DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 375 389 CS 011 864

AUTHOR Brown, Rachel; Coy-Ogan, Lynne TITLE The Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction in One Teacher's Classroom. Reading Research Report No.19. INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.; National Reading Research Center, College Park, MD. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 94 CONTRACT 117A20007 NOTE 28p. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Discussion (Teaching Technique); Grade 2; *Low Achievement; Primary Education; Reading Improvement; *Reading Instruction; Reading Research; *Reading Strategies; Student Reaction; *Teacher Behavior IDENTIFIERS Students Achieving Independent Learning; *Transactional Teaching Style

ABSTRACT A study examined one SAIL (Students Achieving Independent Learning) teacher's development of instructional practices from a reading strategies instructor who promoted some group discussion to an experienced transactional strategies teacher. The teacher taught the same story for three consecutive years to three comparable groups of low-achieving second-grade students. An interaction-tracking and coding scheme was used to analyze the 45-minute lessons for changes in interactional patterns, participation by group members, instructional focus, strategy instruction, and promoted and self-regulated use of strategies by students. By the third year of the study, students participated more actively in story discussion and used strategies with less teacher prompting to support their interpretations of and responses to text. These changes appeared to occur because of modifications in the teacher's instructional practices. The instruction that emerged during the third year could be characterized as transactional strategies instruction, an approach that involves teaching reading group members to use comprehension strategies as they jointly construct interpretations of text. (Contains 29 references, and three tables and one figure of data. A description of interactional pattern types is attached.) (RS)

***********1t*********************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** The Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction in One Teacher's Classroom

Rachel Brown State University of New York at Buffalo

Lynne Coy-Ogan Montgomery County Public Schools Rockville, Maryland

S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Orixeof Ethic:U.0,i Flefsoofrk ond EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) TI/ThIs docurneel has been reproduced as received from the person or organization onginahng Minor changes have been made lo improve reproduction (quality

Points Of view or opinions stared in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy

National NRRC Reading Research Center

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 Spring 1994

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE NRRC National Reading Research Center

The Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction in One Teacher's Classroom

Rachel Brown State University of New York at Buffalo

Lynne Coy-Ogan Montgomery County Public Schools Rockville, Maryland

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 Spring 1994

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgia and University of Maryland.It was supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the National Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S. Department of Education.

3 NRRC National Reading Research Center

Executive Committee National Advisory Board Donna E. Alvermann, Co-Director Phyllis W. Aldrich University of Georgia Saratoga Warren Board of Cooperative Educational John T. Guthrie, Co-Director Services, Saratoga Springs, New York University of Maryland College Park Arthur N. Applebee James F. Baumann, Associate Director State University of New York, Albany University of Georgia Ronald S. Brandt Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate Director Association for Supervision and Curriculum University of Maryland College Park Development Nancy B. Mizelle, Acting Associate Director Marsha T. DeLain University of Georgia Delaware Department of Public Instruction Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate Director Carl A. Grant University of Maryland College Park University of Wisconsin-Madison Linda C. DeGroff Walter Kintsch University of Georgia University of Colorado at Boulder John F. O'Flahavan Robert L. Linn University of Maryland College Park University of Colorado at Boulder James V. Hoffman Luis C. Moll University of Texas at Austin University of Arizona Cynthia R. Hynd Carol M. Santa University of Georgia School District No. 5 Robert Serpell Kellsoell, Montana University of Maryland Baltimore County Anne P. Sweet Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Publications Editors U.S. Department of Education Research Reports and Perspectives Louise Cherry Wilkinson Linda DeGroff, Editor Rutgers University University of Georgia James V. Hoffman, Associate Editor Dissemination Coordinator University of Texas at Austin Jordana E. Rich Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate Editor University of Georgia University of Maryland College Park Text Formatters Instructional Resources Michael R. Latimer Lee Galda, University of Georgia Ann Marie Vanstone Research Highlights University of Georgia William G. Holiday University of Maryland College Park NRRC - University of Georgia Policy Briefs 318 Aderhold James V. Hoffman University of Georgia University of Texas at Austin Athens, Georgia 30602-7125 (706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678 Videos INTERNET: [email protected] Shawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia NRRC - University of Maryland College Park NRRC Staff 2102 J. M. Patterson Building Barbara F. Howard, Office Manager University of Maryland Carmie R. Bush, Senior Secretary College Park, Maryland 20742 University of Georgia (301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625 INTERNET: NRRC @umail.umd.edu Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative Assistant Valerie Tyra, Accountant University of Maryland College Park

4 About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi- funded by the Office of Educational Research and ties. Information on NRRC research appears in several Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education to formats. Research Reports communicate the results of conduct research on reading and reading instruction. original research or synthesize the fmdings of several The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi- lines of inquiry. They are written primarily for re- ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland College searchers studying various areas of reading and reading Park in collaboration with researchers at several institu- instruction. The Perspective Series presents a wide tions nationwide. range of publications, from calls for research and The NRRC's mission is to discover and document commentary on research and practice to first-person those conditions in homes, schools, and communities accountsof experiencesinschools..Instructional that encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic, Resources include curriculum materials, instructional lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed to guides, and materials for professional growth, designed advancing the development of instructional programs primarily for teachers. sensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva- For more information about the NRRC's research tional factors that affect children's success in reading. projects and other activities, or to have your name NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conduct added to the mailing list, please contact: studies with teachers and students from widely diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in prekinder- Donna E. Alvermann, Co-Director garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projects National Reading Research Center deal with the influence of family and family-school 318 Aderhold Hall interactions on the development of literacy; the interac- University of Georgia tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; the Athens, GA 30602-7125 impact of -based reading programs on reading (706) 542-3674 achievement; the effects of reading strategies instruction on comprehension and in literature, John T. Guthrie, Co-Director science, and ; the influence of innovative group National Reading Research Center participation structures on motivation and learning; the 2102 J. M. Patterson Building potential of computer technology to enhance literacy; University of Maryland and the development of methods and standards for College Park, MD 20742 alternative literacy assessments. (301) 405-8035 The NRRC is further committed to the participation of teachers as full partners in its research. A better understanding of how teachers view the development of literacy, how they use knowledge from research, and how they approach change in the classroom is crucial to improving instruction. To further this understanding, the NRRC conducts school-based research in which teachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi- cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

5 NRRCEditorial Review Board

Patricia Adkins Karin Dahl Cynthia Hynd University of Georgia Ohio State University University of Georgia

