READING STRATEGIES FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES
by
ANTOINETTE M. KNOX
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
September 2008
------- ---- -- - ~
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Antoinette Knox
Title:
"Reading strategies for middle school students with learning disabilities"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Education degree in the Department of Educational Leadership by:
Gerald Tindal, Chairperson, Educational Leadership
Keith Hollenbeck, Member, Educational Leadership
Cynthia Anderson, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Lou Moses, Outside Member, Psychology
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
September 6, 2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2008 Antoinette M. Knox
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Antoinette Martinez Knox for the degree of Doctor of Education
in the Department of Educational Leadership to be taken September 2008
Title: READING STRATEGIES FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH
LEARNING DISABILITIES
Approved: _
Gerald Tindal, Ph.D.
The study examined the use of story mapping and teacher rejoinder questions to
improve the reading comprehension of 11 seventh- and eighth-grade middle school
students with specific learning disabilities in reading and writing. A three-group (Story-
Mapping Group, Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group, and Comparison Group) time series
design examined the effects of story mapping and teacher rejoinder questions on
reading comprehension performance. Because of low participant numbers, non-
parametric analysis was used to evaluate student scores on curriculum-based
measurements of literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension questions. While no
significant differences were found, student reports indicated that when using story maps
with rejoinder questioning, they remembered more of the narrative story information,
which demonstrated a possible educational benefit from the study. Additionally,
implications for future research are presented.
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Antoinette M. Knox
PLACE OF BIRTH: Inglewood, California
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Education, September 2008, University of Oregon
Master of Education, June 1996, University of Oregon
v
Master of Science in Social Science, June 1992, Southern Oregon State College
Bachelor of Science in Education, December 1988,
Southern Oregon State College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Educational Leadership - Reading Strategies for Learning Disabled Students
Education - Special Education K-12
Psychology - Clinical Psychology
Education - Elementary EducationlBasic with Handicapped Leamer
Endorsement
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Special Educator, K-6 Teacher, Middle School Special Educator
Ashland School District, 1991 - Present
Clinical Therapist, Self-employed, 1992 - 2004
Vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to Keith Hollenbeck, Ph.D. and Gerald
Tindal, Ph.D. for their assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. In addition,
special thanks are due to Jennifer Slawta, Ph. D. and Nancy B. Hackleman, my editor
for their support and encouragement throughout the revision process. I also thank
members ofmy school district, from colleagues to superintendant for their support and
reassurance in my educational endeavors throughout the course of doctoral studies at
the university. Gratitude and indebtedness are due Scott Knox, my lifelong partner and
confidant, as well as my children: Heather, Traci, and Jamal who patiently waited for
me to complete my degree.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .
Reading and the Law .
Decoding versus Reading Comprehension ..
Theoretical Framework- Schema Theory .
Story Maps and Schema Theory ..
Teacher Questioning Strategies and Schema Theory ..
Purpose of Study .
Research Questions .
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .
History ofReading Reform .
Decoding and Comprehension .
History of Reading Instruction ..
Literal Comprehension .
Inferential Comprehension ..
Evaluative Comprehension .
The Use of Story Grammar and Rejoinder Questioning as
Strategies and Solutions for Poor Readers .
Specific Inferential Strategies- Story Maps .
Teacher Questions and Reading Comprehension ..
Feedback and Critical Thinking in Reading Comprehension .
Summary .
III. METHODS .
Participants .
Story-Mapping Group .
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group ..
Comparison Group .
Setting .
Materials .
Page
1
1
2
4
6
7
9
10
11
11
13
13
16
16
19
20
21
23
25
27
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
Vll
Chapter
Independent and Dependent Variables ..
Independent Variables .
Dependent Variables .
Protocol and Data Collection .
Story Mapping, Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Questioning,
and Assessment .
Oregon State Assessment Test (6th grade) and Study Skills
Checklist .
Rejoinder Questioning and Assessment.. ..
Teacher Lesson Activation Form and Procedural Items
Checklist .
Reading Selections .
Observational Records .
Statistical Analysis Procedures .
Rationalization for Using the Kruskal-Wallis ..
IV. RESULTS ..
Participant Data ..
Differences Among Groups on Overall Reading Total and
Subtest Scores .
Retrospective Power Analysis ..
Differences Among Groups on the Overall Reading Score .
Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on the Oregon Statewide
Assessment .
Differences Among Groups on Study Skills Perception ..
Differences Among Groups for Story Mapping .
Teacher Use of Rejoinder Questions ..
Page
33
33
34
34
34
36
36
38
38
39
40
40
42
42
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
55
56
Vlll
Chapter
Use of Rejoinder Questions in the Story-MappinglRejoinder
Group .
