it. “We can show that to my teacher,” “I Child: (continues) We have recess Child: (continues) Then we rented a guess I made good stories,” “It’s [story] inside and outside. And then we place. In sharp contrast, the metacognitive real long,” “I don’t know how a story is,” go over, get our lunch and lunch Scribe: (repeats) into places? utterances at the exit session as a whole “By Linda Nessell,” “In the Snow [as money too. We get our lunch Child: No, we rented a house [IIa]. showed marked growth in both self- story title],” “It’s [story] called Lion and money to give it to the one who Scribe: Oh, I’m sorry, OK. appraisal and regulatory capacities. For My Horse”). Below is an illustrative cooks. We get ready to go out- (scribe types “house to replace example, although utterances indicating example. side. And then we sit down in place” and repeats “Then we planning functions continued to be com- our chairs and practice our num- rented a house.”) Okay? mon at the exit session, they are both Greg (a European American boy) bers. Child: (continues) Then we went to more strategic and purposeful, clearly (Scribe prompts child to dictate) Scribe: We sit down in our chairs and Disney World. Then we went to serving content and audience needs (e.g., Child: I can tell you three stories [I]. practice our numbers. go ride rides. Then we went to “I can tell you three stories,” “How long Scribe: Why don’t you pick one of them. Child: That’s all [III]. go eat. Um … (big sigh) I’m try- are you going to write,” “I will do one Which one do you think you like ing to think … [I] and back to [story] about Christmas,” “Can I say to tell for other boys and girls? Although a few of these children did the place. And then we went about my dog?”). In addition, the chil- Child: Um, I think I would write like attempt to address text content through back to dinner and then we went dren appeared to be more cognizant of the camping one [I]. on-line monitoring and regulating the on more rides. their planning process (e.g., “Take me a Child: (begins dictation) I went to Scribe: (repeating child) and then we scribe (e.g., “Did you say ‘knock people while [to think],” “Oh, let’s see,” “I can’t church camp. And when me and went back to dinner. off the pit’?” “Go, go back up to the cat think any more”). Furthermore, while at my brothers and my grandparents Child: (edits “dinner”) to Disney World thing … ”), their self- and other-regulato- the exit session the RR children contin- got there we went and find this [IIa]. ry capacities were quite limited in both ued to use end markers (e.g., “the end,” place where you eat in the morn- Scribe: (repeats) “to Disney World and scope and depth. Furthermore, there were “that’s it,” “that’s the last thing,” “and ing. And after we went inside the then we ride more rides.” Okay? only a few metacognitive utterances that that’s probably about it,” “That’s the end … after we went inside the place Child: (continues) Then we went to suggest evidence of self-correction or of that sentence”) to signal the end of the [I], we went to our cabin. The Myrtle Beach. And then we left. elaboration during dictation to address composing process, their repertoire of next morning, we, I got my And that’s all [III]. issues of precision and ambiguity, an metalinguistic knowledge had grown con- orange whistle [II]. And after I indication of possible lack of self- Kiran (European American girl) siderably. For instance, they more closely got my whistle I went outside to appraisal or knowledge of literate register (Scribe prompts child to dictate) monitored the writing process and clearly play. And I saw three dogs. And expectations during the composing Child: (dictates) We were at my house. articulated their concerns relative to text that night everyone at church process. This is reflected in the dearth of And then we went to my grand- content and format (e.g., “But you forgot camp went outside for the camp category II metacognitive utterances. The ma’s, (self-corrects) grandpa’s to put the other ‘C’,” “What are you writ- fire. And we sang a lot of songs [II]. And then me and my broth- ing?” “Can you write all of it?” “It and before we roasted marshmal-