Peter Afflerbach Lynne Diaz-Rico Gay Ivey University of Maryland College Park California State University-San University of Georgia Bernardino JoBeth Allen Robert Jimenez University of Georgia Pamela Dunston University of Oregon Clemson University Patty Anders Karen Johnson University of Arizona Jim Flood Pennsylvania State University San Diego State University Tom Anderson James King University of Illinois at Urbana- Dana Fox University of South Florida Champaign University of Arizona Sandra Kimbrell Harriette Arrington Linda Gambrel! West Hall Middle School University of Kentucky University of Maryland College Park Oakwood, Georgia

Irene Blum Valerie Garfield Kate Kirby Pine Springs Elementary School Chattahoochee Elementary School Gwinnett County Public Schools Falls Church, Virginia Cumming, Georgia Lawrenceville, Georgia

John Borkowski Sherrie Gibney-Sherman Sophie Kowzun Notre Dame University Athens-Clarke County Schools Prince George's County Schools Athens, Georgia Landover, Maryland Cynthia Bowen Baltimore County Public Schools Rachel Grant Linda Labbo Towson, Maryland University of Maryland College Park University of Georgia

Martha Carr Barbara Guzzetti Rosary Lalik University of Georgia Arizona State University Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Suzanne Clewell Jane Haugh Michael Law Montgomery County Public Schools Center for Developing Learning University of Georgia Rockville, Maryland Potentials Silver Spring, Maryland Sarah McCarthey Joan Coley University of Texas at Austin Western Maryland College Beth Ann Herrmann University of South Carolina Veda McClain Michelle Conuneyras University of Georgia University of Georgia Kathleen Heubach University of Georgia Lisa McFalls Linda Cooper University of Georgia Shaker Heights City Schools Susan Hill Shaker Heights, Ohio University of Maryland College Park Mike McKenna Georgia Southern University Karen Costello Sally Hudson-Ross Connecticut Department of Education University of Georgia Donna Mealey Hartford, Connecticut Louisiana State University Barbara Michalove Tom Reeves Louise Tomlinson Fowler Drive Elementary School University of Georgia University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Lenore Ringler Sandy Tumarkin Akintunde Morakinyo New York University Strawberry Knolls Elementary School University of Maryland College Park Gaithersburg, Maryland Mary Roe Lesley Morrow University of Delaware Sheila Valencia Rutgers University University of Washington Nadeen T. Ruiz Bruce Murray California State University- Bruce VanSledright University of Georgia Sacramento University of Maryland College Park

Susan Neuman Rebecca Sammons Chris Walton Temple University University of Maryland College Park Northern Territory University Australia Caroline Noya Paula Schwanenflugel University of Georgia University of Georgia Janet Watkins University of Georgia John O'Flahavan Robert Serpell University of Maryland College Park University of Maryland Baltimore Louise Waynant County Prince George's County Schools Penny Oldfather Upper Marlboro, Maryland University of Georgia Betty Shockley Fowler Drive Elementary School Priscilla Waynant Joan Pagnucco Athens, Georgia Rolling Terrace Elementary School University of Georgia Takoma Park, Maryland Susan Sonnenschein Barbara Palmer University of Maryland Baltimore Dera Weaver Mount Saint Mary's College County Athens-Clarke County Schools Athens, Georgia Mike Pickle Steve Stahl Georgia Southern University University of Georgia Jane West University of Georgia Jessie Pollack Anne Sweet Maryland Department of Education Office of Educational Research Steve White Baltimore, Maryland and Improvement University of Georgia

Sally Porter Liqing Tao Allen Wigfield Blair High School University of Georgia University of Maryland College Park Silver Spring, Maryland Ruby Thompson Shelley Wong Michael Pressley Clark Atlanta University University of Maryland College Park State University of New York at Albany

7

BEST COPY AVAILABLE About the Authors

Rachel Brown is a faculty member in the Lynne Coy-Ogan is an Assistant Principal in Department of Counseling and Educational Montgomery County Public Schools. She , Graduate School of Education, received her M.A. in Counseling from John State University of New York at Buffalo. She Hopkins and her B.S. in Special Education received her Ph.D. from the University of and Elementary Education from Boston Uni- Maryland. Her researchinterestsinclude versity. She has taught several courses and strategies instruction, self-regulated reading, workshops on strategies-based instruction and sociocognition, and the use of technology to effective teaching practices. enhance . National Reading Research Center Universities of Georgia and Maryland Reading Research Report No. 19 Spring 1994

The Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction in One Teacher's Classroom

Rachel Brown State University of New York at Buffalo

Lynne Coy-Ogan Montgomery County Public Schools Rockville, Maryland

Abstract. In this study, one teacher taught Transactional strategies instruction (TSI) in- the same story for three consecutive years to volves teaching reading group members to three comparable groups of low-achieving construct meanih.? from text by emulating second-grade students. An interaction-track- expert readers' use of comprehension strategies ing and coding scheme was used to analyze (Pressley, El- Dinary, et al., 1992). Teachers the 45-minute lessons for changes in interac- use TSI to help students (a) set goals and plan tional patterns, participation by group mem- for reading, (b) process text by using back- bers, instructional focus, strategy instruc- ground knowledge in conjunction with text tion, and prompted and self-regulated use of cues to construct , (c) monitor ongoing strategies by students. By the third year of comprehension, (d) solve problems encoun- the study, students participated more active- tered while reading, and (e) evaluate intermedi- ly in story discussion and used strategies ate progress and overall performance (Schuder, with less teacher prompting to support their 1993). To support these high-level functions interpretation* of and responses to text. (Baker & Brown, 1984; Gagne, 1985; Garner, These changes appeared to occur because of 1987), students learn to use a repertoire of modifications in the teacher's instructional strategies across a variety of purposes and text practices. The instruction that emerged types (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; during the third year could be characterized Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & as transactional strategies instruction, an Evans,1989;Pressley, Johnson, Symons, approach that involves teaching reading McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989). Students are group members to use comprehension strate- also encouraged to respond personally and gies as they jointly construct interpretations aesthetically to text (Beach & Hynds, 1991) of text. and to discuss their interpretations with others