Use of Rejoinder Questions in the Story-Mapping Group .
Visually Analyzing Group Differences ..
Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension
Questions .
Differences Among Groups on the OSAT Sample Test.. ..
Differences Among Groups on Study Skills Checklist ..
Students and Story-Mapping Details .
Summary of Findings .
V. DISCUSSION '
Study Limitations .
Selectivity Bias .
Research History .
Instrumentation of Assessments and Observations ..
Review ofthe Findings .
Teacher Questioning .
Reading Comprehension Scores .
Differences Among Groups on Comprehension Questions .
Student Perceptions, Story Mapping, and Teacher Lesson
Activation Details .
Implications .
Future Studies .
APPENDICES '
A. STORY MAP AND SCORING GUIDE ..
B. Ea.ryCBM MATERIALS '
IX
Page
58
59
60
60
61
63
65
67
68
70
71
72
72
73
74
75
76
77
77
84
90
91
92
93
96
Chapter
C. PERMISSION FOR MATERIALS AND READING A-Z
PROGRAM SAMPLE MATERIALS .
D. OREGON STATE ASSESSMENT SAMPLE SIXTH-GRADE
TEST .
E. STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEy ..
F. STUDY SKILLS CHECKLIST FOR STUDENTS .
G. PROCEDURAL ITEMS CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS ..
H. TEACHER LESSON ACTIVAnON FORM, CLASS
OBSERVAnON FORM & TEACHER REJOINDER
CHECKLIST FOR STORY DISCUSSION ..
REFERENCES .
Page
105
119
131
133
135
137
142
x
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Box plot for literal questions 60
2. Box plot for inferential questions 62
3. Box plot for evaluative questions 64
4. Box plot for OSAT pretest vs. posttest 66
5. Box plot for Study Skills Checklist pre vs. post 67
6. Box plot for Story Map Scores 69
Table
Xll
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Characteristics of Participants........... 42
2. Descriptive Statistics for All Comprehension Measures Split by Group 44
3. ANOVA Table for Reading Total Split by Group 45
4. Differences Among Groups on Overall Reading Score .. 47
5. Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension Questions 48
6. Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension Questions........ 49
7. Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension Questions 50
8. Differences Among Groups on Oregon Statewide Assessment 51
9. Study Skills Checklist Results 53
10. Story-Mapping Descriptive Statistics......................................................... 57
11. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Rejoinder Questions 59
12. Percentiles for Literal Comprehension Scores Split by Group 61
13. Percentiles for Inferential Comprehension Scores Split by Group............... 63
14. Percentiles for Evaluative Comprehension Scores Split by Group 64
15. Percentiles for OSAT Split by Group 66
16. Percentiles for Study Skills Checklist Split by Group 68
17. Percentiles for Story Map Scores Split by Group........................................ 69
,.....------- ---------
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Reading and the Law
In 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). IDEA 2004 required special education teachers to be highly qualified and to
use scientifically based instruction to monitor student progress in all academic areas.
The IDEA 2004 reauthorization was in alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB; 2002). Among the salient elements ofthese initiatives was the requirement
that within a decade all students would perform at a proficient level on state academic
assessment tests (Simpson, LaCava, & Graner, 2004).
According to these federal laws, all students, including those with disabilities,
must meet state standards in reading, among other academic areas. Although NCLB
and IDEA 2004 raise the academic standards for all students (Conderman & Strobel,
2006; Prasse, 2006; Shippen, Houchins, Calhoon, Furlow, & Sartor, 2006), at-risk
(including disabled) students continue to struggle with academic success throughout
their school careers (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003), and much of this struggle
centers around reading. Struggling readers represent a large portion of the number of
student referrals to special education for identification because they have poor reading
2skills (Bryan, Bay, Lopez-Reyna, & Donahue, 1991; Kauffman, 2004; Lloyd,
Kauffman, Landrum, & Roe, 1991).
IDEA 2004 and NCLB spoke to the need for (a) all students to be successful
readers and (b) teacher accountability for that task. Both acts promoted an increased
focus on scientific, evidence-based reading instruction in the classroom for all students
(Stewart, 2004). NCLB required schools to assess and report their reading results to the
state and, in turn, states were required to aggregate their statewide assessment scores
and report them to the public (Jones, 2006).
To meet the requirements ofNCLB and IDEA 2004, reading research has
focused on phonemic awareness and phonic interventions as possible panaceas for poor
reading (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2003; Conderman & Strobel, 2006; Sweet,
1997). This focus is based on the belief that the ability to decode words effectively
would allow poor readers to become better readers. While decoding allows access to
the printed word, the ultimate goal, however, is improved reading comprehension.