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 64 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 65 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth lows we sang another songs. And content and audience needs (e.g., “Put Child: (continues) I always walk to Scribe: No, I can’t see it either, but it’s then we got to roast marshmal- ‘no girls allowed’[in the story],” “You lunch. I get in … there. (repeats child’s last word) lows and I accidentally put my don’t have to cross any more out,” “Write Child: (aside) You know, I can’t see the and … too close to the fire and it was on it down,” “Can you erase that stuff?” “i” [III]. Child: (continues very slowly, each fire. And I said, “It needs another “[scribe puts in her side remarks in the Scribe: You’re right. I can’t see it either. word given separately) and the one. Throw it off.” That’s it [III]. story in parenthesis, the child notices that Let’s see. Let’s see if we can games and we did the books. We Scribe: Okay. That’s a good story. Now and says] What’s that say? … No, [take] move this over so we can see it. did the computer. And we did let me read it back to you in case that [pointing to the word ‘examiner’] There it is. combinations … you want to make any changes or out,” “I want to take that off (pointing to Child: (continues) and then I go, (self- Scribe: (checking on word) combina- add anything. (Scribe reread) the word ‘grandpa’ in the text),” “Take corrects) get in the order [II]. tions? Child: That part’s funny [III]. And I out ‘that’s all’”). Another example from Scribe: (checking by repeating) the order Child: (continues) pluses, and the num- think they will enjoy that [III]. Ted follows. Child: (continues) and then we walk to bers from, (corrects) and the Scribe: I think it’s really funny. That’s a the lunch room. numbers … [II] nice story. (Scribe prompts child to dictate) Child: (aside) It’s almost lunch time. Scribe: Um, hmm. Child: Will everyone in this door, place Child: (dictates using dictation intona- Scribe: That’s right. It is. Child: (repeats) and the numbers. (final get one [II]? tion) It was Christmas. Now, I Child: Did you put that down [IIa]? tone) Scribe: No, we are going to give it to am … (inaudible) Scribe: No, I didn’t. Did you want me Scribe: Okay? you. Scribe: What did you tell me? to? Child: (continues) And we went to art. Child: Old. Child: Nope. And we made, made (pause) Not only did the children advance in Scribe: Old? Scribe: Okay? made people [I], animals, and metacognition categories I and III, they Child: I forgot to tell you [I]. Child: (continues) And it was lunch fishes, and lions, and more fish- also demonstrated substantive growth in Scribe: OK. You tell me. time. And we walked and walked es, and made … we made paper categories II and IIa. Overall, these chil- Child: (resumes dictation). Now, I’ll, I, … [II]. dren were able to monitor closely their now I will eat [I]. Scribe: (repeating) walked and walked, Scribe: Paper dictation (e.g., “Did you really write Scribe: Eat? OK. huh … Child: (aside) That’s a “p” right there that?” “I should have said that, right?’ Child: (continues) my breakfast and Child: (continues) and we walked out. [IIa]. “Do you forget to put the other ‘C’?”) before I can go, (self correct) go Then we ate. And then, then, Scribe: Yes, that’s the “p.” and constantly made self-regulatory utter- [II] … then it … [I] Child: (continues) And we made houses ances (category II) that clarify and elabo- Scribe: (checking by repeating) before I Child: (aside, noticing computer screen) on paper. We was done and when rate the messages in the text while also go, OK. “It” [IIa] we, we went back to our room attending to audience needs (e.g., “then I Child: (continues dictation) to school. Scribe: Um, hmmm. There’s “it.” [I], we got a drink. And we went go, (self-corrects) get in order,” “He, I Scribe: to school. Child: (continues) It was time to leave to our classroom. mean, his name is Franklin … ,” “grand- Child: (continues) I like school when it the lunchroom. At that very Scribe: (repeats) … went to our class- ma, my grandma,” “I think I want to take is Christmas. Umm [I] … And moment, we walked at, at the room. Okay? out ‘I forgot’,” “My dog sleeps like him, (pause) and [I] … we, we, I go to classroom and we had play time. Child: (repeats We went to our class- like my cat,” “We rode bike around the the computer lab [II]. I will type We did the puzzles, (aside to room. And we took our class,our pool— the swimming pool,” “and I like my name first and then make a scribe) puzzles [IIa], and legos, classroom went, and we was get- to go ppssh [noise made when diving into story for a friend and then I’ll, I and … ting ready to go home. And we water] … but I can’t say that on that am done before that all … [II] Child: (aside, referring to computer walked and walked and got on [referring to story]” ). Similarly, the chil- Child: (aside) I can hardly see the “b” screen) What is it doing [III]? the bus and we sat down and we dren’s other-regulatory speech (Category [III]. Scribe: It’s moving over, that’s why. waited to get off the bus. And IIa) communicated clear, explicit direc- Scribe: You can hardly see the “b”? It’s Child: (continues) and, and … [I] Child: that’s all (III). tives to the scribe and showed strong there. (pick up the child’s last (to scribe) I can’t see “a”, can (Scribe offers to reread and invites edits) concerns for the substance of the text dictated words) before that … . you [III]? Child: I don’t want to add anything.

