Schuder, Ted TITLE Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 362 853 CS 011 449

AUTHOR El-Dinary, Pamela Beard; Schuder, Ted TITLE Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction. Reading Research Report No. 5. 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 93 CONTRACT 117A20007 NOTE 33p. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE 14F01/12CO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Elementary Education; Inservice Teacher Education; Program Effectiveness; *Reading Instruction; Reading Research; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher Response; Teaching Methods; Teaching Styles IDENTIFIERS *Transactional Strategies Instruction

ABSTRACT Two studies examined seven teachers' acceptance of a strategies-based approach to reading instruction during their first year of using the intervention. Interviews andobservations revealed that the intervention, a long-term transactional strategies instruction program called SAIL (Students Achieving Independent Learning), was fully acceptable to only two of the seven teachers. Issues that influenced acceptability included professional development support and teacher choice. Recommendations that could lead to greater acceptance of transactional strategies instruction by teachers using it for the first time are offered. Briefly, teachers need: several years of professional development; a safe, supportive school environment; explanations and modeling of what good strategy teachers do; and encouragement and support from program developers. (Two tables of data are included and 14 questionnaire items relevant to acceptability are appended. Contains 61 references.) (Author/RS)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction

Pamela Beard El-Dinary Georgetown University

Ted Winder Maryland State Department of Education

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 0-- Office ot Educahonal Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) AThis document has been reprOduced as receved I rorn the person or orgarfizatmn ongrnafing .1 f 1 Minor changes have been made to rmprove reproduction quality

Pougs ol vretv or opinions stated tn thtsdocu. ment do not necessarily represent official OE RI posfion or poficy

National NRRC Reading Research Center

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

Fall 1993

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 NRRC National Reading Research Center

Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction

Pamela Beard El-Dinary Georgetown University Language Research Projects

Ted Schuder Maryland State Department of Education

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5 Fall 1993

The work reported herein was prepared with partial support from the NationalReading Research Center of the University of Georgia and University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program (PR/AWARDNO. 117A20007) as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed here do notnecessarily reflect the position or policies of the National Reading Research Center, the Office ofEducational 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 JoBeth Allen Marsha T. DeLain University of Georgia Delaware Department of Public Instruction John F. O'Flahavan Carl A. Grant University of Maryland College Park University of Wtsconsin-Madison James V. Hoffman Walter Kintsch University of Texas at Austin University of Colorado at Boulder Cynthia R. Hynd Robert L. Linn University of Georgia University of Colorado at Boulder Robert Serpell Luis C. Moll University of Maryland Baltimore County University of Arizona Carol M. Santa Publications Editors School District No. 5 Research Reports and Perspectives Kalispell, Montana David Reinking, Receiving Editor Anne P. Sweet University of Georgia Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Linda Baker, Tracking Editor U.S. Department of Education University of Maryland Baltimore County Louise Cherry Wilkinson Linda C. DeGroff, Tracking Editor Rutgers University University of Georgia Instructional Resources Technical Writer and Production Editor Lee Galda, University of Georgia Susan L. Yarborough Research Highlights University of Georgia William G. Holliday University of Maryland College Park Policy Briefs NRitC - University of Georgia James V. Hoffman 318 Aderhold University of Texas at Aastin University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602-7125 Videos (706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678 Shawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia INTERNET: [email protected] NRRC Staff Barbara F. Howard, Office Manager NRRC - University of Maryland College Park Melissa M. Erwin, Senior Secretary 2102 J. M. Patterson Building University of Georgia University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative Assistant (301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625 Valerie Tyra, Accountant INTERNET: [email protected] University of Maryland College Park About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi- funded by tho Office of Educational Research and ties. Information on NPRC 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 findings 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 accounts of 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 literature-based reading programs on reading (706) 542-3674 achievement; the effects of reading strategies instruction on comprehension and critical thinking in literature, John T. Guthrie, Co-Director science, and history; 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 NRRC Editorial Review Board

Patrkia Adkins Karin Dahl Susan Hill University of Georgia Ohio State University University of Maryland College Fark

Peter Afflerbach Lynne Diaz-Rico Sally Hudson-Ross University of Maryland College Park California State University-San University of Georgia Bernardino JoBeth Allen Cynthia Hynd University of Georgia Mariam Jean Dreher University of Georgia Patty Anders University of Maryland College Park University of Arizona Robert Jimenez Pamela Dunston University of Oregon Tom Anderson University of Georgia University of Illinois at Urbana- Karen Johnson Champaign Jim Flood Pennsylvania State University San Diego State University Irene Blum James King Pine Springs Elementary School Dana Fox University of South Florida Falls Church, Virginia University of Arizona

John Borkowski Linda Gambrel! Sandra Kimbrell Notre Dame University University of Maryland College Park West Hall Middle School Oakwood, Georgia Cynthia Bowen Valerie Garfield Baltimore County Public Schools Chattahoochee Elementary School Kate Kirby Towson, Maryland Cumming, Georgia Gwinneu County Public Schools Lawrenceville, Georgia Martha Carr Sherrie Gibney-Sherman University of Georgia Athens-Clarke County Schools Sophie Kowzun Athens, Georgia Prince George's County Schools Suzanne Clewell Landover, Maryland Montgomery County Public Schools Rachel Grant Rockville, Maryland University of Maryland College Park Rosary Lalik Joan Coley Barbara Guzzetti Virginia Polytechnic Institute Western Maryland College Arizona State University Michael Law Michelle Commeyras Jane Haugh University of Georgia University of Georgia Center for Developing Learning Potentials Sarah McCarthey Linda Cooper Silver Spring, Maryland University of &vas at Austin Shaker Heights City Schools Shaker Heights, Ohio Beth Ann Herrmann Lisa McFalls University of South Carolina University of Georgia Karen Costello Connecticut Department of Education Kathleen Ileubach Mike McKenna Hary-ord, Connecticut University of Georgia Georgia Southern University Mink& Mealey Michael Pressley Ruby Thompson Louisiana State University State University of New York Clark Atlanta University at Albany Barbara Wrchalove Louise Tomlinson Fowler Drive Elementary School John Readence University of Georgia Athens, Georgia University of Nevada-Las Vegas Sandy Tumarkin Akintunde Morakinyo Strawberry Knolls Elementary School University of Maryland College Park Tom Reeves Gaithersburg, Maryland University of Georgia Lesley Morrow Sheila Valencia Rutgers University Lenore Ringler University of Washington New York University Bruce Murray Bruce VanSledright University of Georgia Mary Roe University of Maryland College Park University of Delaware Susan Neuman Chris Walton Northern Territory University Temple University Rebecca Sammons Australia University of Maryland College Park Awanna Norton M. E. Lewis Sr. Elementary School Louise Waynant Sparta, Georgia Paula Schwanenflugel Prince George's County Schools University of Georgia Upper Marlboro, Maryland Caroline Noyes University of Georgia Robert Serpell Priscilla Waynant University' of Maryland Baltimore Rolling Terrace Elementary School John O'Flahavan County Takoma Park, Maryland University of Maryland College Park Betty Shockley Jane West Penny Oldfather Fowler Drive t.ementary School University of Georgia University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Steve White Joan Pagnucco Susan Sonnenschein University of Georgia University of Georgia University of Maryland Baltimore County Allen Wigfield Barbara Palmer University of Maryknd College Park University of Maryland College Park Steve Strwl University of Georgia Dortha Wilson Jessie Pollack Fort Valley State College Maryland Department of Education Anne Sweet Baltimore, Maryland Office of Educational Research Shelley Wong and lmpr. vement University of Maryland College Park Sally Porter Blair High School Liqing Tao Silver Spring, Maryland University of Georgia About the Authors