1

9 2 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

(Bloom & Green, 1984). This complex, inte- reading (e.g., guessing, skipping, rereading). grated program is taught through direct expla- They are also taught to employ strategies to nation methods, such as modeling, explicit support their interpretations of text. For exam- instruction, and corrective feedback (Duffy & ple, after predicting or visualizing, students are Roehler, 1987; Pearson & Dole, 1987), and is asked to draw on background knowledge, practiced during transactions between reading personal experiences, textual information, or group members and the text(Rosenblatt, picture clues to support their evolving interpre- 1978). Years of such socially mediated in- tations. They are often asked to "think aloud" struction and practice are expected to result in or verbalize their mental processing as well. the internalization of processes initially mod- By having students think aloud, teachers con- eled and controlled by the teacher but later vey the message that what matters most is the carried out by the group (Pressley, El- Dinary, process of interpreting text not the accuracy et al., 1992), a notion consistent with Vy- of a particular response. gotskian theory (1978). Transactional strategiesinstruction also The school-based developers of transaction- emphasizes the collaborative construction of al strategies interventions grounded their pro- meaning by all members in a reading group. grams in research from cognitive strategy When reading alone, readers build personal instruction, , self-regulated interpretations. However, when reading to- learning, sociocognition, attribution, reader gether, students influence and are influenced response, and schema theory (Gaskins & by the social construction of text meaning Elliot, 1991; Schuder, 1993). However, they (Bloome & Green, 1984). They bring to bear adapted the findings from these diverse re- their own experiences, feelings, and back- search domains and theoretical perspectives to ground knowledge in response to text and share meet the specific needs of their students (ini- their diverse interpretations with others. By tially low-achieving readers) and to integrate participating in lively reading group interac- strategies-based instruction with other impor- tions where thinking aloud occurs frequently, tant reading instructional activities. students observe their teacher and peers con- A primary goal of transactional strategies struct unique interpretations of text. It is ex- instruction is to prepare students to become pected that through interaction and practice in self-regulating readers. Students are taught to reading groups a student will, over time, use a repertoire of strategies flexibly and assimilate the strategic and interpretive pro- adaptively (see Table 1 for a list of these strate- cesses carried out by the group (Pressley, El- gies). They are taught not only how to apply Dinary, et al., 1992). strategies but also why and when to use them, Teaching students to become self-regulating learning a relatively small set of strategies for readers is a complex, long-term task (Pressley, monitoring their comprehension (e.g., predict- El- Dinary, et al.,1992). And learning to ing, visualizing, summarizing) and for solving become an effective teacher of an intervention problems when they encounter unfamiliar as multifacetedastransactionalstrategies words or do not understand what they are instruction can be rather difficult, particularly

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO, 19

I 0 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 3

if the teacher needs to aher his or her current intervention (Bergman & Schuder,1992; teaching practices and adopt new ones (Press- Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., 1992). Her initial ley, Schuder, SAIL Teachers, Bergman, & El- training consisted of seven half-day workshops Dinary, 1992). and periodic observations conducted by SAIL In this report we describe one SAIL teach- developers and peer coaches (see Schuder, er's (the second author's) development from a 1993, for a description of SAIL training). reading strategies instructor who promoted Following the training, she integrated SAIL some group discussion to an experienced instruction into the regular reading program of transactional strategies teacher. Her progres is her classes. tracked by analyzing the interactions of three Students. From 1989-1992, the teacher different low-achieving reading groups that taught SAIL to second graders in two schools were taught the same story in three consecutive serving comparable populations (i.e., Chapter years. 1status, similar geographical location, and similar school demographics). The low-achiev- METHOD ing groups consisted of six students in 1989- 1990, six in 1990-1991, and eight in 1991- Participants 1992. Participants, with the exception of two students in the 1991-1992 group who were not Teacher. The teacher described the content tested, had scored at or below the fourth sta- of her elementary and special education train- nine on standardized achievement tests at the ing as "traditional"; she was taught to preteach end of first grade. At the beginning of second vocabulary, to activate background knowledge grade in each of the three years, the teacher through motivational activities, to use basals administered informal reading assessments to with accompanying materials for skills devel- her students and found that the low achievers opment, and to provide follow-up instruction in scored at or below the primer level of the Botel the form of phonics, word attack, and vocabu- Reading Inventory, Word Recognition List laryand comprehension worksheets. Her (1970) and had difficulty reading teacher- course work in education also emphasized selected passages from the primer level of the strong teacher control and close teacher man- Heath Basal Series (Alvermann et al., 1989). agement of instruction. Thus, all students in the study, including the The teacher taught first and second graders two who were not tested, were reading 12 to in a school system on the East Coast from 1987 18 months below grade level at the beginning to 1992. During her first two years (1987- of second grade. 1989), she implemented the instructional prac- tices cited above that were promoted by her Lesson teacher education program. At the beginning of her third year, however, she was introduced to The same story, Where the Wild Things Are StudentsAchievingIndependentLearning (Sendak, 1983), was taught to the three differ- (SAIL), a prototypical transactional strategies ent reading groups in the spring of 1990, 1991,

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

11 4 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

and 1992. The text constituted one episodes. We then identified shifts in topic part of a comprehensive unit on Sendak's (i.e., talk relating to story content, reader work. The story, a visually rich and challeng- experiences, strategy use, etc.) and used them ing text for low-achieving second-grade read- to partition the larger episodes into interaction- ers, was selected because it offered numerous al units. Finally, we classified interactional opportunities for teacher modeling and student units according to seven noninteractional or use of strategies. interactional pattern types (see the Appendix In the story, a mischievous child named for a description of these types). Max is sent to his room without dinner for Pattern types used to code interactional misbehaving. Soon the room undergoes a units were identified using an analytic induc- transformation; a forest, an ocean, and a sail- tion strategy (Goetz & LeCompte,1984); boat appear. Max climbs into the boat and sails categories used to code and quantify the data off "over a year, and in and out of weeks, and emerged directly from an analysis of the three through a day". He arrives at an island where transcripts and not from an a priori coding he is greeted by an array of fantastic creatures. scheme. After identifying the pattern types, the They growl, snarl, and hiss, but Max is un- two authors coded the transcribed lessons daunted. The wild things make him their king independently and then negotiated discrepan- and celebrate his coronation jubilantly. How- cies in coding. Interrater agreements for inter- ever, after the revelry, Max becomes lonely actional analysis were 97% for 1990, 86% for and decides to go home. Despite the creatures' 1991, and 98% for 1992. protests, he climbs into the boat and journeys For the second analysis, we coded each home. Upon his return, he finds his dinner transcript by utterance (defined in this study as waiting in his room, still hot. a meaning-bearing unit of discourse, generally at the sentence level). Utterance boundaries Procedure were determined using intonation, phrasing, and pausing cues. Sentences were subdivided if The Wild Things lessons were audiotaped their segments could be assigned different (1991) or videotaped (1990, 1992). In all 3 codes. Since we conducted a broad analysis of years, students were accustomed to observation interactional patterns, this level of coding was and had been audiotaped or videotaped on appropriate. numerous occasions prior to their respective We coded utterances using an interaction- Wild Things lessons. tracking scheme based on existing methods for For the first analysis, the transcribed les- recording student-teacher interactions(i.e., sons were segmented into distinct interactional Cazden, 1986; Gaskins, Anderson, Pressley, units. Breaks in oral story reading, initiated by Cunicelli, & Satlow, 1993; Mehan, 1979). An the teacher for instructional purposes, created utterance was classified as either an initiation natural boundaries between larger interactional or a response and then labelled with a dis-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

') Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction

course code (i.e.,questioning, responding, Table 1. Teacher Emphasis on Learning Strategies, scaffolding, providing feedback, elaborating, by Year sharing, explaining, etc.). Percentage of Use by Year Discourse codes were identified using the grounded theory method ofconstant compari- Strategy 1990 1991 1992 son(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). That is, we derived and refined coding categories by com- paring several second-grade SAIL lessons other Thinking aloud 23.0 8.0 28.0 than those included in this study. Then we Using background 14.0 24.5 20.0 applied these codes to the Wild Things lessons knowledge and made additional adjustments as required. Verifying 1.0 10.0 13.0 When the coding scheme was completed (see Predicting 14.0 9.0 9.0 the brief summary in the Appendix), we jointly categorized the 1992 transcript. Then we coded Using the "Fix-It" Kit 23.0 13.0 8.0 the 1990 and 1991 transcripts independently. Reading for gist/ 6.0 6.0 7.0 Agreement on discourse coding of the 1990 summarizing and 1991 transcripts was 87% and 93% respec- Looking back 1.0 5.0 3.0 tively. Coding discrepancies were discussed and subsequently resoh Problem solving 3.5 7.0 2.0

Monitoring 1.5. 0.5 1.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Visualizing 1.0 5.0 1.0 The interaction-tracking and coding enabled us Clarifying 0.0 0.0 1.0 to conduct several quantitative analyses. We compared similarities and differences in inter- actional patterns, participatory roles, instruc- (i.e.,guessing,rereading,skipping, using tional focus, strategies instruction, and prompt- picture clues) are taught to students to help ed versus self-regulated use of strategies by them deal with unknown words. We have used students across the 3 years. the term fix-it kit to distinguish strategies used for word recognition from strategies with the Instruction and Use of Strategies same or similar names (i.e., looking back, using picture clues, etc.) used to promote Similarities across lessons. Each year, comprehension and alleviate confusion when students were exposed to an average of 11 students read larger blocks of text. strategies (see Table 1) during the Wild Things A few students in every year manifested lesion. These included both comprehension and self-regulated use of at least some strategies. "fix-it kit" strategies. The fix-it kit strategies Although the students were sometimes unable

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

3 6 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

to name the strategies, they could apply them as verification comprised 1% of total teacher appropriately when cued by text or discussion. utterances in 1990, it accounted for 10% and For example, some students used strategies to 13 % of the teacher's utterances related to support their interpretations. strategy use and instruction in 1991 and 1992, respectively. Use Of Background Knowledge, 1990: In addition, there were large differences in students' independent use of strategies across Student: He was dreaming, because if it took a the 3 years (see Figure 1). In 1990, there was year for him to get to where the wild things are and a year to get back, his more self-regulated strategy use than prompted supper wouldn't still be hot. strategy use, which was largely attributable to the teacher's focus on the fix-it kit, thinking Use Of Background Knowledge And Picture aloud,using background knowledge, and Clues, 1991: predicting four of the most easily learned and heavily practiced strategies. Teacher: Why is Max doing this? In 1991, the teacher focused less on the fix- Student: Looks like he's bad because he's an- it kit and more on other cognitive and metacog- grY. nitive strategies (see Table 1). At the same Teacher: What makes you say that? Student: I'm looking at his face. time, she increased her emphasis on interpre- Teacher: Oh, his facial expression in the picture tive discussion. Her attempt to concentrate on clues. two important instructional goals simultaneous- 1992: ly may have overwhelmed her low-achievers Student: I think they ... are going to make him and may have contributed to a marked decrease king because he acts like a king of the in student self-regulation (54% in 1990, 14% wild things and he looks like a king of in 1991) and an associated increase in teacher the wild things. Teacher: Why do you say he looks like a king? prompting (46% in 1990, 86% in 1991). Student: Because ... he's just standing up for In 1992, however, there was more self-

himself. ... regulated use of strategies (63%) than prompt- ed use (37%). Moreover, student self-monitor- Differences across lessons. Although the ing of comprehension increased. The following teacher taught the use of many strategies in example was one of many instances in which a each year, she emphasized different ones from student requested clarification or remarked that year to year, with these differences in emphasis something he or she read made no sense. reflected in the Wild Things lessons. For exam- ple, there was a decline in the teacher's utter- Teacher: What's going on here? ances focused on use of the fix-it kit from year Student: This is. not the way ....Wait, this is 1 to year 3 (23% of total utterances in 1990, really weird, because how can he go 13% in 1991, and 8% in 1992). In contrast, through a year when it's only a day her emphasis on verification increased. Where- that he went through?

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 14 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction

100

e

a 80

60

a 40

a e 20

U 0 1990 1991 1992

III Prompted Self-regulated

Based on student utterances

Figure 1. We need to insert a caption here.

The Role of Discussion in Meaning Differences across lessons. Two discus- Construction sion-related shifts occurred with regard to the teacher's talk. First, the teacher spent less time Similarities across lessons. In all 3 years, talking specifically about strategies (49% in teacher talk focused more on constructing 1990, 48% in 1991, and 41% in 1992). Sec- meaning (29% in 1990, 35% in 1991, and 33% ond, more reader-based discussion (see Table in 1992) than on discussing text details (4 % in 2) occurred in 1991 (44%) and 1992 (42%) 1990, 2% in 1991, and 7% in 1992). More- than in 1990 (38%). That is, the teacher spew: over, the teacher's emphasis on sharing experi- more time encouraging students to use their ences, opinions, and feelings to support inter- background knowledge, to make inferences, pretive dialogues remained constant across the and to express their personal responses. 3 years at 9% (percentage of total utterances During year1,less reader-based talk devoted to promoting or discussing personal seemed to occur because strategy instruction responses). was the teacher's primary focus. For example,

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 15 8 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

lame z. rrequency Lana r ercemage) or uoaea teacner alio bruaem utterances, oy x ear

1990 1991 1992

Type of Utterance Students Teacher Students Teacher Students Teacher

Strategy-based 65 (56) 90 (49) 76 (53) 122 (48) 139 (59) 121 (41)

Text-based 6 (5) 7(4) 4 (3) 5(2) 15 (6) 20 (7)