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 66 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 67 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth To summarize, this study shows that using language (i.e., private regulatory the written language while immersing while the African American children the Reading Recovery participants exhib- speech and other-regulatory speech) to them in rich literacy environments. trailed their European American peers by ited statistically significant and qualita- regulate strategic control over text con- In recent years, there have been sug- 0.11 at the entry session of the RR pro- tively impressive growth during the tent, structure, and audience needs. It is gestions (Delpit, 1986, 1988) that an gram, both groups were roughly equal at enrichment experience, not only in their also worth noting that, by the end of the instructional model such as RR can be the exit session (i.e., 0.49 for African knowledge about self, task, and task RR experience, the participants have especially fruitful when used with minor- Americans and 0.52 for European related strategy, but also in their regulato- seemingly developed a clearer sense of ity populations who are yet to acquire a Americans). The magnitude of the differ- ry capacities to gain control over text what a good story should entail. This sug- “secondary” (Gee, 1989) or academic ences between male and female was also content and audience needs. Further evi- gests that the extensive opportunities to discourse, one that is linguistically and reduced, almost by half, during the RR dence of such growth is furnished in the read and talk about interesting stories functionally distinct from the children’s experience (i.e., from 0.11 to 0.06). It is Appendix. with a knowledgeable other as provided home discourse. For this reason, a third interesting to note that although the gap in the RR lessons may have helped these research question was asked if the magni- between the low income and middle Discussion at-risk children internalize essential fea- tude of metacognitive growth was signifi- income remained relatively big at the exit tures of storybook language. cantly related to factors such as gender, session, the direction of difference was The study’s research questions were Vygotsky (1962) observed that race, and family income. The results from reversed. That is, while the low income all addressed. The first question asked if “school instruction … plays a decisive this study indicated that, statistically group trailed the middle income group by at-risk children exhibited evidence of reg- role in making the child conscious of his speaking, girls did not gain significantly 0.17 at the entry session, the former ulatory talk indicative of self-appraisal own mental activities.” (p. 92). It is rea- more than did boys, that African outscored the latter by 0.14 at the exit and self-management. The results from sonable to suggest here that the expand- Americans did not gain significantly session. Taken together, this study sug- this study clearly suggest that the vast ing regulatory capacities of the RR par- more than did European Americans, but gests that the RR experience may be at majority of the RR children already had ticipants may be due, at least in part, to that low income did gain significantly least partially responsible for the dramat- developed some early forms of metacog- the RR experience. The magnitude of more than did middle income categories. ic reduction in group discrepancies. It nition at entry to the RR program. The such growth has been interpreted from Although it is still premature to conclude also suggests that RR may be especially finding runs counter to the more tradi- both Vygotsky’s (e.g., Clay & Cazden, with certainty, due to small sample size, effective in helping high at-risk children tional view that often associates metacog- 1992; Pinnell, et al, 1994; Schmitt, et al, imbalanced design and lack of a control accelerate to or even surpass the level of nition only with maturation and more 1994) and British social theorist Basil group, that RR works or does not work their peers in terms of gaining metacogni- proficient learners (Garner, 1994; Paris, Bernstein’s (e.g., Cazden, 1995) perspec- better for one group traditionally labeled tive control. Wasik, & Turner, 1991). It also corrobo- tives. First, RR lessons feature one-on- as most “at-risk” (i.e., the economically rates Vygotsky’s (1962) view that “the one instruction that is embedded in a pos- disadvantaged), this study appeared to child about to enter school possesses, in a Limitations and Implications itive, considerate, and encouraging envi- suggest that it might. However, it is also