Decoding versus Reading Comprehension
Reading is a complex, language-based skill that consists of decoding and
comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). While decoding is a word recognition
process that transforms print into words (Catts & Kamhi, 1999), reading
comprehension is the ability to process, evaluate, and integrate factual knowledge
(Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000). Good reading skills and poor reading skills are
not the same (McNamara, 1997). Good reading skills can suppress or inhibit irrelevant
information and can map information into an ongoing structure (Gemsbacher, 1990).
3The student with poor reading skills struggles with suppressing irrelevant infonnation
(McNamara & McDaniel, 2004). Additionally, those with poor reading skills are less
efficient at using their prior knowledge or background infonnation to support
understanding of the text (McNamara, 1997; McNamara & McDaniel, 2004). The
difference in skill sets presents challenges to those students with poor reading skills as
they try to decode words or understand the meanings embedded in the text (Guastello
et al.).
Students with learning disabilities (LD) lack decoding (Guastello et al., 2000)
and reading comprehension skills (Carnine, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997). Students with
learning disabilities also have a less well-developed story schema or knowledge
structure, which leads to poor reading comprehension skills (Lerner, 1993; Montague,
Maddux, & Dereshiwsky, 1990; Nodine, Barenbaum, & Newcomer, 1985). The story
schema is the knowledge structure about a story that may include story elements such
as the characters, setting, plot, and resolution (Beck & McKeown, 1981; Carnine &
Kinder, 1985). The story elements become the framework for the knowledge structure
or the developing schema
Infonnation processing is influenced by the activation of relevant background
knowledge (Blanton, 1998). Schema is the mental framework that summarizes and
organizes infonnation during processing (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). Graesser and
Nakamura (1982) described schema as providing the framework that guides the
reader's understanding ofinferences, expectations, and interpretations of text. Schema
is the mental structure that represents an understanding of the world through previous
4experiences and prior knowledge. Schemata (the plural of schema) are the learner's
mental maps or a cluster ofrelated facts or instances (McGilly, 1994).
Poor readers using narrative stories organized by story elements (i.e.,
characters, setting, problem, solution) and graphed in a story-mapping format
(Appendix A) demonstrate better reading comprehension skills. For instance,
knowledge of text structure is shown to expand storage and retrieval of story
information and to increase reading comprehension in elementary school children
(Taylor & Samuels, 1983). In addition, text organized through story mapping of story
grammar with text structure and teacher rejoinder questions can improve reading
comprehension (Dimino, Gersten, Carnine, & Blake 1990; Mandler & Johnson, 1977;
Schumaker et aI., 2006; Stein & Trabasso, 1982; Thorndyke, 1977). Teacher rejoinder
questions are those that require students to respond with more than a yes or no answer.
Theoretical Framework--Schema Theory
Schema theory serves as a guideline for understanding reading comprehension
and the basis of inferential reasoning. Prior knowledge provides data for readers to
function within their own schemata and then organize new information into the
existing schemata, thereby incorporating information efficiently into the brain
(McCormick, 1992). Language and its contextual interpretation is an example of
schema theory as it relates to some integrated and coherent event or activity. A schema
or knowledge structure interrelates knowledge and experiences about a given topic or
idea (Richgels, 1982). While prior knowledge or background experiences influence the
5shape and content ofnew ideas, schema theory provides a useful framework for
reshaping that knowledge.
The constructs of schema are described as a knowledge structure or framework
conceptualized as mental structures used to organize knowledge in the memory
(Allison & Allison, 1993; Anderson, Spiro, & Montague, 1977; Richgels, 1982;
Schallert, 1982). Mental structures have served as templates for organizing conceptual
order or complexity of ideas, isolated the pieces of information linked together to
produce more coherent wholes, and incorporated nonobvious patterns into reliable
sequences in the brain (Allison & Allison).
The dynamic, constructive nature of schema use is important in the role of
schemata in learning. Schema serves as the organizer for input. Without schema or the
organization of memory knowledge into mental structures, the understanding ofnew
experiences would be unclear (Anderson et aI., 1977). When schema is present, it is
meaningfully organized, available for addition to new experiences, and able to be
developed to include more variables and specifics about similar events (Anderson et
aI.). As new information collects, the schemata change, reorganize, and rebuild the
original concept. This process enables the brain's continuous restructuring ofconcepts
and ideas to make sense.
Inferences are the natural organization ofideas and changing events that later
integrate the story elements that predict, compare and contrast, or make sense ofthe
story grammar and text structure occurring in text (Richgels, 1982). The degree of
inferences readers produce is central to the comprehension of text (Anderson et aI.,
1977; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1981). Poor readers have the most difficulty in the
6area of inference making (Bradsford, Stein, Nye, & Perfetto, 1982; Davey &
Macready, 1985; Holmes, 1987; Wilson, 1979). Furthermore, poor readers may have
limited reasoning abilities, lack prior knowledge or background experiences for story
content, or possess a faulty prior knowledge that causes them to invent inaccurate
answers (Richards & Anderson, 2003).