Reader - bases: Constructing meaning 24 (21) 53 (29) 45 (31) 89 (35) 24 (10) 95 (33) Sharing responses 16 (14) 16 (9) 15 (10) 22 (9) 51 (22) 27 (9)

Total Utterances 117 185 144 253 234 292

Note: Miscellaneous utterances comprise remaining percentages. Strategy-based: Utterances relate to strategies instruction and the execution of strategies, including declarative (what they are), procedural (how to use them), and conditional (when, where, and why to use them) information. Text-based: Utterances cue or focus on literal story content, including details about who, what, where, when, and why stated explicitly in the text. Reader-based: Constructing meaning: Utterances cue or focus on inferential thinking; group participants use their background knowledge in conjunction with text cues to construct interpretations. Sharing personal responses: Utterances cue or focus on opinions, attitudes, and feelings, self-identification with story characters, and personal and aesthetic responses to text.

in the following 1990 interaction, the discus- could still get the meaning. And re- sion appeared to reinforce use of the fix-it member, getting the gist what the strategy more than it elicited interpretations. story is about is the most impor- tant thing. So that was a very good Teacher: Okay, he's at a big word and he has substitution. some problem-solving strategies that he can use. In 1990, when students talked, they tended Student 1:(The student guessed the word, which not to discuss their ideas as a group; instead, was actually rumpus.) Rumples. they often predicted or commented without Teacher: What's a rumples? reacting to or elaborating on their peers' ideas. Student 1:(No response from student.) Moreover, most of the students spoke directly Teacher: Why would Max be saying "and now let the rumples start?" to the teacher and not to each other. Conse- Student 2:Like a party. quently, there were few instances of authentic Teacher: I think Student 2 made a very good as- joint construction of text meaning. Even sumption cause he still thought rumples though many of the coded interactional units meant the same thing as parry. He suggested extended discussions, the actual

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

-6 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 9

verbalizations often did not reflect group group's discussion throughout the lesson to- collaboration, as the following eniaple shows: ward verifying that interpretation.

Student 1:They look like they're dancing for the Teacher: Student 1, what's happening here? moon. Student 1: The room grew into the forest. Student 2:They look like they're having a party. Teacher: How? Teacher: Why do you think it's a party? Student 1: Imagination. Student 2:They're jumping up and down and Teacher: Why would you think it might be his dancing; they're having a party. imagination that a room would grow Teacher: We know from our background know- into a forest? ledge that's what people do at a party. Student 2: You can't plant seeds in the room Student 3:Maybe they're having a. parade and because they couldn't grow. marching. Teacher: In the picture they do look like they're Later, after further talk, the teacher returned to standing in a straight line. the same theme.

In 1991, there was an increase in reader- Teacher: Those are good predictions about wild based remarks and questions. However, the things, but I'm still thinking, he's just teacher's attempts to stimulate interpretive a little boy, and I know that we're building in our basement that's discussion often involved extensive prompting. concrete and you would have to Although the students generated predictions take a drill and go through that [con- about events and characters' motives and crete]. So I don't think he could plant actions during discussions about specific text seeds, and I'm thinking about what segments, they needed prompting to use infor- Student 2 was saying, and maybe it's mation from the middle and end of the story to his imagination. verify the predictions they made at the begin- ning of the story. They also had difficulty Still later, after more discussion about travel- integrating relevant ideas or text clues men- ling through a year and a day and how Max tioned by group members early in the lesson should not be able to fit into the same clothes, with what was read or said later about the the teacher returned once again to the imagina- story. tion theme. This time she promoted the theme Consequently, in 1990 and 1991, the teacher by describing a relevant personal experience. often prompted students to make connections In the 1992 lesson, we noticed a decline in and, in the process, tended to move students students' reader-based comments related to toward one overall interpretation. When one constructing meaning (see Table 2). At first, student suggested early in the 1991 Wild we were puzzled by this change because the Things lesson that Max's adventure was the teacher had said that one her primary instruc- result of an overactive imagination, the teach- tional goals across the 3 years was to increase er, supporting the student's idea directed the interpretive discussion. However, the decline

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

17 10 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

made sense when we reviewed the assigned party where there's lots of partying, discourse codes, observed the increases in like a club where they're drinking a sharing personal responses and strategies-based lotand wheretheystartacting talk in 1992, and reexamined the transcripts. crazy. The students in 1992 used strategies, particu- larly thinking aloud, as conduits to express We think joint interpretation of text occur- red more frequently in the 1992 lesson because interpretive thinking more than the students did of four changes in the teacher's instructional in previous years. practices. First, she inundated students with In the 1992 lesson, for the first time, there explicit strategies instruction and guided prac- were numerous instances when students inter- tice at the beginning of the year in the belief preted text together. They listened to and that intensive instruction would facilitate stu- elaborated on one another's comments instead dent use of strategies to support interpretive of verbalizing unconnected thoughts: discussion later in the year. Second, she made changes in her reading program that encour- Teacher: What's going on? aged peer-to-peer interactionduring discussions Student 1: A party is going to start. about text. Third, she adopted the view that she Teacher: How did you know that a rumpus is a party? was just another active participant in the read- Student 2: A rumpus is a kind of party where it's ing group and not its leader.Fourth, she like a party when you jump all accepted any interpretive response as long as a around. student supported his or her claims with text- Student 3: A rumpus is a kind of party; it's like or reader-based information.

when, urn, people ... there's a very In the 1992 lesson we also identified three long party and people jump around student behaviors that were virtually nonexis- and they get crazy and they bounce tent in the 1990 and 1991 lessons, which we off the walls. characterized as integrating, connecting, and Teacher: So you predict they're going to get persuading. crazy. Integrating. Unlike prior years, students in Student 4: ... a rumpus is sort of a wild thing 1992 constantly integrated old topics into new party where wild things act crazy and interactional units. That is, they related ideas just start bouncing and acting really wild like wild animals. and text clues raised at the beginning of the Teacher: So you think when we turn the page lesson to story information or interpretations we're going to find them acting like discussed later in the lesson. Early in the 1992 wild animals? Wild Things lesson, a number of students introduced predictions or interpretations about And then a little later in the dialogue, another the story that, at the time they were presented, child chimed in: enriched clnversation about events or charac- ters' actions. When attention shifted to the next Student 5: 1 agree with Student 4 when she said text segment, these predictions and interpreta- they're going to act crazy. It's like a tions were dropped. Toward the end of the

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 18 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction

lesson, however, some students reintroduced Teacher: Oh, a nightmare. Have you ever had these early interpretations. a nightmare about mean beasts? For example, in the beginning of the story, Student 5: No. one student claimed that Max was dreaming, Teacher: No. But you have? (referring to others another suggested that Max was wishing or who are shaking their heads in affir- mation). daydreaming, and still another predicted that Student 3: Maybe he's like picturing it in his Max was having a nightmare. Each topic was mind. proposed, discussed at some length, and often Teacher: Oh, you mean he's visualizing it in his verified by using text, picture, background mind what it would be like. knowledge, or personal experience clues. Student 2: I think he's like daydreaming. Teacher: So you don't think he's even dreaming Student 1: I think he's dreaming. at night like these guys said. You Teacher: Can you verify that? Why do you think maybe he's daydreaming or think he's dreaming? wishing, like Student 4 said? Student 1: I think he's dreaming he's going to Student 2: Yeah, cause like, here his eyes are this place where the wild things are. closed and here his eyes are open and Teacher: So Student 8 said, "Hmm. It looks now I think he's daydreaming because like the forest is growing from his his eyes are awake. He thinks he's in room". .. Student 8 keep reading.. . a daydream.