fairly mature form, the functions he must A number of cautions need be exer- ronment. According to Brown (1956), possible that because the measurement of next learn to subject to conscious con- cised in interpreting the data presented language and literacy development is, in change (gains) is involved in this study, trol” (p. 90). here. First and foremost, the small sample a unique sense, “a process of cognitive the ceiling effect is at work. The middle The second question asked if there size (17) and imbalanced design (in cell socialization” (p. 247). The finely-tuned income children entered the RR program were quantitative and qualitative differ- numbers) limit any generalization over “scaffolding” (Bruner, 1981) available in with much higher metacognition scores ences between the entry and exit sessions and beyond the characteristics of the cur- RR lessons facilitates growth of higher than their low income peers. in the RR children’s metacognitive utter- rent population. Second, since no control mental functions within an ever advanc- It is important to note that at the end ances. This study offered substantive evi- or comparison groups were used in the ing ‘zone of proximal development’. of the RR program the mean differences dence of such growth. Specifically, at the study, it could be argued that the reported Second, as “a mixed system” (Cazden, of metacognition scores between the vari- exit session the children developed a metacognitive growth may not be due 1995), RR lessons integrate explicit with ous subgroups (male and female, African much clearer sense of themselves as read- solely to the RR experience, but is possi- holistic instruction in that RR teachers American and European American, and ers and writers, became more cognizant bly also an outcome of natural develop- encourage children to notice, explore, low income and middle income) have of the literacy task in which they were ment, regular school instruction, or some borrow, and reflect on critical features of been considerably reduced. This can be engaging, and were more proficient in combination. In fact, in late spring in observed from Table 2. For example, their regular classrooms, some of the RR Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 68 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 69 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth children were still receiving reading young children’s cognitive development. Bruner, J. (1981). The social context of lan- Cox, B.E., & Sulzby, E. (1982). Evidence of instruction in the basal primer, others As the Reading Recovery model (Pinnell, guage acquisition. Language and planning in dialogue and monologue by were in the first reader, and one was in a et al, 1994; Schmitt, et al, 1994) suggests, Communication, 1, 155-178. five-year-old emergent readers. In J. A. literature-based program. The difference it is imperative that teachers involve chil- Cazden, C.B. (1995, April). Bernstein’s visible Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in the children’s regular classroom dren in extensive reading and writing and invisible pedagogies: Reading in reading research and instruction (pp. Recovery as a mixed system. Paper pre- 124-130). Rochester, NY: National instruction may also have contributed to while simultaneously engaging them in sented at the annual meeting of American Reading Conference. the differential outcome described in the conversations that range from casual talk Educational Research Association, San Cox, B.E., & Dixey, B. (1994). Preschoolers study. Third, as noted earlier, there exists to deliberate explanations about features Francisco, CA. doing “code-switching.” In C.K. Kinzer & some potential dangers associated with of written language. Teachers should also Clay, M.M. (1972). Reading: The patterning D.J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects measurement of change. For example, encourage children to notice, explore, of complex behavior. Auckland, New of literacy theory, research, and practice ceiling effects may be at work in gain borrow, and reflect on language, and they Zealand: Heinemann. (pp. 162-171). Chicago, IL: National scores. That is, there is always a limit to should foster the development of chil- Clay, M.M. (1990). The Reading Recovery Reading Conference. the amount one can gain during the treat- dren’s literacy skills using productive programme, 1984-88: Coverage, out- Dahl, K. (1993). Children’s spontaneous utter- ment period. When a particular group of examples and in functional, communica- comes, and education board district fig- ances during early reading and writing participants already have high scores at tive contexts. ures. New Zealand Journal of Educational instruction in classrooms. Studies, 25, 61-70. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25 (3), 279- the entry level, they might gain compara- Clay, M.M. (1993a). Reading Recovery: A 294. tively less during the treatment period References guidebook for teachers in training. Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). A com- than the one with low entry scores. Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. parison of inner-city children’s interpreta- Examination of the data did reveal that Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Clay, M.M.(1993b). An observation survey of tion of reading and writing instruction in the European American, male, and mid- Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, the early grades in skills-based and whole dle income groups all had higher` research (pp. 353-394). NY: Longman. NH: Heinemann. language classrooms. Reading Research metacognitive scores at the entry session Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). The dialogic imagina - Clay, M.M., & Cazden, C.B. (1992). A Quarterly, 3, 499-545. to Reading Recovery than the African tion (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Davydov, V. (1995). The influence of L. S. American, female, or low income groups, Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University Recovery. In C.B. Cazden (Ed.). Whole Vygotsky on education theory, research, respectively (see Table 2). of Texas Press. language plus: Essays on literacy in the and practice (translated by S. T. Kerr). Berk, L.E. (1992). Private speech: An and New Zealand (pp. 114- Educational Researcher, 24 (3), 12-21. These limitations suggest directions overview of theory and the status of 135). NY: Teachers’College Press. DeFord, D., White, N., & Williams, C. (1991, for future research. Further investigation research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk Cox, B.E. (1994). Young children’s regulatory April). Analysis of the impact of writing in may use a larger, more varied, and bal- (Eds.), Private speech: From social inter - talk: Evidence of emerging metacognitive Reading Recovery tutoring settings. Paper anced sample and employ control and/or action to self-regulation (pp. 17-53). control over literary products and process- presented at the annual meeting of the comparison groups. Such studies should Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. es. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. American Educational Research contribute to a better understanding of the Berk, L., & Spuhl, S. (1995). Maternal inter- Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and Association. Chicago, IL. complex relationships between instruc- action, private speech, and task perfor- processes of reading (pp. 733-756). Delpit, L.D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas tion and learning and between metacogni- mance in preschool children. Early Newark, DE: IRA. of a progressive black educator. Harvard tive/literacy growth and various sociocul- Childhood Research Quarterly, 10 (2), Cox, B.E., & Fang, Z. (1996, April). Educational Review, 56 (4), 379-385. tural factors. More importantly, they 145-170. Preschoolers’self-management in con - Delpit, L.D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: should offer fresh guidelines that will Brown, R. (1956). Language and categories. structing text for others. Paper presented Power and pedagogy in educating other In J. Bruner, L. Goodnow, & G. Austin at the annual meeting of American people’s children. Harvard Educational enable teachers to make more informed (Eds.), A study of thinking. NY: Wiley. Educational Research Association. New Review, 58 (3), 280-297. instructional decisions. Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive develop- York, NY. Delpit, L.D. (1995). Other people’s children. Finally, Vygotsky’s theory about ment and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Cox, B.E., Fang, Z., & Otto, B. (1997). New York: The New Press. children’s developmental education (see Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Preschoolers’ developing ownership of lit- Dembo, M. (1994). Applying educational psy - Davydov, 1995 for an excellent issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453- erate register. Reading Research chology (5th ed.). NY: Longman. overview) and the supportive finding of 481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Quarterly, 3 (1), 34-53. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. this investigation grant schools and teach- Glasgow: Fontana. ers a more prominent role in fostering