Reading comprehension research relies on schema theory. Schema theory
proposes the activation ofmental mappings or schemata, which in turn guides the
ability to organize information and make inferences. Inferences made through faulty
schemata organization are indicative ofan underdeveloped understanding oftext
structure as it relates to stories. Students with LD struggle with inferences because they
have less well-developed story schemata that may interfere with their ability to
effectively interact with the text and make necessary story connections (Lerner, 1993;
Montague et aI., 1990; Nodine et aI., 1985).
Story Maps and Schema Theory
Schema theory explains that the integration of story elements is explicitly
taught through story grammar elements (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Gersten, Fuchs,
Williams, & Baker; 2001; Pearson, 1985). Story grammar or text structure found in
narrative stories describes characters encountering a problem, looking for a solution,
and eventually solving the dilemma (Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein & Trabasso,
1982; Thorndyke, 1977). Story grammar that is organized into a story map provides
important information about the characters, events, and setting ofa story (Beck &
McKeown, 1981). The emphasis on story structure in story maps helps students
7organize schemata into useful ideas, reflect on the concepts or facts within a passage,
and generate questions about the text (Reutzel, 1985). Story-mapping instruction ties
both story grammar and text structure together when teachers use rejoinder statements
and questioning strategies to promote stimulation of prior knowledge, schemata
reorganization, and inferential thinking (Davis & McPherson, 1989).
Story maps aid in the development ofmore complete and memorable situation
models described in all content area texts (Iding, 2000). Research in content learning
curriculum supports the need for story maps of text structure to increase students' prior
knowledge (Iding, 2000; Jitendra, DiPipi, & Perron-Jones, 2002; Martorella, 1990).
The body of research on the use of story mapping to augment reading comprehension
of students continues to increase (Boulineau, Fore, Hagen-Burke, & Burke, 2004; Idol,
1987; Idol & Croll, 1987; Pearson, 1982; Sorrell, 1990; Vallecorsa & deBettencourt,
1997). Continued research on class discussion is needed that includes the use of teacher
questioning strategies. Research in the area ofteacher rejoinder statements that support
student ideas, as well as promote integration of prior knowledge with current
knowledge into story maps, is essential for students at middle school level.
Teacher Questioning Strategies and Schema Theory
The use of questioning strategies relating to elements of text structure is an
effective technique to teach LD students how to organize and remember important
information in a story (Pearson, 1985). In addition, the shaping of story information
activates the schemata that organize the relationship between old events and the new
events. Activation of schemata leads to a deeper understanding of story or text content
8(Gardill & Jitendr~ 1999). Schemata-based questioning strategies emphasize
conceptual understanding (Jitendra & Xin, 1997; Xin & Jitendr~ 1999). In turn,
conceptual understanding builds prior knowledge capacity. In addition, class read-
alouds are conducive to building topical knowledge about a specific subject and often
stimulate student prior knowledge (Hoffinan, Roser, & Battle, 1993).
Teachers often model how to reason, make assumptions, use think-aloud
questioning strategies, and draw conclusions while reading narrative stories in class
(Hansen, 1981; Hansen & Pearson, 1983; Mantione & Smead, 2003). Teacher
questioning strategies increase a student's potential to predict, self-question, infer,
summarize, and correct faulty conclusions in his or her reading comprehension as
information is organized into schemata (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991;
Pressley & Afflebach, 1995). The schema of prior knowledge influences the
significance ofmeaning to new ideas and questions. In addition, students benefit from
teacher questioning strategies as they consider the distinctly different views and
thought processes of their peers (Richards & Anderson, 2003). Teachers who redirect
students to locate the correct answer or rethink the question connection increase a
student's ability to expand his or her prior knowledge base (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003).
Poor readers, however, over-rely on their prior knowledge as a coping strategy, and
that reliance can lead to inaccurate answers (Dewitz & Dewitz).
Schema theory will provide the framework for this study. Research suggests
that poor reading comprehension skills in students with LD result from less well-
developed story schema (Lerner, 1993; Montague et aI., 1990; Nodine et a1.,1985). By
developing schema or a knowledge base, the student's prior knowledge or background
9experiences increase his or her ability to construct meaning from text. This is the
framework for the schema theory. The need for text structure, story grammar, and the
use of teacher rejoinder questioning as the developing tools for story schema may be
the key to better reading comprehension.