Pamela Beard EI-Dinary is Senior Research Analyst at Ted Schuder works for the Maryland State Dcpartment Georgetown University Language Research Projects. of Education's Division of Instruction. While serving Her current research focus is the use of strategies in the Montgomery County Public Schools' Office of instructionforforeignlanguagelearningatthe AcademicSkills,hedeveloped anintegrated elementary school through college levels.She also reading/language arts curriculum for grades K-8. For serves as Adjunct Professor of Educational Psychology the past eight years he has worked on the use of at Trinity College, Washington, D.C. She received her strategies-basedinstruction in meaning-centered B.A. in teacher education from Purdue University and curricula, while exploring the application of interactive her M.A.ineducationalpsychologyfromthe video to staff development. Previously he worked for University of Georgia. She received her doctorate from the New York State Department of Education, where he the University of Maryland in August 1993, under the designed anddeveloped theory-based reading advisement of Michael Pressley. Her research efforts comprehension assessments. He has more than twenty and teaching are directed toward helping students years' experience in designing instructional programs become self-regulated learners through strategies use and criterion referenced assessments. and modeling. National steading Research Center Universities of Georgia and Maryland Reading Research Report No. 5 Fall 1993

Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction

Pamela Beard El-Dinary Georgetown University Language Research Projeas

Ted Schuder Maryland State Department of Education

Abstract. In two studies we examined 7 teachers' proach, students and teachers use cognitive acceptance of a strategies-based approach to strategies to make meaning as they transact reading instruction during their first year of with texts (by reading) and with each other (in using the intervention. Interviews and observa- group discussion).Transactional strategies flow revealed that the intervention, transactional instruction occurs on-line as the teacher and strategies instruction,as fully acceptable to students transact with authentic texts. only 2 of 7 teachers. We discuss issues that influ- The instruction is transactional in at least enced acceptability, including professional devel- First, what happens during opment support and teacher choice, and we three senses. make recommendations that could lead to greater reading group is co-determined by the students acceptance of transactional strategies instruction and teacher (Bell, 1968; Bjorklund, 1989, pp. by teachers using it for the first time. 228-231; Sameroff, 1975). That is, rather than the teacher pre-determining the direction in which the lesson will proceed, group members Transactional strategies instruction is an ap- transact with one another as they read a text. proach to teaching reading that has been creat- Thus transactional strategies instruction takes ed in real schools and that is based on cognitive advantage of "teachable moments" when dis- theory and research (see also Pressley, El- cussion of strategic processing would be appro- Dinary, et al., 1992).The primay goal of priate. transactional strategies instruction is to aid Second, interpretations are co-determined students and teachers in making meaning from as students and teachers transact with text text.In reading lessons based on this ap- (e.g., Rosenblatt, 1978).Rosenblatt's reader

9 2 Pamela Beard El-Dinary ct Ted Schuder

response theory asserts that meaning lies not ment the Montgomery County (Maryland) only in the text, nor only in the reader's mind, Public Schools language arts curriculum. Ted but in the transactions between the reader's Schuder and his colleagues developed Mont- background knowledge and the information gomery County's meaning-centered curriculum provided by the text.Consistent with this for reading, writing, speaking, and thinking view, students in transactional strategies in- (Schuder, 1986). The Montgomery County struction reading groups learn how to use their curriculum is thoroughly constructivist background experiences and knowledge of the (Bransford, Barclay, & Franks, 1972; Spiro, world in conjunction with effective thought 1980) in both principle and practice. In read- processes and strategieswhen reading a text. ing, for example, the curriculum emphasizes For example, the students learn to relate their the vital roles of background knowledge (An- knowledge and experiences to the content of derson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977; the text. Bransford & Johnson, 1972), inference (Col- Third, the meaning created through student- lins, Brown, & Larkin, 1980; Frederiksen, teacher-text transactions is different from the 1975; Hansen & Pearson,1983; Warren, meaning any group member would have creat- Nicholas, & Trabasso, 1979), text structure ed alone, which is consistent with organization- (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Meyer, 1975), and al psychology research on group problem- pragmatic context (Morgan & Green, 1980) in solving (e.g., Hutchins, 1991; Wegner, 1987). constructing an interpretation of discourse. It is expected that students will learn about The reading component also emphasizes in- reading through the interpretations and mod- struction in genuine children's literature rather eled mental processes of other group members. than texts created expressly for teaching read- It is also expected, based on Vygotsky's (1978) ing. view that higher psychological functions have social origins (Day, Cordon, & Kerwin, 1989), The Montgomery County SAIL Program that years of transactions involving prediction, questioning, clarification, visualization, associ- The intervention presented to teachers in this ation, and summarization will produce inde- study was a prototype of transactional strate- pendent, successful readers who engage in such gies instruction that Janet L. Bergman and Ted processes on their own (see Bergman & Schuder created as an instructional supplement Schuder, 1992, and Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., for presenting Montgomery County's regular 1992, for details and elaboration). reading and language arts curriculum.This prototype, called Students Achieving Indepen- The Montgomery County dent Learning or SAIL (Bergman & Schuder, Language Arts Curriculum 1992), is a long-term strategies instruction program designed to give at-risk students better In this paper, we report on teachers' responses access to the curriculum described above. to an intervention that was developed to supple- Schuder and Bergman designed SAIL to be