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 70 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 71 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth Dyson, A.H. (1983). The role of oral language Goodman, Y., & Altwerger, B. (1981). Print Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Westhuizen, G.V. Smith-Burke, M. T. (1989). Political and eco- in early writing processes. Research in the awareness in preschool children: A study (1988). Meta-cognition: A review of nomic dimensions of literacy: Challenges Teaching of English, 17 (1), 1-30. of the development of literacy in preschool research on metacognition and reading. In for the 1990s. In S. McCormick & J. Dyson, A.H. (1991). Viewpoints: The word children (Occasional Paper No. 4). J.E. Readence & R.S. Baldwin (Eds.), Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social per - and the world — reconceptualizing written Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 143- spectives for literacy research and instruc - language development or do rainbows Program in Language and Literacy, 166), Chicago, IL: National Reading tion (pp. 1-18). Chicago, IL: National mean a lot to little girls? Research in the Arizona Center for Research and Conference. Reading Conference. Teaching of English, 25, 97-123. Development, College of Education. Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent read- Flavell, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of Gordon, C. (1990). Changes in readers’and (1991). The development of strategic read- ing of favorite storybooks: A developmen- problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The writers’metacognitive knowledge: Some ers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & tal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: observations. Reading Research and P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading 458-481. Earlbaum. Instruction, 30 (1), 1-14. research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). NY: Teale, W.H., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent Flavell, J.H. (1985). Cognitive development Haller, E.P., Child, D.A., & Walberg, H.J. Longman. literacy as a perspective for examining (2nd ed.). Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice (Dec., 1988). Can comprehension be Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., how young children become writers and Hall. taught? A quantitative synthesis of Bryk, A.S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). readers. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Flavell, J. H., Green, F.L., & Flavell, E.R. metacognitive studies. Educational Comparing instructional models for litera- Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (1995). Young children’s knowledge about Researcher, 5-8. cy education of high-risk first graders. (pp. vii-xxv). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. thinking (Monographs of the Society for Hasan, R. (1989). Language in the process of Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 8-39. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Research in Child Development, Serial socialization: Home and school. Paper Rowe, D.W. (1989). Preschoolers’use of (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. & Trans.). No. 243, Vol. 60, No. 1). Chicago, IL. presented at the Working Conference on metacognitive knowledge and strategies in Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). The preg- Language in Education. Macquarie self-selected literacy events. In S. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The nant pause: An inquiry into the nature of University, Sydney, Australia. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive development of higher psychological planning. Research in the Teaching of Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the and social perspectives for literacy processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. English, 15, 229-244. United States: What difference does it research and instruction (pp. 65-76). Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Gall, M. D., Borg, W. P., & Gall, J. P. (1996). make to an age cohort? Educational Chicago, IL: National Reading Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Educational research: An introduction (6th Researcher, 23 (9), 15-25. Conference. Press. ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Jacobs, J.E., & Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s Schmitt, M.C. (1995). Indiana Reading Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and execu- metacognition about reading: Issues in Recovery: An executive summary (1993- activities and success in school. In D.R. tive control. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. definition, measurement, and instruction. 