Purpose of Study
Students with LD continue to struggle with.comprehending..texLdespite the
emphasis on the alphabetic principle that includes phonics and phonics-related
activities as a means of enhancing word-Jevel decoding.aBdreac.ting {Adams~ 1990;
Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Torgesen, Morgan, &
Davis, 1992). Moreover, students with LD who can read at the word level (i.e., decode)
and even comprehend text adequately may still struggle with the skills necessary to
acquire knowledge from the text (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Torgesen et al., 1999).
Although teachers use many reading strategies for comprehension of text, continued
research related to reading comprehension strategies is needed that emphasizes
inferential, evaluative, and summative areas of reading comprehension.
The purpose of this study was to explore the combined use of story maps and
teacher rejoinder questions to influence (a) literal, (b) inferential, and (c) evaluative
reading comprehension for middle school students with learning disabilities. In this
study, literal questions will include fmding the facts and a sequenced retell of the
narrative story (Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). Inferential comprehension will
explore comparing and contrasting information (McCormick, 1992) and making
predictions (Cooper, Chard, & Kiger, 2006). Evaluative comprehension covers the
10
assessment ofcharacters, events, and situations (Facione, 2006) in comparison to the
student's prior knowledge and background experiences (Day & Park, 2005).
Research Questions
The study addressed the following two research questions:
1. Do story maps significantly influence literal, inferential, and evaluative
comprehension of students who have learning disabilities?
1. Do story maps in conjunction with teacher rejoinder questions significantly
increase student ability to answer literal, inferential, and evaluative
questions more often than students who use only story maps?
11
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the 1960s, the reading reform movement was a public response to discontent
over the reading inadequacies of students who were exiting public schools.
Additionally, the public voiced major concerns about struggling or unskilled readers as
the largest problem schools faced. The government provided monetary incentives for
schoolwide reform to increase the effectiveness of low achievers, while the search for
what made good readers increased among researchers. A school system where all
students would read before leaving school was in high demand by the citizens and the
government. Both were looking for accountability from teachers, administrators, and
school systems in general.
The following literature review has three sections: (a) history of reading reform,
(b) decoding and comprehension, and (c) strategies and solutions for poor readers.
History ofReading Reform
During the 1970s, the public demanded teacher accountability for the success of
students. In response to this demand, decoding and comprehension strategies for
reading were developed. Researchers addressed several aspects of understanding print,
such as fact-fmding, making inferences, and strategy development, to better evaluate
12
and understand text. Story mapping, story grammar, teacher questioning, student
feedback, and critical thinking were a few ofthe possible solutions to the dilemma.
Reading instruction and research has developed over time. The first large-scale
effort in research took place with Chall and her team of assistants in the 1960s (Chall,
1967). Chall reported the findings of her four-year study in the highly publicized book,
Learning to Read: The Great Debate. Her research included (a) thorough
deconstruction of beginning reading instructional materials, (b) evaluation of materials
through author and editor interviews, (c) observations of students using specific
reading materials, and (d) comparison of test score reports from children who were
taught reading with different methodologies. This research brought to light the need for
better instructional materials and teaching methodologies.
In the 1970s, more demands for teacher accountability became important, along
with an interest in behavioral objectives, criterion-referenced tests, and mastery
learning. Additionally, basal reader companies had a financial interest in marketing and
selling their books to schools. Basal manuals, workbooks, and ditto masters proclaimed
to contain effective sub-skills to teach reading (Durkin, 1987). Few teachers, however,
used the manuals, workbooks, and ditto masters as suggested by the manufacturers
(Durkin).
By the1980s, schools were most interested in obtaining adequate test scores on
achievement tests. Research suggested that instruction emerged from the assessment
materials in basal manuals and that few teachers actually created lesson plans for
reading based on student needs and weakness (Duffy & McIntyre, 1980; Durkin,
1984). To teach children how to read, most teachers chose what they would and would
13
not use from the basal texts. The choices teachers made in basal instruction often did
not follow the basal manual guidelines, thereby leading to inconsistencies and limited
guarantees for student success (Durkin, 1978-1979).
In the late 1990s, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program
Act (CSRD) of 1998 (CSRD; 2000) provided monetary incentives for schools to adopt
schoolwide reform models with proven effectiveness for low achievers (Skindrud &
Gersten, 2006). The CSRD stressed schoolwide management of instruction by using
progress-monitoring systems, cooperative learning groups, and flexible groupings
across classrooms. The reform program restructured schooling but left the selection of
reading curricula to the teachers.
Americans recognized the importance of becoming a good reader in 2001 when
Congress enacted NCLB. This act required teachers to use an empirical knowledge
base provided through professional development in selecting the core reading curricula
for the school (Skindrud & Gersten, 2006). Although mandated by NCLB, no research
has demonstrated that teachers across America in fact use empirical knowledge from
professional development to guide their reading instruction.