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

1 0 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 3

offered as an option to teachers across the hension monitoring strategies prediction school system. (Schuder, Clewell, & Jackson, 1989), visual- SAIL is based both in the basic principles ization(Pressley, 1977), summarization forming the theoretical roots of the Montgom- (Brown & Day, 1983; Palincsar & Brown, ery County reading/language arts curriculum 1984), and think-aloud (Bereiter & Bird, 1985) (i.e., constructivism, discourse analysis, and to aid understanding of difficult text. SAIL rhetorical and language arts learning principles) also teaches problem-solving strategies and in a synthesis of several major strands in ignoring the problem and reading on, guessing recent cognitive research, which stress: (a) the by using context clues or picture clues, and importance of metacognition in reading and looking back or re-reading to assist the mathematics (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & student in overcoming comprehension difficul- Campione, 1983; Schoenfeld, 1987); (b) the ties. role of social support systems in learning Although SAIL was originally developed to (Vygotsky, 1978); (c) theory-based models of serve at-risk readers, it was designed to be the reading process (Collins, Brown, & Larkin, appropriate and helpful for all readers. SAIL 1980; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978); (d) the vital strategies are taught according to a model for significance of motivation (Malone & Lepper, explicit instruction in which the teacher and 1987) andinterest (Anderson, Mason, & students share responsibil ity for learning (Berg- Shirey, 1984) in reading and learning; (e) the man, 1992; Duffy et al., 1987; Pearson & theoretical and practical conceptualization of Gallagher, 1983). At the beginning of SAIL strategic behavior (Brown, 1980; Duffy & instruction, the teacher assumes most of the Roehler,1987a,1987b; Paris, Lipson, & responsibility by defining, explaining, and Wixson, 1983); (f) the concept of a functional modeling strategies. As instruction proceeds, repertoire of strategies, its role in reading the teacher cedes regulation of strategies use to processes, and the conditions affecting its use the students, coaching them as they try to apply (Collins & Smith, 1982); (g) the context-speci- the strategies. The entire process of explicit ficity (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) and instruction occurs as the teacher and students intentionality (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989) read authentic texts, with the cycle from first of learning; and (h) important new conceptu- introduction of strategies to autonomous use alizations of teaching, such as explicit instruc- extending over three or more years in the tion (Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & primary grades. Gallagher, 1983), direct explanation (Duffy, It is important to note that SAIL is only one Roehler, Sivan, et al., 1987), and responsive component of effective instruction rather than elaboration (Duffy & Roehler, 1987c). a total program.The developers of SAIL Through SAIL, students learn how, why, intended for teachers to integrate SAIL with and when to use a repertoire of empirically otherinstructionalapproaches,suchas validated strategies (see Pressley, Johnson, et readers'/writers' workshops, cooperative learn- al., 1989). SAIL explicitly teaches compre- ing, and whole language activities.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

1 1 4 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

Studies of the Acceptability of five effects of strategies instruction with their Transactional Strategies Instruction own students, they may find the approach even more acceptable than at the outset; alternative- Regardless of its psychological validity and ly, if the intervention requires a great deal of genesis in school settings, successful imple- effort or fails to pay off, enthusiasm for it mentation of aninstructionalintervention might diminish.In our study of first-year depends on whether teachers find it acceptable. SAIL teachers, acceptability referred to how Teachers at various levels of involvement with well teachers liked SAIL as they were learning SAIL's transactional strategies instruction have about it and trying it in their classrooms. We evaluateditfavorably(Ferro,inpress; were especially interested in teachers' specific Pressley etal.,1991; Pressley, Schuder, likes and dislikes concerning SAIL. Another Teachers in the Students Achieving Indepen- aspect of acceptance in our study was teachers' dent Learning Program, Bergman, & El- level of commitment to continuing SAIL in- Dinary, 1992).For example, in Pressley, struction after the first year of trying it. We Schuder, et al. (1992), 14 teachers having 2-5 were especially interested in factors that affect years' experience with SAIL reported that they teachers' decisions to implement or not imple- found the program highly acceptable.For ment various aspects of SAIL. these experienced strategies teachers, acceptability 1-eferred to teachers' views about the A Model of Teachers Learning to specific effects of SAIL, as well as their com- Offer Strategies Instruction mitment to continuing S.JL instruction. Transactional strategies instmetion also Researchers have documented and discussed appeals to teachers who have not tried it yet. several challenges in implementing strategies- Acceptability at that point is critical because it basedinstruction (Anders & Bos,1992; can affect whether teachers even attempt to Gaskins, Cunicelli, & Sat low, 1992; Kline, learn an intervention.For example, when Deshler, & Schumaker,1992;Pressley, Ferro (in press) presented an overview of Goodchild, Fleet, Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989; SAIL's transactional strategies instruction to 30 Roehler, 1992).Using these sources,it is elementary teachers, the teachers reported high possible to derive the following model of acceptability of the approach.In this case, teacher development: acceptability referred to whether teachers were convinced that SAIL might have value for their 1) Activating teachers' background knowl- students and whether they were committed edge. As Anders and Bos (1992) suggest, the enough to try SAIL in their classrooms. content of professional development activities In this report, we summarize results on should be related to teachers' background acceptability at another crucial point when knowledge. Teachers have little reason to use teachers are first learning transactional strate- an intervention unless they are convinced that gies instruction. If teachers begin to see posi- it will help their particular students. Effective

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5

12 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction

professional de.velopment begins with teachers scope and sequence, classroom management, articulatingtheirperceptions of students' encouraging transfer, evaluating the interven- instructional needs and discussing their back- tion, and integrating strategies-based instruc- ground knowledge about how these needs tion with other instruction. might be met. 5) Owning and institutionalizing the inter- 2) Obtaining teacher/administrator com- vention. A final step in effective professional mitment.After an overview of strategies- development is setting procedures and policies based instruction is presented and related to to prepare schools for self-sufficiency in offer- teachers' background knowledge, teachers and ing strategies instruction. In preparing for self- administrators can make an informed commit- sufficiency, teachers and administrators take ment to participate in the innovation (see active roles in teacher development and deci- Roehler, 1992,onimportanceofthe sion-making. One of the most important principal's active support and participation). activities in this final step is monitoring student progress as tbe intervention is being imple- 3) Providing direct/explicit instruction of mented. the intervention.To teachers who agree to participate, professional development leaders Because these components of teacher devel- give explanations of the differences between opment are critical, we attended to them in strategies-based instruction and other instruc- analyzing the two studies described in this tion, the principles for teaching strategies, and report. We were open to the possibility that the expected student outcomes.Professional this model might illuminate some strengths and development leaders also model strategies- weaknesses of the teacher development studied based instruction (Anders & Bos, 1992), in- here. cluding modeling of how to teach specific strategies.Teachers have opportunities to METHOD practice the instruction, and they receive feedback through peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, Setting and Participants 1982), self-reflection (Anders & Bos, 1992), and group trouble shooting (Anders & Bos, This report communicates the results of 2 1992; Kline et al., 1997). acceptability studies conducted with participants from 2 cohorts of teachers as they. 4) Coordinating the intervention.The learned about and attempted to use SAIL's basic principles and individual strategies that strategies-based instruction for the first time. have been presented are integrated into a All participants taught at an elementary school cohesive program. The teachers can coordi- in Montgomery County, MD that served about nate theintervention through cooperative 600 students. The numbers of male and female planning, which can include discussions about students were about equal. The ethnic compo-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