1995). School of Education, Purdue Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Educational Psychologist, 22, 255-278. University, West Lafayette, IN. Literacy, language, and learning (pp. 229- models and processes of reading (pp. 715- Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Schmitt, M.C., Younts, T., & Hopkins, C. J. 255). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge 732). Newark, DE: International Reading Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, (December, 1994). From “at-risk” to University Press. Association. CA: Sage. strategic, self-regulated learners: Reading Wertsch, J.V. (1979). From social interaction Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling Recovery from Vygotskian and metacogni - to higher psychological processes: A clari- resolving comprehension obstacles: An more than we can know: Verbal reports on tive perspectives. Paper presented at the fication and application of Vygotsky’s the- investigation of spontaneous text look- mental processes. Psychological Review, annual meeting of National Reading ory. Human Development, 22, 1-22. backs among upper-grader good and poor 84, 231-259. Conference. San Diego, CA. Wertsch, J.V. (1980). The adult-child dyad as comprehenders. Reading Research Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychol - a problem-solving system. Child Quarterly, 16, 569-582. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University ogy of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Development, 51, 1215-1221. Gee, J.P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and lin- Press. University Press. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A guistics: Essays by . Pallas, A. M., Natriello, G., & McDill, E. L. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading sociocultural approach to mediated action. Journal of Education (special issue), 171 (1989). The changing nature of the disad- Recovery: An independent evaluation of Cambridge, MA: Harvard University (1). vantaged population: Current dimensions the effects of an early instructional inter- Press. and future trends. Educational Researcher, vention for at-risk learners. Reading Wood, D. (1988). How children think and 18 (5), 16-22. Research Quarterly, 30 (4), 958-996. learn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 72 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 73 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth Author’s Note Maribeth Cassidy Schmitt Appendix: Samples of Children’s Metacognitive Growth During RR Experience The research reported herein was Maribeth Schmitt is an associate pro- assisted by a grant from the Spencer fessor of literacy and language education Karen (African American, female, low income) Foundation. The data presented, the state- at Purdue University, where she also Entry Session (Metacognition Score = 0.25) ments made, and the views expressed are serves as the director of the Indiana 1. Scribe: Do you want to add anything? Child: Ummm … ------(I) solely the responsibility of the authors. Reading Recovery Program and teacher 2. Scribe: (rereads child’s dictated story, missing the phrase “he eats”) leader trainer. Her research on the role of Child: He eats. ------(IIa) metacognition in literacy instruction 3. That’s all. ------(III) Editor’s Note earned her a national award for her dis- Exit Session (Metacognition Score = 0.75) 1. My family is (pause) … is nice to me. ------(I) This article was accepted for publi- sertation from the National Reading cation in September 1996. 2. Don’t spell it with a C, spell it with a K ------(IIa) Conference and she has continued to 3. If I would, (rapidly) if I would not (regular pace) act silly. ------(II) explore this area, having published and 4. … . to my grandpa (says period). ------(III) Biographies presented widely on the topic. Dr. 5. (fairly fast and normal phrasing) My auntie bought me all kind of stuff. Schmitt serves on the Board of Directors (repeats slowly, word by word) My auntie bought me all kind of stuff. ------(II) Beverly E. Cox of the Reading Recovery Council of 6. Hmm. ------(I) 7. That’s all I know. ------(I) Beverly E. Cox is an associate pro- North America, as the chair of the NRC 8. Oooh, one more. ------(I) fessor of language and literacy at Purdue Student Award Committee, and as the editor of Literacy Teaching and 9. My dog sleeps like him, like my cat. ------(II) University where she teaches graduate 10. Scribe: You want “him,” OK. and undergraduate courses in language Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing. Child: Like him, (spell) H-I-M. ------(IIa) and literacy development from a 11. Where is him? ------(III) sociocognitive and