Decoding and Comprehension
History ofReading Instruction
While the decoding of words identifies individual words (Durkin, 1978-1979),
reading comprehension involves a more sophisticated brain function that incorporates
abstractions and reasoning, especially when answering inferential, summative, or
evaluative-type questions about the text. Increases in reading comprehension can be
14
achieved by developing reading fluency in nonfluent readers (Armbruster, Lehr, &
Osborn, 2001; Hamilton & Shinn, 2003; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Mercer, Campbell,
Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). For instance, increasing the vocabulary students know
and understand leads to increases in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension
(Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988; Hickman, Pollard-
Durodo1a, & Vaughn, 2004; Jenkins & Jewell, 1993). Furthermore, reading rates are
shown to advance as the ability to decode increases (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984;
Germann & Tindal, 1985; Marston & Magnusson, 1985).
Class observations of reading comprehension in content areas in 1970 gave rise
to discussions on effectively teaching subjects such as science, social studies, and even
English (Durkin, 1987). Research indicated that comprehension instruction did not
occur in the content areas of grades three through six, as students were limited in their
ability to fmd meaning from their reading (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). In the years that
followed, higher standards were set for new teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2001). In this
regard, teachers needed to function as reflective practitioners, work collaborative1y in
learning communities, and demonstrate teaching that led to higher student
achievement. As a result of both higher expectations and the reauthorization ofthe
Higher Education Act of 1998, reading comprehension skills and strategies became a
greater part of the pedagogy of teaching programs. For instance, reading and language
arts methods courses were taken simultaneously with student practical experiences in
many teacher education institutions across the United States (Lefever-Davis & Heller,
2003). In addition, college students majoring in teaching/education were required to
work on college campuses in theoretical practice and in schools with practical
15
experiences in reading and writing prior to their student teaching experience (Lefever-
Davis & Heller).
Reading comprehension is described as the interactive process by which readers
use decoding, context clues, prior knowledge, vocabulary, language, and executive
control strategies to understand print (Howell, Fox, & Morehead, 1993). Reading
comprehension strategies use cognitive procedures that enlist background knowledge,
recognize the demands of the assignment or task, require goal setting, and emphasize
attention to detail (Tierney & Cunningham, 1984). Comprehension also requires self-
questioning, reflection, evaluation, prediction of text content, and comparisons or
contrasts oftext features (Tierney & Cunningham).
The National Reading Panel report described five important reading skill areas:
(a) phonemic awareness, (b) phonics, (c) vocabulary instruction, (d) text
comprehension strategies, and (e) reading fluency (National Reading Panel, 2000). The
report also indicated that text comprehension strategies utilize the integration of
phonemic awareness, fluency, and text-reading skills.
Good readers use a variety of strategies to understand difficult reading passages
(Kletzien, 1991). These strategies include (a) rereading preceding text, (b) reading
subsequent texts, (c) recognizing text structure, (d) using prior knowledge, (e) using the
main idea, (f) making inferences about the text, and (g) focusing on vocabulary
meanings. By contrast, poor readers struggle with understanding the meaning ofwhat
they read even ifthey are able to decode competently (Kletzien). In this regard,
Kletzien's study demonstrates that children who have poor reading skills have
16
difficulty when combining several prior-knowledge cues to form comprehensive
generalizations about a story when responding to inferential comprehension questions.
Literal Comprehension
Literal comprehension requires that students recall what they have read from
the text (Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). Students use the skill of locating
information from the text to answer literal comprehension questions, as well as their
own rote memory skills. Literal recall limits student opportunities to discuss ideas
related to the text. Literal comprehension does not use prior knowledge or contextual
clues to formulate an answer but instead relies on recall of the printed materials. Literal
reading strategies include (a) word recognition, (b) vocabulary meaning, (c) fmding
important information in the text, and (d) identification of setting, characters, problems,
key events, and outcomes as presented in the text.
Inferential Comprehension
The making of inferences is described as central to the overall process of
comprehension (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) and acts as the glue that cements the
construction ofmeaning (SOO & Trabasso, 1993). The process ofmaking inferences
includes the creation of assumptions, development ofpredictions, and the derivation of
conclusions based upon given information in text or illustrations. The inferential
process requires readers to engage automatically in complex thinking while encoding
and processing text information (Long, Seely, Oppy, & Golding, 1996). Thus,
increasing student potential to make inferences may increase reading assessment
scores.