13 6 Pamela Beard EI-Dinary & Ted Schuder

sition of the student population was roughly SAIL Training 40% European American, 24% African Ameri- can, 21% Latino, 15% Asian American, and The words training and trainers are used in less than 1% Native American. During each this report because they are the terms used in year of the study, approximately 50 students Montgomery County. We acknowledge, were identified for the school's English for however, the objections to this terminology Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) pro- recorded in the literature (e.g., Anders & Bos, gram. About 33% of the students were eligible 1992; K. R. Harris, personal communication, for free or reduced cost lunches, which made July 20, 1992; Kline et al., 1992). the school eligible for Chapter 1services. Training materials. The training materials Although most of the students were from provided to the teachers in both cohorts con- middle-class backgrounds, about one-third of sisted mostly of information about strategies- the school's students were from low socioeco- based instruction (e.g., a visual model for nomic backgrounds, and less than 1% were explicit instruction; an outl ine of characteristics from upper middle-class backgrounds. During of independent learners; a list of instructional each year of the study, federally funded Chap- "dos and don'ts," such as "Do encourage ter 1 services supported about 180 at-risk children to read/listen to a favorite piece many students in grades K-4 at the school; those times.... Don't always require students to read students were identified through the California very difficult material aloud by themselves."). Test of Basic Skills and teacher referral. The SAIL purposefully provided no predeveloped school served as an experimental site for the classroom materials or scripts so that teachers SAIL program, which targeted at-risk students. would create materials to meet their own needs During 1990-91, the principal mandated (see Schuder, in press); however, the partici- that all teachers to the school participate in pating teachers reviewed examples of support- SAIL. The three participants in our 1990-91 ing materials devised by experienced SAIL study represent a subset of the participants in teachers,suchasbulletinboards,cards SAIL during that school year. These 1990-91 prompting strategy choice, and individual participants taught grades 3, 4, and 6. During student "fix-it kits" which included strategy 1991-92, the principal mandated that all first- names and prompts on construction paper grade and second-grade teachers participate in "tools." SAIL.All four of the school's first-grade The 1990-1991 SAIL training. The train- teachers participated in our study during that ing for the cohorts studied here was much year. Table 1 describes the participating better than the 1-day or less information ses- teachers, including grade level taught, years of sion that Kline et al. (1992) described as a teaching, and previous approach to reading traditional model of in-service programs. The instruction. Although the princi.pal mandated 1990-1991 cohort of teachers was introduced to participation in SAIL, the teachers participated SAIL through 4 half-day (morning) in-service in our studies voluntarily. training meetings for which they received

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5 Table 1. Descriptions of Participating Teachers Teacher Cohort ThisYears School at TeachingYears Education GradeLevel Previous Approach to Reading Instruction' Management'Classroom CBA 1990-91 1st1st year year 4th1st year1st year year BA + BA 634 CountycooperativeReaders'/writers'Whole language curriculum learning workshop; guide, 7.83.7 9 D BA 1 readingsupplemented activities with guided E 1991-921991-92 3rd2nd year year 9th3rd year MA 1 writingandBasals,[No phonics information county objectives, core provided.] literature journal 6.35.3 GF 1991-92 2nd1st year' year 2nd4th year yea? BA+ BA 1 tongueWhole-languageBasalsspelling twisters, to teach inventiveapproach; sounds 3.3 10 ' Ormanagement is Averageincluded ratingbecause of we3 observers believe it on is approachascale prerequisite of 1-10, in which towith effective teacher10 being strategies-based was highly educated effective if instruction.teacher classroom had not management. taught formally Information before on classroom After1991-1992 a long break was G'sfrom first teaching year teaching 1st grade. In 1990-1991, G taught kindergarten at the15 same school. 16 8 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

substitute teacher coverage.Janet Bergman, The 1991-1992 SAIL training. The 1991- one of the SAIL developers, led the in-service 1992 cohort had 3 half-days of in-service meetings and observed each teacher during one training sessions, led by Bergman and Schuder. lesson, providing feedback.At the first in- At the first seision in late October 1991, Berg- service training session in mid-September man and Schuder provided a research-based 1991, Bergman provided a research-based rat;onale for SAIL, outlined SAIL's goals, rationale for SAIL, outlined SAIL's goals, explained the model for explicit instruction, explained the model for explicit instruction, and described the SAIL strategies. A video in and described the SAIL strategies. The partici- which veteran SAIL teachers modeled SAIL pants then engaged in activities designed to lessons was shown. At the end of this session, illustrate key concepts.Bergman modeled a the participating teachers were asked to try SAIL lesson, with the teachers taking the role SAIL with their students. of students.At the end of the first training At the second in-service training session in session, the teachers were asked to practice January 1992, Bergman and Schuder reviewed SAIL with a group of their students. key components of SAIL, including its goals, At the second in-service training session in strategies, and model for explicit instruction. late September, the participants discussed their A review was necessary because of the three- initial attempts at SAIL. They took a humor- month time lapse between the first and second ous "quiz," reviewing concepts presented in the sessions. The teachers watched videotapes of first training session. They also completed an SAIL lessons and discussed their reactions to activity that involved dos and don'ts of SAIL them.At the end of this session, they were instruction(see examples underTraining asked to try some additional SAIL activities materials). Bergman then described individual with their students. Between the second and strategies in greater detail, giving the teachers third training sessions, Michael Pressley, a ideas for prompts they could use to explain the senior researcher who had conducted studies strategies to students. Two experienced SAIL with experienced SAIL teachers, held four teachers modeled SAIL lessons and talked lunchtime discussions with teachers who were about how they prepared lessons. Videotapes interested in learning more about the interven- of SAIL lessons also were presented and dis- tion. The discussions were open to all of the cussed. first-grade and second-grade teachers in the During the last two training sessions in school, all of whom were attending SAIL December 1991 and February 1992, the partic- training.El-Dinary and the four first-grade ipants discussed their experiences in trying to teachers who participated in our study attended teach SAIL and discussed more videotaped these d iscussions. SAIL lessons.Bergman and Schuder, the At the third in-service training session in SAIL developers, described some SAIL con- February 1992, teachers discussed their reac- cepts in greater depth. tions to what they had tried in their classrooms.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

17 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 9

Bergman described the strategies in greater member check (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to detail.The teachers completed an activity verify that researcher interpretations based on involving dos and don'ts of teaching SAIL and observations were consistent with participants' discussed more videotaped SAIL lessons. views.(They were). The teachers' instruc- Bergman presented sample instructional materi- tion, self-reports, and questionnaire responses als that veteran SAIL teachers had created, all were considered in the grounded analyses including bulletin boards, strategy prompt summarized here.(The Appendix contains cards to be shared by a reading group, and questionnaire items pertaining to acceptability.) prompts that each student could keep (e.g., the Pam El-Dinary developed analyses of the data tool kit described above).The participants set, and Michael Pressley, a senior researcher were encouraged to create similar materials and who had conducted studies with experienced to use them in their classrooms. SAIL teachers, developed his own analyses of the data set. The two researchers then met to Data Collection and Analysis develop a negotiated analysis and description of results. Pam El-Dinary observed and interviewed all participants during their first year of partici- RESULTS pation in SAIL. The study of the 1990-1991 cohort included 24-27 observations per teacher In presenting the results, we describe the and five to nine interviews per teacher; the participating teachers' acceptance of SAIL and study of the 1991-1992 cohort included 9-11 then illustrate some of the challenges they observations per teacher and at least one inter- faced in learning to teach SAIL. We also view per teacher.Observations and inter- discuss some critical factors that seemed to views, which were recorded through written influence teacher acceptability in these studies. fieldnotes and audiotapes, focused on the teachers' opinions of SAIL and on the changes Acceptability of SAIL's Transactional they made in instruction. Strategies Instruction Research questions and data collection began broadly, informing one another as each All three 1990-1991 teachers attempted SAIL investigation formed a focus. Data collection instruction. Teacher A (grade 4) made consis- and analyses were conductedrecursively, tent progress incorporating SAIL into her daily consistent with constant comparison approaches reading instruction and said she "bought into" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Glaser & Strauss, SAIL, remarking that SAIL was a natural way 1967). Each study concluded at the end of the of teaching for her. Teacher B (grade 3), in school year with participants completing a contrast, said she did not "buy into" (again, the structured questionnaire based on issues that teacher's term) the SAIL approach. She tried had emerged from the teachers' comments or many ways to fit SAIL into her reading instruc- practices. Questionnaire data served as a tion, making some progress at the end of the