sociolinguistic per- 12. That’s all I know. ------(I) spective. She is also active in elementary 13. That’s all. ------(III) school literacy education reform. Her 14. I want to take that off (point to grandpa on computer screen). ------(IIa) research interests are in literacy develop- 15. And pick Grandma. ------(IIa) ment grounded in a merging of 16. Grandma, my grandma. ------(II) Vygotsky’s and Halliday’s theoretical 17. Grandma, (begin to spell) G-R-A-N-D-M-A ------(III) 18. That’s all. ------(III) frameworks; a framework she has applied Linda (European American, female, middle income) to preschool literacy development and is Entry Session (Metacognition Score = 0.42) now applying to understanding what and 1. Does paper come out of this thing? ------(III) how Reading Recovery contributes to 2. Hmmm, I don’t know. What else? ------(I) “at-risk” children’s literacy development. 3. Oh, Yeah I got it. ------(I) 4. Is that pretty good? ------(III) Zhihui Fang 5. Scribe: (Reread) I have some frogs. Zhihui Fang is an assistant professor Child: No, no. I have a yellow bucket. ------(IIa) at the University of Florida where he 6. Scribe: And then it started raining and a frog came ------teaches graduate and undergraduate Child: a mom frog came hopping along ------(IIa) 7. And I asked, keep asking my dad … ------(II) courses in language and literacy educa- 8. Scribe: Anything else you want in your story? tion. He is currently collaborating with Child: Umm. (pause, then thoughtfully) Yeah. ------(I) North East Florida Educational 9. My, I have a next door neighbour … ------(II) Consortium on a funded project titled 10. that has a cat, a baby kitten. ------(II) “Goals 2000 Remedial Reading and 11. And the, and that baby kitten is gray ------(II) Elementary Reading Proficiencies Staff 12. and it has, it has a little bit of white on. ------(I) Development.” His published research 13. And, and when I hold it, it runs away … . ------(I) focuses on emergent literacy, applied lin- 14. Scribe: (repeats while writing) “And when I hold it, it runs away” guistics, and teacher education. Child: If I keep moving ------(IIa) Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 74 Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 75 At-Risk Children’s Metacognitive Growth 15. And (pause), and, and when I stay real still on holding, he starts falling asleep. - - - - (I) 16. Scribe: (repeats while writing and with upward end intonation inferring accuracy check) “he starts falling asleep?” Child: Yeah, kinda shifty, (aside tone) so it won’t be Figgly, Piggly. ------(II) 17. Scribe: You want that in your story? Child: Yeah. Figgly, Piggly. ------(IIa) 18. Type it. ------(IIa) 19. I also like … Piggly, um, that it? ------(I) 20. Scribe: (reread) I got a horse. Her name (pause) Child: Kiwa ------(IIa) 21. Scribe: Is there anything you want me to change? Child: Ummm … . ------(I) Scribe: Is that OK? Child: Un unh (appearing to be answering the first question because no edits were offered) Exit Session (Metacognition Score = 0.61) 1. It’s called, ummm … . ------(I) 2. It’s called Lion and My Horse. ------(III) 3. And I’m just gonna say “And My Turtle “ now, because I don’t want to get anymore animals on it. 4. And (repeats strongly) … and ------(I) 5. And my turtle, oops, OK. ------(II) 6. Ok, Stop there. ------(IIa) 7. By Linda Nessell ------(III) 8. Well, I have a horse. ------(I) 9. Hmm, Black Beauty, it’s a B (referring to screen). ------(III) 10. But my puppy is the /thing/ … (to self) is a, the, yeah. (to scribe) /thing/ ------(II) 11. Scribe: Excuse me, let me make a note here. Ok (rereading) but my puppy is the … Child: (repeats more clearly) thing ------(IIa) 12. (repeats as scribe corrects text) Is the thing I just want to get rid of. ------(II) 13. Do you bring stories to all the kids? ------(II) 14. I guess I made good stories. ------(III) 15. Child: But I’m Scribe: (clarifying) I’m Child: Yeah, am. ------(II) 16. He, I mean, his name is Franklin … ------(II) 17. You’re typing that in there (means the part about book and Franklin). ------(III) 18. Oh, let’s see. ------(I) 19. I tipped up my doll. He is under her head. (aside to scribe: It is true, he was.) - - - - - (II) 20. Do you want me to write more story? ------(III) 21. Umm, I really don’t have any much stories. ------(I) 22. Why are you writing that? ------(IIa) 23. Well … . ------(I) 24. That’s the story. I guess I’m done now. ------(I) 25. Did you really write that? ------(III) 26. Scribe: (rereads the story) … . I really don’t have much stories. Child (point to last line): You can erase this ------(IIa) 27. Can you erase that stuff? ------(IIa)

Literacy Teaching and Learning 1998 Volume 3, Number 1, page 76