17
In nearly every quality children's picture book, readers must infer information
from text and pictures (Richards & Anderson, 2003). Young students, however, do not
spontaneously generate inferences (Richards & Anderson). While young students may
be able to deduce information from one segment of the text, they often fail to integrate
implied information in other parts of the story or in storybook illustrations (Richards &
Anderson).
Inferential strategies include judging, concluding, or reasoning from some
given information that may predict what will happen next in the text. A predicting
strategy includes all reasons a student believes specific events will determine what will
happen in the future. A predicting strategy helps students read between the lines and
determine inferential information not directly stated in the text. Prediction strategies set
a purpose for reading and increase student engagement in the text (Cooper, Chard, &
Kiger, 2006).
Because ofan inability to focus on critical concepts in text, poor readers are
unable to understand context with embedded information (McCormick, 1992). As a
result, poor readers make erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions
and struggle with the identification of logical or semantic relationships from text
propositions (McCormick). Readers make differing degrees of emphasis on the
encoding ofpropositions directly from the text versus their own mental model
construction ofwhat the text might mean. The construction is dependent on task
characteristics and the nature of the text (McNamara & Kintsch, 1996). Poor readers
tend to ignore gaps or fail to make inferences necessary to fill in the gaps between
clauses, sentences, and paragraphs they do not understand (McNamara & O'Reilly,
18
2002). Many studies indicate that proficient readers generate inferences that repair the
conceptual gaps between sentences, clauses, and paragraphs (Garnham, Oakhill, &
Johnson-Laird, 1982; Long, Oppy, & Seely, 1997; Magliano & Millis, 2003; Magliano,
Wiemer-Hastings, Millis, Munoz, & McNamara, 2002; Oakhill, 1984; Oakhill & Yuill,
1996; Oakhill, Yuill, & Donaldson, 1990; Yuill, Oakhill, & Parkin, 1989). Poor
readers, however, are unable to use these same strategies to make sense of content on
similar reading requests as do proficient readers.
Several reasons may explain why poor readers have difficulty in reading
comprehension (McCormick, 1992). First, poor readers do not combine the conceptual
framework of information from background or prior knowledge with new information
correctly. Second, poor readers often respond quickly, thereby failing to allow
sufficient time for accurate activation ofprior knowledge (McNamara, 1997;
McNamara & McDaniel, 2004). Because ofan inability to collate information to build
on an existing knowledge base, poor readers lack the necessary strategies to draw
inferences (Tierney & Pearson, 1983). Poor readers are reported to lack flexibility in
emphasizing either background information or written cues for varied inference
requirements (Tierney & Pearson).
Written responses to comprehension questions are another challenging area
for poor readers in that poor readers struggle with deciphering questions
(McCormick, 1992). Poor readers often have difficulty identifying key words and
understanding the meaning of words in questions (Tierney & Pearson, 1994).
Additionally, poor readers dismiss key vocabulary terms in questions (Fisher, 1981;
Tierney & Pearson).
19
Evaluative Comprehension
Evaluating literature requires readers to use prior knowledge and experiences
for a complete understanding about some aspect of the text (Day & Park, 2005).
Literary evaluation involves an assessment of character perceptions, experiences,
situations, and beliefs or opinions in text (Facione, 2006). lbrough an evaluation of the
literature, readers judge the author's credibility, compare strengths or weaknesses in
their interpretations of the text, and determine the credibility ofa source of information
(Facione).
Students need strategies to develop skills for engagement in critical thinking at
an evaluative level. In summarizing text, the reader identifies, integrates, and evaluates
essential elements. In an expository-type story, the main ideas serve as the primary
focus. By contrast, in narrative text, the story elements of character, setting, problems,
and outcome serve as the primary focus. Evaluating or making judgments about
reading may be the most difficult task for readers because evaluation requires critical
analysis and opinion from readers about the characters and their response to certain
situations, as well as the validity or accuracy of the content of the story (Cooper, et aI.,
2006).
A final area ofconcern for poor readers may be the type of text. Narrative texts
are easier than expository texts to recall, read, and comprehend in terms of structure
(Long, Golding, & Graesser, 1992). It is critical to teach reading comprehension skills
and strategies to poor readers in order to build confidence when responding to reading
comprehension questions (McNamara & O'Reilly, 2002).
20
The Use of Story Grammar and Rejoinder Questioning as
Strategies and Solutions for Poor Readers
Story grammar includes the words that describe the characters, the setting, the
time of the story, the plot or problem, and the solution. Story grammar is best described
as the parts of the narrative story. Story maps are a visual tool that link concepts from
story grammar within a passage in a graphic format for readers (Reutzel, 1985). The
story map fosters comprehension through the identification of important information
about characters, plot, setting, and time sequence ofevents (Beck & McKeown, 1981).