Following reading, the discussion continued: Then, toward the end of the story, we observed integrating in action: Student 2: This sounds like a fairytale because how can a room turn into a forest? Teacher: What do you think is going on here, Student 1: That's what I was saying. He was Student 3? dreaming that's what happened. Student 3: I think he's going (for) another year Teacher: Anybody else have any ideas?Stu- back. dent 3? Teacher: Okay, so you think he's going back Student 3: I think he's dreaming too. that other year when he came. Student 4: I think he's wishing. Teacher: Why do you think that he's wishing? After some additional comments, the teacher How's wishing a little different from continued. dreaming?... Student 4: I think he wants to be there. Teacher: What do you think about his going back in time? The discussion proceeds until a student sug- Student 7: I don't think he's going back in time gests a new possibility: because he's going back through a year. Student 5: Maybe he has a nightmare because Teacher: What does that mean to go through a

those beasts are really mean. year . .

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 19 12 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

Student 2: I think he's going back through the process that stimulated rich interpretive discus- year he came. sion. Teacher: So that's kind of what Student 3 said, Connecting. In the 1992 lesson, students going back to where he came from. made many more connections across the text Student 1: I still think that he's daydreaming and without teaching prompting. That is, they used I think the author used a lot of paint to background knowledge, personal experiences, do the moon. Teacher: So you think the moon is important. or details to draw inferences and perceive What do you think it shows? relationships on their own. In some cases, Student 1: Well nothing important, but it's shin- students made predictions early in the story and ing very brightly. verified them later. Or else, they recognized Student 2: I think he's still daydreaming again that details presented at the beginning of the because now his eyes are closed, and story helped them construct interpretations later back here his eyes are open. on. Although connecting occurred with one Teacher: So just like the pattern when he came student in the 1991 lesson, it happened repeat- there. edly with others in 1992. Students were often Student 3: I disagree with Student 7 because please by the realization that they could verify actually he could have been just plain their predictions and build connections across old daydreaming. text events. Teacher: So you think if he was daydreaming, he could go through time and then go For instance. at the beginning of the book, back in time. Max's mother sent him to bed without supper Student 3: He can go back in time. because he was misbehaving. Later, when the wild things misbehaved, Max punished them in In the foregoing sequence, students expres- the same way. However, the connection be- sed several ideas that appeared to be unde- tween the events was never stated explicitly in veloped. However, many of these ideas were the story; students had to infer the link between introduced by students at the beginning of the the two text segments by themselves. lesson when they were discussed at greater length. So, in one short section, the students Teacher: Why are you kids laughing? not only generated multiple interpretations, Student: Because his mom said that to him. they also integrated topics that were introduced Teacher: Oh, that happened to him. earlier. Student: It looks like he's gonna do something In 1992, the group did not concur on or like what his mom did to him. adopt one interpretation at the end of the les- son; instead, they agreed to disagree. Nor did Persuading. It the 1992 lesson, students the teacher attempt to guide students toward a frequently attempted to convince other group single statement of gist or promote one student- members to accept their ideas. In the process, generated interpretation. Instead of limiting the they used text information strategically, em- range of student responses, she initiated a ploying background knowledge and personal

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

2 0 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 13

Table 3. Interactional Patterns, by Year

1990 1991 1992

Non-interactional: T(eacher) or S(tudent) comments 19.0 3.5 2.0 Interactions and Extended Patterns: 30.0 11.0 36.0 S initiates, T or S responds + additional exchanges T initiates, T or S responds + additional exchanges 27.0 68.0 32.0 1 T initiates, S responds, and T evaluates 11.0 3.5 13.0 T initiates, S responds 0.0 7.0 9.0 T initiates, S responds, S evaluates + additional exchanges 8.0 3.5 6.0 S initiates, T or S responds 5.0 3.5 2.0

Note. Expressed in percentage of total interaction units. Total interaction units: 37, 1990; 28, 1991; 47, 1992 experiences to garner support for their inter- In this example, Student 2 used information pretations. Moreover, unlike students in 1990 in the text and from his background knowledge and 1991, many students in 1992 stated and to dispute Student 1's interpretation. In re- defended their interpretations with confidence. sponse, Student 1 cited text evidence in the In fact, a number of students were so tenacious form of picture clues to refute Student 2's that they often interrupted ongoing, unrelated argument. This interaction exhibited the kind discussions to advance their interpretations. It of sophisticated responses low-achieving sec- is possible that students were more talkative ond graders can make when provided with the (see Table 2) and participated more actively in proper tools and with opportunities to interpret the 1992 discussions because they promoted text together. their own, rather than the teacher's, interpreta- tions. Participation of Reading Group Member

Student 1: I think they're tricking him because Similarities across lessons. At least five they just want him to leave. kinds of interaction patterns (defined in the Student 2: Student 1 says they want him to leave. Appendix) were observed in each lesson (see But here it says "We love you so." Most of the people who say that, they Table 3). Across the 3 years, there were more don't want someone to leave. teacher-initiated than student-initiated interac- Student 1: But look at their faces. tions. Nevertheless, students actively partici- Teacher: So you guys have conflicting inter- pated in all 3 years (see Tables 2 and 3), so pretations. that the teacher did not talk exclusively while