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

18 10 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

year. Her main concerns were that SAIL was Two of the seven teachers explicitly stated inconsistent with her teaching style and with that they would probably never become compe- other approaches she favored.Teacher C tent at SAIL because they did not accept the (grade 6) made progress using SAIL in one SAIL approach: aspect of her instruction, the teaching of novels, but did not accept SAIL completely either. B: I could probably pick up enough of the Her main concern was that SAIL was not effectsand look likeI was teaching applicable across the sixth-grade language arts SAIL....I don't think I have the commit- Curriculum. ment to the program that it would take to In the 1991-1992 cohort (all grade 1 teach- be [considerably or completely compe- ers), Teacher G accepted SAIL and made prog- tent]....I frankly don't see it happening at ress incorporating it into her daily reading this point....I don't think ever. instruction; she enjoyed teaching SAIL as she understood it and was eager to learn more. C: It probably will take forever [to be compe- Based on observations and brief informal tent] because I probably won't buy, I'm not interviews, Teacher D also seemed to accept buying into it properly.... I'm not gonna SAIL and to make some progress incorporating force myself to. SAIL concepts into her reading instruction; the results for this teacher are sketchy, however, In contrast, two of the seven teachers explicitly because she did not complete the final ques- and enthusiastically stated that they did accept tionnaire or participate in more formal inter- SAIL and found it compatible with their teach- views.Teacher E, who generally accepted ing philosophy and style: SAIL but seemed more tentative than Teacher G, tried to incorporate SAIL into instruction A: Once I had an understanding of [the strate- but often seemed uncertain about how to do so. gies], it was easy to model....It was not She reported that SAIL was the aspect of her teacher oriented; it's student oriented. The reading instruction with which she felt least students take off with it; you're just coming confident. During the school year, Teacher F in every now and then....I do buy into it, expressed little interest in SAIL compared to in the sense that I think [the strategies] are the other teachers, reporting in the final ques- effective. tionnaire that she had not used SAIL enough to comment on its effectiveness; instead, she had G: I think a story means different things to emphasized the phonics/decoding program that different people depending on their experi- she had been using and found effective. She ences (the beauty of a story) SAIL al- said that in the following school year she lows for this. Children get excited because would "use the SAIL strategies that don't go they are involved in the process of the story against my teaching philosophy (e.g., I do not process-oriented.[SAIL] builds self- like skipping words)." confidenceinchildren...gets dialogues

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

19 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 11

goingbetweenchildrenandteach- struggled to fit SAIL into their teaching. None er...[gives] the children strategies to help felt secure in her understanding or teaching of them read in reading group or independent- SAIL. To varying extents, all of the teachers ly (Emphasis is Teacher G's). had questions about what they should be doing. For example: The other three teachers were less emphatic in stating their views of SAIL, although they A: I understand it enough to where I feel occasionally expressed opinions.Of these comfortable about Laching it, but I don't three teachers, two (Teacher D and Teacher E) know if I'm teaching it correctly. seemed to buy into SAIL, whereas the third (Teacher F) was more ambivalent. Regardless B: I frequently have felt like maybe the prob- of the extent to which they bought into SAIL, lems I'm having are just that I don't under- the teachers identified at least some aspects of stand....I'll frequently say "Well my the approach that they liked and disliked. understanding is .Is there something Table 2 summarizes the teachers' key likes and that I don't understand there?..."I've dislikes about SAIL, with examples of their never had a response where somebody said remarks. "Aha! Now I see the part you don't understand." Challenges in Implementing SAIL's Transactional Strategies Instruction Two of the seven teachers expressed discom- In previous studies (Pressley et al.,1991; fort with the lack of prepackaged instructional Pressley, Schuder, et al., 1;92), veteran strate- materials, wanting more explicit direction: gies teachers reported that the first year of strategies instruction was not easy for them. D: They don't tell you how to go about teach- Our interactions with the first-year SAIL ing [SAIL] and there [are] no tools to say teachers in this report were consistent with "Well, here's some little mini-lessons you those retrospective reports.After a year of could do on this." So you just kind of have SAIL training, none of the teachers in the two to make them yourself. But I just want to cohorts we studied looked as proficient at SAIL teach it more sequentially or in a more as experienced SAIL teachers (see Brown & organized way. Coy-Ogan, in press).All of the teachers in this report made some progress in implement- F:[I need examples of] practical application[s] ing SAIL (see El-Dinary, in press, and El- for first grade, particularly nonreaders or Dinary, Pressley, & Schuder, 1992, for more low readers. detailed analyses of these teachers' instructional changes across the year in which they Ironically, the teachers did not think SAIL learned about SAIL).However, they also teaching was difficult; in fact, three teachers

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

20 12 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

Table 2. Teacher Likes and Dislikes About SAIL

Conclusion Teacher Illustrative Comment

Likes: It tends to have positive interaction between the teach- The SAIL approach fosters er...and the students. I think the intent for the interac- positive student interaction. tion is really good...an exchange of ideas focused on the content.

SAIL helps students come B [SAIL] goals are definitely compatible [with my goals]. to a personal understanding I definitely want students to be independent...to focus on of text through use of strat- understanding...to be really creative and approach things egies. as though they're more than just words on the pages that it affects your World, it affects your feelings.

SAIL emphasizes compre- I think [SAIL] goes along with the primary grades be- hension of whole texts. cause I really believe that the reason they need to learn to read is to make sense of it.If you're just gonna do all of that stuff in isolation...it's not gonna make sense.... So I really like the idea that it focuses on comprehension.

SAIL guides students' A They [the strategies] bring out a lot of things for the thinking as they read. students to think about. SAIL is student-oriented. [SAIL] put[s] more responsibility on the student.... Students "own" their work.

Dislikes: [Introduction to some vocabulary is important] at this SAIL emphasizes some level because they just don't have a lot of background. goals at the expense of They don't have a lot of sight vocabulary. others. Some aspects of SAIL are I always was told to let them really practice and be good inconsistent with my in- readers before they read aloud because they didn't want struction. them to be embarrassed.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Stsategies Instruction 13

Table 2. Teacher Likes and Dislikes About SAIL

Conclusion Teacher Illustrative Comment

SAIL is just a new name for F [Teacher Lb., Teacher G, and I] came up with the idea things I already do. that SAIL is just a new name for a lot of things we already do... such as predicting. We don't necessarily say "Why do you think that?" But we do predict... "What do you think's gonna happen next?" I mean, that's just something common.

SAIL alone is not helpful When decoding wasn't used children had [a] difficult for students who cannot time understanding they would try all the techniques already decode. and still not understand; this was too frustrating. It takes too long to get I'd love to do more predicting, more think-aloud and through a book using the that kind of thing with my class in the morning when I SAIL approach. read them a story...but I don't have time.