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

!? 1 14 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

the students simply listened. At the end of each of interpretive group discussions. Although the 45-minute lesson, the students wished to con- teacher facilitates the process of constructing tinue; they did not want the session to end. meaning, the social within which an Differences across lessons. The lessons be- interpretive discussion occurs influences and is came more interactive from 1990 to 1992 (see influenced by group members. Therefore, the Table 3). The percentage of total lesson dis- unique dynamic that is created when individu- course classified as interactive was 81% in als construct meaning together may explain the 1990, 96.5% in 1991, and 98% in 1992. We differences between groups. For example, even suspect that the increase in interactive talk from though students appeared to be comparable on 1990 to 1991 was due to the teacher's increas- the reading measures we had available at the ing emphasis on reader-based discussion. The time, some students in years 1 and 2 may have teacher's utterances related to constructing been less verbal or confident than students in meaning increased from 29% in 1990 to 35% year 3, which could have affected the observed in 1991 while her strategies-based talk re- outcomes. mained about the same (see Table 2). By 1992, Another limitation of this study was our the teacher provided less explicit instruction inability to obtain common standardized pre- and moved students toward a particular inter- and post-measures for students across the 3 pretation less frequently. Instead, she most years. As a result, we could not determine often restated students' answers and provided whether the reading comprehension of students nonevaluative feedback to their comments. In in 1992 showed a greater increase from the this way, she encouraged students to take risks beginning to the end of the year than that of and elaborate on their interpretations. students in 1990 or 1991. Moreover, we could In addition, students became more active not asses in this study whether transactional discussants. Student talk increased from 117 strategies instruction improved reading com- utterances in 1990 to 144 in 1991 to 234 in prehension in general. However, in a quasi- 1992. There were also proportionally more experimental study conducted in 1991-1992 by student-initiated interaction patterns in 1992 the second author, low-achieving readers in 5 than in either of the 2 previous years. Although SAIL classes were matched with comparable the teacher still spoke more than her students in students in 5 nonSAIL classes. Without excep- 1992, the gap between them was closing. tion, the SAIL classes outperformed the non- SAIL classes on the Stanford Achievement Limitations reading comprehension posttest (Brown, 1994).

Since we were unable to match students with a CONCLUSION standardized measure across the three years, the observed results may have been associated Changes occurred in the instruction and use of with differences among individuals who com- strategies, the role of interpretive discussion, prised the groups. Transactional strategies and the participation of group members during instruction emphasizes the collaborative aspect the second author's years as a SAIL instructor.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

2'2 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 15

Some of the observed changes across years based utterances). Although the teacher at- may reflect differences between the groups and tempted to elicit interpretive comments by their members. However, converging evidence asking many reader-based questions, students from lesson transcripts, quantitative analyses, often responded with unelaborated answers. and observations conducted by program devel- Despite the teacher'seffortstostimulate opers and other researchers (Brown, 1994; El- conversation among group members, discus- Dinary, 1993; Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., sion tended to occur between the teacher and 1992) suggests that the differences observed individual students. may relate, at least partly, to changes in the teacher's practice,instructional focus, and Year 2 (1990-1991) program structure. As the teacher gained confidence, she experi- Year 1 (1989-1990) mented with SAIL instruction while keeping the structure of her reading program intact. In During Year 1, the teacher attempted to ap- Year 2, she introduced strategies in a more proximate as closely as possible the SAIL holistic fashion; they were taught as a complete model as presented by its developers (see set of tools good readers use (see Appendix B Bergman & Schuder, 1992, for a description of in Schuder, 1993). The teacher also concen- early, prototypical SAIL practice). Each 30- to trated more on comprehension-fostering and 45-minute lesson began with the teacher model- monitoring strategies (i.e. reading for gist, ing SAIL strategies. In addition, she held a summarizing, predicting, using background daily, 15-minute read-aloud session that pro- knowledge) and less on the fix-it kit. vided her other opportunities to model and As she became adept at teaching strategies, reinforce SAIL strategies. Students also partic- the teacher increasingly emphasized the con- ipated in a 15-minute DEAR (Drop Everything struction and evaluation of text interpretations, and Read) period three times a week. an integral part of the SAIL program. During By introducing one strategy at a time the this year, students' interpretive talk increased; first year, the teacher and her students became however, they still tended to converse directly familiar with each strategy. By the year's end, with the teacher and not with each other. students often self-regulated and talked about Moreover, the teacner's attempt to promote their use of strategies particularly strategies strategies use and interpretive discussion simul- associated with the fix-it kit. In addition to taneously throughout the year may have affect- highlighting problem solving,theteacher ed her students' ability to self-regulate their use concentrated on a small set of strategies pre- of strategies. dicting, using background knowledge, thinking Students also appeared to have had difficul- aloud and reading for gist. ty generating and verifying multiple interpreta- Interpretive discussion took second place to tions of text. When this occurred, the teacher strategies instruction in 1989-1990 (see Table guided students toward a single interpretation 2, reader-based utterances versus strategies- of a story by eliciting text- and reader-based

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

3 16 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

support for a particular construction - one she feedback, she encouraged students to generate felt best reflected the author's intent. While multiple interpretations. When the teacher fulfilling the SAIL goal of reading for gist, this volunteered her own interpretation, she ex- approach limited the lively discussions that pressed it as just one more idea to be consid- were possible when students produced their ered by the group - not one that had any more own interpretations. merit than the others. In addition, the teacher introduced a num- Year 3(1991-1992) ber of reading program innovations. In De- cember, after intensive, explicit strategy in- In Year 3, the teacher implemented a number struction, she initiated student-managed reading of instructional changes. She saturated students groups. She dropped DEAR time and replaced with strategy instruction during the first part of it with paired reading activities. Three times a the year; she exposed students to considerable week, students read in teams for 20 minutes, metacognitive information, modeling, coach- using their strategies and discussing their ing, explaining, and practice, not only in interpretations of text without teacher interven- reading group but across the curriculum. She tion. After paired reading, students met for an also concentrated on teaching students to apply additional 10 minutes with the rest of their strategies and independently evaluate their use reading group. A student group leader was of them. In this way, students became more assigned to ask members to raise any problems autonomous in their use of strategies earlier in or present interpretations to the rest of the the year. As a result, the teacher did not have group. On alternate days, reading group les- to devote as much time to explicit strategy sons were conducted as typical SAIL lessons. instruction in the spring semester; instead, she Then in February 1992, the teacher elimi- provided more opportunities for interpretive nated the paired reading format and replaced it discussion. with reading group meetings run independently Thus, the teacher used strategy instruction by student members. A rotating group leader not as an end in itself but as a tool to support was assigned to manage turn-taking, solicit interpretive thinking. She wanted students not reader interpretations, and control disputes. to talk about what good readers do but to do The teacher moved from group to group, what good readers do. To this end, she stressed periodically interjecting her interpretations as verifying, thinking aloud, predicting, and using just another group member. She served as a background knowledge strategies particular- resource if students, after having applied their ly well-suited for supporting interpretive dis- strategies, were still unable to comprehend. cussion. These changes may have fostered indepen- During this third year, the teacher also dent use of strategies and enhanced interpretive resisted moving students toward one interpreta- discussion among group members. There tion of a story. By refraining from imposing appeared to be a transfer from these peer- her own interpretations, supporting one inter- managed groups to the SAIL lessons. The 1992 pretation over another, or providing evaluative transcript showed that students could use a