Students don't use the full A It's confusing to pick up, and you have to keep working set of strategies on their on it. And a lot of them [students] fell back on, they own. don't use all of them [the strategies]. explicitly remarked that it was an easy or be taught only in the way it had been presented natural way to teach. For example: in teacher-guided reading groups; she believed that if she used a more student-directed A: Well, for me it was a strength because it cooperative learning approach that she favored, was easy to teach and to model; once I had she was no longer "teaching SAIL." a good understanding of [the strategies], it was easy to model. DISCUSSION

E: Thinking aloud is natural. Previous studies of transactional strategies instruction reported high rates of teacher ac- A major challenge seemed to be that the teach- ceptance (Ferro, in press; Pressley, Schuder, et ers did not know how to coordinate SAIL with al., 1992).In contrast, we report an accep- other reading instruction or with their own tance rate of only two in seven (i.e., only two personal teaching style. For example, Teacher teachers fully "bought into" [accepted] SAIL). C thought SAIL was incompatible with the These findings are not necessarily contradicto- sixth-grade curriculum because it was intended ry, however, considering the differences in for stories read at one sitting rather than nov- teacher populations studied. Specifically, els. Teacher B believed SAIL was intended to Pressley, Schuder, et al. (1992) studied coin-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

2 2 14 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

mitted, experienced SAIL teachers who had Dinary, in press).Nonetheless, additional participated in training and elected to keep studies in which several schools are implement- using SAIL teachers who now "owned" the ing strategies-based instruction would help approach. Ferro (in press) examined the clarify the role of the school setting. "curbside appeal" (i.e., a product's attractive- Teaching experience and teachers' previous ness at first exposure) of transactional strate- approaches to reading instruction appear to be gies instruction to teachers who had not tried it factors that could affect teachers' reactions to yet.Following this metaphor, the teachers a reading intervention. In the studies reported who participated in the studies reported here here, however, the teachers who generally might be thought of as buying "on approval." accepted SAIL (A, D, E, and G) represented a They were deciding whether they wanted to range of teaching experience and previous become full-fledged SAIL teachers.These approaches to reading instruction, as did the teachers' use of the terms "buying in" and "not teachers who were more equivocal (B, C, and buying in" were telling they were no longer F; see Table 1).Thus, although teaching "curbside" viewers but were not yet "owners" experience and approach to reading instruction of SAIL. may contribute to acceptance of SAIL, there were no clear patterns indicating their influence Factors Influencing Acceptability in these studies. In contrast, the teachers themselves iden- There may be several possible explanations for tified other factors that influenced their opin- why a teacher accepts or rejects an interven- ions and decisions about SAIL. Among the tion.In this study, we worked closely with most salient factors were teacher training teachers to identify factors that seemed to experiences, discussions with other teachers, affect their acceptance of the SAIL approach. individual teaching styles, and specific beliefs In interpreting the results presuted here, it is about learning to read. important to note that all of the teachers in The grade level taught also seemed to influ- these studies worked in the same school. As ence the perceptions of teachers of the oldest one reviewer of this report pointed out, an and youngest student groups. For example, the extension of this study in more than one school sixth-grade teacher thought SAIL was less would be useful in clarifying the extent to appropriate for sixth grade because the curricu- which the results are school-specific or pro- lum emphasized novels, which took a long time gram-specific. That is, it is difficult to specify to read and did not offer a sense of closure in aspects of the school environment that affect an individual lesson. She pointed out that the acceptability when only one such setting is grade six curriculum emphasized activities studied.To expand our work, we recently other than reading, such as performing plays conducted research with teachers in another and creating commercials; therefore, students school that was supporting a SAIL-like model were not always spending time reading during of instruction across the curriculum (see El- language arts lessons. At the other end of the

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 15

spectrum, the first-grade teachers put extensive More positively, all of the teachers ex- emphasis on reading. Their strongest reserva- pressed some degree of commitment to sup- tion about SAIL for beginning readers was the porting independent student learning and to lack of emphasis on phonetic decoding and doing so through strategies instruction. How- formal vocabulary-building activities.Even ever, only the two most successful first-year the first-grade teacher who clearly accepted SAIL teachers were also committed to SAIL's SAIL emphasized that SAIL had to be supple- explicit explanations, modeling, and scaffolded mented with decoding instruction. In contrast coaching as the way to teach strategies. to the first-grade and sixth-grade teachers, the Although instruction in SAIL was explained teachers of grades three and four did not dis- and modeled for teachers during in-service cuss how their grade level affected their accep- meetings, the teachers felt they needed even tance of SAIL. more explanation and modeling.They also Because researchers and program devel- expressed the need for far more practice with opers are more likely to influence teacher feedbackand more trouble-shooting with development activities than they are other experienced SAIL teachers, coaching that was factors that contribute to teachers' acceptance not available to them: of an approach, we focus our discussion on aspects of teacher training that teachers in this C: The most helpful things were the video- study indicated were influential in their opin- tapes.... Some of them were hard to apply ions and decisions about SAIL. to what I was teaching, but I guess mostly SAIL training and teacher commitment. what was beneficial to me was not the Discussions with the participating teachers lectures or the written stuff, but just seeing indicated that shortcomings of teacher develop- it in action. ment played a large part in the less than complete acceptance of transactional strategies A: Not that you want them [program develop- instruction documented here.For ers] in there [your classroom] every week, some of the teachers we studied said they were but it does help you to know if you're in resistant from the outset because SAIL was focus and if you're correctly teaching it and required of them: also to get the proper feedback about some B: Choice is a real big factor, feeling like you suategies and techniques.... What could I have input into, just like children want to try to do to make it a little bit better? have input into the process of their learning, I need to have input into the process of G: I would like more workshops, more feed- my teaching....Most people have their back on what I'm doing. Have some dis- own ideas about what should be done, and cussions on my concerns and hear how I think there ought to be recognition about other teachers are handling similar prob- that. lems.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5

24 16 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

C: Having a more open environment, more of Although the teachers were provided theoreti- a chance for us to share not just the cal, empirical, and testimonial rationales for positives... Try to help us with solutions... SAIL, they were not asked whether they wanted to make a commitment to trying the inter- Although SAIL is intended to be integrated vention.Rather, an overview of SAIL was with other components of effective reading in- presented with the implied expectation that they struction, the teachers in these studies were would comply. given little information about how to coordi- (3) Although instruction in SAIL was ex- nate SAIL with other instructional approaches. plained and modeled, the participating teachers In fact, some of these teachers believed that had few opportunities for coaching or feed- SAIL was intended to be an exclusive approach back. Structured opportunities for peer coach- to reading instruction. For example, Teacher ing and trouble-shooting with one another and B thought SAIL excluded a cooperative learn- with more experienced SAIL teachers were not ing approach she favored an approach she available to them.As one reviewer of this hoped to "sneak in" while SAIL advocates paper suggested, the late starting date and the were not looking: time between explanatory sessions (October B: For a little while I did this [cooperative introduction and January follow-up) probably reading] thing with the [audio]tapes, which made implementation even more difficult for I stopped doing.... Next school year, I'm the first-grade teachers. Although this certain- gonna do that for a longer period of time. ly represents one way in which teachers' pro- I'm thinking in ten years or something I fessional development needs were not met, will be doing it for maybe half the year, other aspects of the training experience (e.g., and people won't notice it. the overall lack of time spent in in-service meetings) seemed more important to teachers SAIL training compared with the model of than the late start. teacher development. In contrast to the ideal (4) Teachers had no opportunities for teacher development summarized in the intro- cooperative planning in how to coordinate duction, SAIL training was less complete and SAIL with other aspects of reading instruction. less flexible, as the following points demon- Moreover,little information was provided strate: about how teachers might do so. (1) Teachers' prior knowledge was not acti- We state these shortcomings of teacher vated as a foundation for the information being development explicitly because we believe they presented. Rather, the presentation style was played a large part in the less than complete more didactic. acceptance of transactional strategies instruc- (2) Because the school served as a SAIL tion that is documented here. Our view is that pilot site, the principal mandated participation the professional support provided for these in SAIL training for the teachers we studied. cohorts was not sufficient for teachers to feel