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

24 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 17

repertoire of strategies independently, without her students did as they learned to self-regulate teacher prompting. Students also more readily their use of strategies (see Model for Explicit initiatedconversations,introducedtopics, Instruction, Bergman, 1992). That is, strategic disputed with their peers, offered interpreta- processing was first modeled and explicitly tions, and verified them with text- or reader- explained to the teacher. With practice and based information. Of greatest consequence, feedback, she assimilated knowledge about the 1992 lesson, in contrast with the previous why, when, and where to use strategies as well ones, reflected the rich, multilevel interpreta- as how to convey that information to her stu- tions characteristic of effective transactional dents. Over time, she gained confidence and strategies instruction. expertise. However, not until the third year did The teacher's experience with transactional the teacher internalize SAIL instruction, realize strategies instruction instantiated three patterns its full potential, and make changes in instruc- of learning. First, her evolution paralleled a tion that enhanced students'strategy use, simplified version of the Concerns-Based interpretive abilities, and reading group partici- Adoption Model of teacher change (Hall & pation. Hord, 1987). She followed a typical imple- mentation pattern for any innovative practice: REFERENCES stage 1, mechanical use; stage 2, experimenta- Alvermann, D., Bridge, C. A., Schmidt, B. A., tion; and stage 3, internalization and personal- Searfoss,L. W., Winograd, P., & Paris, S. G. ization. (1989). My best bear hug. Lexington, MA: D. Second, the teacher's experiences supported C. Heath. studies that learning to become an effective Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive strategies-based teacher is not easy. In those skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, studies, teachers required at least 3 years of M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Hand- practice before they emerged as expert strate- book of reading research (pp. 353-394). New gies-based instructors (Brown, 1994; Pressley, York: Longman. et at , 1991; Pressley, Schuder, SAIL Teach- Beach, R., & Hynds, S. (1991). Research on res- ers, Bergman, & El-Dinary, 1992). Skillful ponse to literature. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, teaching was so challenging because teachers M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Hand- simultaneously had to coordinate: (a) the teach- book of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 453- ing of strategic and interpretive processing, (b) 489). New York: Longman. the use of direct explanation methods (i.e. Bergman, I. L. (1992). SAIL a way to success and independence for low-achieving readers. explicit explanations, mental modeling, coach- The Reading Teacher, 45, 598-602. ing), (c) the fostering of readers' responses to Bergman, J., & Schuder, T. (1992). Teaching at- literature, and (d) the promoting of active risk elementary school students to read strate- group participation. gically. Educational Leadership, 50, 19-23. Third, en route to becoming an effective Bloom, D., & Green, J. (1984). Directions in the strategies instructor, the teacher progressed sociolinguistic study of reading. In P. D. Pear- through the same phases of development that son, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 18 Rachel Brown & Lynne Coy-Ogan

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social orga- 395-422). New York: Longman. nization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Botel, M. (1970). Botel inventory. Chicago: Follett. Harvard University Press. Brown, R. (1994). A quasi-validation study of Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit strategies-based instruction for low-achieving comprehension instruction: A review of re- primary-level students. Unpublished doctoral search and a new conceptualization of instruc- dissertation, University of Maryland, College tion. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165. Park. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schu- Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. der, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Brown, C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transac- teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). New York: tional instruction of reading comprehension Macmillan. strategies. Elementary School Journal 992 , 513- Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & 556. Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Cunicelli, E. A., the new: Research on reading comprehension Burdick, N. J., Schaub-Matt, M., Lee, D. S., instruction. Review of Educational Research, & Powell, N. (1991). Strategy instruction at 61, 239-264. Benchmark School: A faculty interview study. Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Improving Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 19-48. reading instruction through the use of respon- Pressley, M., Goodchild, R., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, sive elaboration. The Reading Teacher, 40, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of 514-520. classroomstrategyinstruction.Elementary El-Dinary, P. B., (1993). Teachers learning, adapt- School Journal, 89, 301-342. ing, and implementing strategies-based instruc- Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., Mc- tion in reading. Unpublished doctoral disserta- Goldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strat- tion, University of Maryland, College Park. egies that improve children's memory and Gagne, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of comprehension of text. Elementary School school learning. Boston: Little, Brown. Journal, 90, 3-32. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading com- Pressley, M., Schuder, T., Teachers in the SAIL prehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Program, Bergman, J., & El-Dinary, P. B. Gaskins, I. W., Anderson, R. C., Pressley, M., (1992). A researcher-educator collaborative Cunicelli, E. A., & Satlow, E. (1993). Six interview study of transactional comprehension strategies instruction. Journal of Educational teachers dialogue during cognitive process in- Psychology, 84, 231-243. struction. Elementary School Journal, 93, 277- Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the 304. poem: The transactional theory of literary Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethno- work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Uni- graphy and qualitative design in educational versity Press. research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schuder, T. (1993). The genesis of transactional Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in strategies instruction in a reading program for schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: at-risk students. Elementary School Journal, State University of New York Press. 94, 183-200.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19 Evolution of Transactional Strategies Instruction 19

Sendak, M. (1983). Where the wild things are. New Student initiates; teacher or student responds. York: Scholastic. This sequence is followed by one or more student- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualita- teacher, teacher-student, or student-student interac- tive research: Grounded theory procedures and tions. techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Teacher initiates; student responds; another Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel- student evaluates, questions or comments. This opment of higher psychological processes. (M. sequence is followed by one or more student-teach- Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Sou- er, teacher-student, or student-student interactions. berman, Eds. and trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

APPENDIX

Description of Interactional Pattern Types

The following scheme was used to characterize interactional sequences (as well as noninteractions) between reading group participants. An interaction was defined as a communicative exchange between at least two reading group participants.

Non-Interactional Pattern Independent teacher or student comment or question, not counted as an interaction.

Interactional Patterns Basic Patterns Teacher initiates with comment or question; student responds. Student initiates with comment or question; teacher or student responds. Teacher initiates; student responds; teacher evaluates, questions, or comments.

Extended Patients Teacher initiates; student responds; teacher evaluates, questions, or comments. This sequence is followed by one or more student-teacher, teacher- student, or student-student interactions.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 19

2 National N R R C Research Center

318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.7125 2102J. M. Patterson Building University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

28