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5

25 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 17

comfortable enough with SAIL that they could for extensive teacher development is empha- flexibly adapt and "own" it. sized when the conditions that led to past Evidence from interviews with more expe- successes with SAIL (i.e., the veteran cohort rienced SAIL teachers as they reflected on their described in Pressley, Schuder, et al., 1992) ownprofessionaldevelopment(Pressley, are compared with conditions that led to the Schuder, et al., 1992) supports our view that it results summarized here. The more successful takes a great deal more training and profession- cohort of veteran teachers had (a) voluntary al support than were available to these two participation;(b) more in-service training cohorts of teachers to become proficient with meetings (2.5 to 3.5 days versus 2.0 days and strategies teaching (see also Brown & Coy- 1.5 days for the cohorts studied here) with less Ogan, in press). For example, veteran SAIL time between meetings (compare the 1991-92 teachers claim it takes at least two years of in- cohort, for whom 3 months passed between the service training and suppott to feel comfortable first and second in-service meetings); (c) sup- with strategies teaching (Pressley, Schuder, et port by teacher specialists and trained peer al., 1992). Professional development of strate- coaches (Joyce & Showers, 1982), who regu- gies teachers in other settings always takes larly modeled and coached SAIL trainees in the more than 1 year and is more extensive than trainees' classrooms and helped solve problems the training offered to these two cohorts as they occurred; (d) in-class coaching from (Desk:er & Schumaker, 1988; Pressley et al., the developers of SAIL; and (e) videotapes of 1991). Consistent with this appraisal, three of their attempts to teach SAIL, which were used the seven teachers studied here reported that for self-analysis, modeling, and coaching. they needed at least one more year of training to become competent teaching SAIL. (Two Implications teachers said they would never become competent at SAIL because they did not accept it; the So, how can we best prepare teachers for the remaining two teachers did not say how long it many challenges of strategies-based instruction would take them to become competent with (e.g., Pressley, (Joodchild, et al., 1989) SAIL.) Our view is that teachers need exten- especially sophisticated refinements like trans- sive support the first year, with gradual reduc- actional strategies instruction (Pressley, El- tion thereafter. Dinary, Gaskins, et al., 1992) so that the Comparisons with more effective SAIL intervention will be acceptable to teachers? training.Although the teachers who partici- Our interactionswithteachersstruggling pated in SAIL training in these studies received through their first year suggest several profes- more professional support than is usually the sional development factors that may be critical case with in-service training for many innova- to teachers' acceptance of transactional strate- tions, it was far from sufficient to encourage gies instruction. The factors identified here are complete understanding and acceptance of consistent with those identified in previous transactional strategies instruction. The need research and theory on effective teacher devel-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

26 18 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

opment (e.g., Anders & Bos, 1992; Gaskins et become strategic readers, so teachers need al., 1992; Joyce & Showers, 1982; Kline et these components to accept and carry out al., 1992; Pressley, Goodchild, et al., 1989; effective,flexible teaching of transactional Roehler, 1992), reinforcing that these are strategies instruction. As one reviewer pointed critical factors and that they apply to teachers' out, these implications are not limited to the learning of transactional strategies instruction. area of reading instruction. Transactional To summarize, teachers need: strategies instruction, regardless of the disci- pline in which it is applied, definitely is not a Several years of professional development, "quick fix" for students (Pressley, El-Dinary, starting intensively and gradually being re- et al., 1992); moreover, it cannot be imple- duced mented and accepted quickly by teachers. Time and professional development resources A safe,supportive school environment are needed to promote the growth of compe- where they can experiment with the innova- tent, committed transactional strategies instruction tion teachers.

Professional respect and honor for their Author notes. Many thanks to Raphaela Best, who rights to choose; to adjust innovations to fit provided the demographic information about the their own styles, voices, strengths, and school. weaknesses; and to be informed about Correspondence concerning this research report ("sold on") the efficacy of transactional should be addressed to Pamela Beard EI-Dinary, strategies instruction for their students 9721-1B Country Meadows Lane, Laurel, MD 20723. Explanations and modeling of what good strategies teachers do REFERENCES

Coaching and in-class problem solving with Anders, P. L., & Bos, C. S. (1992). Dimensions feedback from master strategies teachers of professional development: Weaving teacher beliefs and strategic content.In M. Pressley, Encouragement and support from program K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Pro- moting academic competence and literacy in developers in adapting the intervention to school (pp. 457-476). San Diego: Academic meet both the teacher's and the students' Press. needs. Anderson, R. C., Mason, J., & Shirey, L. L. (1984). The reading group: An experimental In short, teacher development should be investigation of a labyrinth. Reading Research like the strategies-based instruction it encourag- Quarterly, 20, 6-38. es. Just as students need interactive modeling, Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. coaching, and problem-solving opportunities to L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORTNo. 5 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 19

comprehending discourse. American Educa- comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: tional Research Journal, 14, 367-381. Erlbaum. Bell, R. Q.(1968). A reinterpretation of the Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules direction of effects in studies of socialization. for summarizing texts: The development of Psychological Review, 75, 81-95. expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14. aloud in identification and teaching of reading Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & comprehension strategies. Cognition and In- Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remem- struction, 2(2), 131-156. bering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child learning as goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick psychology: VoL 3 Cognitive development (pp. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: 177-266). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Essays in honor ofRobert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Brown, R., & Coy-Ogan, L. (in press). The evolu- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. tion of transactional strategies instruction in one Bergman, J. L. (1992). SAIL A way to success teacher's classroom. Elementary School Jour- and independence for low-achieving readers. nal, 94. Reading Teacher, 45, 598-602. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Larkin, K. M. (1980). Bergman,J.L., & Schuder,R. T.(1992). Inference in text understanding. In R. J. Spiro, Teaching at-risk elementary students to read B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoreti- strategically. Educational Leadership, 50 (4), cal issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453- 19-23. 481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bjorklund, D. F.(1989).Children's thinking: Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S. E. Developmental function and individual differ- (1989). Cognitive app:enticeship: Teaching the ences. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole. craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualita- L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and tive research for education: An introduction to instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Inc. Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (1982). Teaching the Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R.,. & Franks, J. J. process of reading comprehension. In D. K. (1972).Sentence memory: A constructive Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), How and versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psy- how much can intelligence be increased? (pp. chology, 3 , 193-209. 173-185). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Con- Day, J. D., Cordon, L. A., & Kerwin, M. L. textual prerequisites for understanding: Some (1989). Informal instruction and development investigations of comprehension and recall. of cognitive skills: A review and critique of Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behav- research. In C. B. McCormick, G. E. Miller, ior, 11, 717-726. & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy re- Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development search: From basic research to educational and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. applications(pp.83-103). New York: F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading Springer-Verlag.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

28 20 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1988). An Gaskins, I. W., Cunicelli, E. A., & Satlow, E. instructional model for teaching students how to (1992). Implementing an across-the-curriculum learn.In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. C. strategies program: Teachers'reactionsto Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery change. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. systems: Enhancing instructional options for all Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic compe- students (pp. 391-411).Washington, DC: tence and literacy in school (pp. 407-426). San National Association of School Psychologists. Diego: Academic Press. Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987a). Building Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery a foundation for strategic reading. California of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative Reader, 20, 6-9. research. Chicago: Aldine. Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987b). Teaching Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instruc- reading skills as strategies. Reading Teacher, tional study: Improving the inferential com- 40(5), 414-418. prehension of good and poor fourth-grade Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987c). Improv- readers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 75, ing classroom reading instruction through the 821-829. use of responsive elaboration. Reading Teacher, , Hutchins, E. (1991).The social organization of 40(6), 514-521. distributed cognition.In L. Resnick, J. M. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., on socially shared cognition (pp. 283-307). Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological (1987). The effects of explaining the reasoning Association. associated with using reading strategies. Read- Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of ing Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368. tea:hing. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4-8. El-Dinary, P. B. (in press).Teachers learning, Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a adapting, and implementing strategies-based model of text comprehension and production. instruction in reading (Doctoral dissertation, Psychological Review, 8(5), 363-394 University of Maryland, 1993). Kline, F. M., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. El-Dinary, P. B., Pressley, M., & Schuder, T. (1992). Implementing learning strategy instruc- (1992). Teachers learning transactional strate- tion in class settings: A research perspective. gies instruction. Literacy research, theory, and In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and 453-462).Chicago,IL:National Reading literacy in school (pp. 361-406). San Diego: Conference. Academic Press. Ferro, S. (in press).Teachers' initial perceptions Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic of transactionalstrategies instruction.Ele- Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. mentary School Journal, 94. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Effects of context- learningfun:A taxonomyofintrinsic induced processing operations on semantic motivators for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. information acquired from discourse. Cognitive C. Farr (Eds.) Aptitude, learning, and instruc- Psychology, 7, 139-166. tion (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 21

Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Re- Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, membrance of things parsed: Story structure R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151. classroom strategy instruction. Elementary Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose School Journal, 89, 301-342. and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North- Pressley,M.,Johnson,C.,Symons,S., Holland Publishing Company. McGoldrick, J., & Kurita, J. (1989). Strategies Morgan, J. L., & Green, G. M. (1980). Pragmatics that improve memory and comprehension of and reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. what is read. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3- C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical 32. issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Pressley, M., Schuder, T., Teachers in the Students Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Achieving Independent Learning Program, Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Recip- Bergman, J. L., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1992). A rocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and researcher-educatorcollaborativeinterview comprehension-monitoringactivities. Cognition study of transactional comprehension strategies and Instruction, 1, 117-175. instruction. Journal ofEducational Psychology, Paris, S., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). 84(2), 231-246. Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Roehler, L. (1992).Embracing the instructional Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316. complexities of reading instruction.In M. Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), comprehension instruction: A review of re- Promoting academic competence and literacy in search and a new conceptualization of instruc- school (pp. 427-455). San Diego: Academic tion. Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151- Press. 165. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text , the Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The poem: The transactional theory of the literary instruction of reading comprehension.Con- work. Carbondale, IL: Southern IllinoisUniver- temporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344. sity Press. Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children's learn- Sameroff, A. J. (1975). Early influences on devel- ing: Putting the picture in developmental per- opment: Fact or fancy? Merrill-Palmer Quar- spective. Review of Educational Research, 47, terly, 21, 267-294. 586-622. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins,I., metacognition?In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., & Cognitive science and mathematics education. Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Transactional instruction of reading comprehen- Schuder, R. T. (in press). The genesis of transac- sion strategies.Elementary School Journal, tional strategies instruction in a reading pro- 92(5), 511-553. gram for at-risk students. Elementary School Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Cunicelli, E. A., Journal, 94. Burdick, N. J., Schaub-Matt, M., Lee, D. S., Schuder, T. (1986). Rethinking reading and lis- & Powell, N. P. (1991). Strategy instruction at tening in a large public school system: A case Benchmark school: A faculty interview study. history. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading compre- Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14, 19-48.

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 5

30 22 Pamela Beard El-Dinary & Ted Schuder

hension: From research to practice (pp. 269- Warren, W. H., Nicholas, D. N., & Trabasso, T. 286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates. (1979). Event chains and inferences in under- Sehuder, R. T., Clewell, S., & Jackson, N. (1989). standing narratives. In R. 0. Freedle (Ed.), Getting the gist of expository text. Children's New directions in discourse processing: Ad- comprehension of text: Research into practice vancesindiscourse processes(Vol.2). (pp. 224-243). Newark, DE: International Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Reading Association. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A Spiro, R. J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. comprehension and recall. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Mullen & I. G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical group behavior (pp. 185-208).New York: issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245-278). Springer-Verlag. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society: The devekpment of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

APPENDIX Questionnaire Items Relevant to Acceptability

* = Item appeared only in 1990-1991 questionnaire ** = Item appeared only in 1991-1992 questionnaire

What are SAIL's strengths? What are SAIL's weaknesses? What is easy about teaching SAIL? What is difficult about teaching SAIL? Tell me about ways SAIL is compatible with your teaching philosophy and style. Tell me about ways SAIL is in conflict with your teaching philosophy and style. *Describe how you feel during a SAIL lesson. *What about SAIL is comfortable to you? *What about SAIL is uncomfortable to you? What was helpful about the SAIL professional development program? What was not helpful about the SAIL professional development program? What suggestions would you make for improving SAIL professional development? How long did (will) it take until you became (become) competent teaching SAIL?

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5 Teachers' First Year of Transactional Strategies Instruction 23

**What kind of training/support did(will) you need to become competent teaching SAIL? What do you foresee your reading instruction looking like next year? How much will it be influenced by SAIL? Why? 1

What proportion of SAIL ideas were new to you?

i 1 1 1 I Almost All More than Half About Half Less than Half Almost None

How competent are you at teaching SAIL?

I 1 1 i 1 I Completely Considerably Moderately Slightly Not at All

*How much choice do you have about whether to participate in SAIL?

I i 1 1 i I I Entirely Considerable Some Little No Choice Up to Me Choice Choice Choice at All

*How much autonomy do you have in tailoring SAIL to fit your needs?

I I i

1 I 1 I I Complete Considerable Some Little No Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy

*To what extent do you consider yourself "a SAIL teacher"? Why?

I I 1 Completely Considerably Moderately Slightly Not at All

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO.5

32 National NRRCReading Research Center

318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, At 2102 J.M. Patterson Building, Universii 33