The use of story mapping and its connection to narrative text increases the
understanding ofcomplex text for poor readers by categorizing information into
specific text structures (Kintsch, 2004). In addition, when tied to teacher questions,
story maps can further improve reading comprehension.
The story-mapping format stabilizes ideas of the narrative story that are
produced from thought or discussion and helps readers generate questions about the
content ofthe material. Story maps enhance both pre-reading (Davis, 1994) and post-
reading (Reutzel, 1985) instruction, promote inferential thinking, and increase higher-
level cognitive tasks for improved reading comprehension (Davis & McPherson,
1989). When taught with precise instruction, the use of story maps results in positive
outcomes on reading comprehension skills for all students with and without learning
disabilities (Baughman & Bergeron, 1993; Davis, 1994; Dimino, Gersten, Carnine, &
Blake 1990; Gurney, Gertsen, Dimino, & Carnine, 1990; Idol, 1987; Idol & Croll,
1987; Newby, Caldwell, & Recht, 1989).
21
Specific lriferential Strategies--Story Maps
Reading comprehension improves when there is a focus on pre-reading
activities, such as developing background knowledge on the specific subject or theme,
teaching complex vocabulary, and establishing a clear purpose for reading (Stoner,
Shinn, & Walker, 1991). These pre-reading activities are more valuable than focusing
on post- reading follow-up activities (Stoner et al.). Furthermore, the structuring of
ideas through networking, story mapping, flowcharting, rhetorical structures, and
structured overviews provides a diagrammatic image of text ideas, known as a brain
web, structured in a patterned sequence (Anderson, 1977; Barron, 1969; Dansereau,
1979; Earle, 1969; Geva, 1980; Jiang & Grabe; 2007; Meyer, 1975).
Story maps, a type of graphic organizer, involve the use ofconcept maps or
organizational charts. Story maps are an excellent means for demonstrating
relationships between ideas, concepts, facts, prior knowledge, and other information
specific to a content area (Minskoff & Allsopp, 2003). Furthermore, story maps are an
effective tool to improve learning for students with disabilities by improving text
processing and assisting in developing comprehension skills for readers (Bos &
Vaughn, 2002).
Story maps help students tap into prior knowledge, cultivate active student
participation, and foster an understanding of conceptual relationships (Kirylo & Millet,
2000). When using story maps, readers are better able to understand metaphors,
compare and contrast story elements, develop time-related words (i.e.,first, last, next,
finally), make predictions, and then synthesize, summarize, and evaluate new
information (Boulineau, Fore, Hagan-Burke, & Burke, 2004; Idoll & Croll, 1987;
22
Vallecorsa & deBettencourt, 1997). Organizing and classifYing information establishes
how well information will be grasped and remembered (Kirylo & Millet). Confusion
among readers often occurs when they are unfamiliar with the plot beneath the written
work. Thus, activating prior knowledge is critical to the success ofobtaining meaning
from the text. In this regard, readers must be able to draw from their background
knowledge to bridge the gap between what they know and what they learn from the
text (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Tierney & Pearson, 1981). Mapping this
information onto a story map organizes student thoughts in a way that students can
return to the map and fmd information.
Construction of story maps occurs in a variety of formats that represent a
hierarchical relationship among concepts in relation to other concepts (Vacca & Vacca,
1999). When using a story map, the display should be concise, coherent, and
coordinated to represent information in a sequential and linear fashion (Mayer, Bove,
Bryman, Mars, & Tapangco, 1996).
Research demonstrates that effective story maps are generated when teacher
and student participate together in the activity of organizing words, ideas, and concepts
to make meaningful patterns and connections for the reader (Flood & Lapp, 1988;
Heimlich & PiKelman, 1986). Class discussions of story materials become more
meaningful for students when questions posed by the teacher elicit prior knowledge
and background information for the story map. Furthermore, sharing and listening are
critical elements in bringing individual ideas to a new set of thoughts and obtaining
meaning from text (Jenson, 1998; Pinnell, 1984). Story maps validate what readers
think about concepts, ideas, and words (Millet, 2000).
23
Teacher Questions and Reading Comprehension
Teacher questioning strategies that follow a specific fonnat called rejoinder-
questioning produce a feedback loop for readers and increase critical thinking in
understanding text. Appropriate teacher-led questioning, with the inclusion of story
grammar elements ofplot, character, setting, and time sequence, increases the ability to
comprehend text (Carnine & Kinder, 1985). In this regard, readers who were (a) asked
to answer questions about story grammar elements in narrative stories read during
instruction and (b) provided with corrective feedback for incorrect answers from their
teachers became more proficient at comprehension of text (Faggella-Luby, Schumaker,
& Deshler, 2007; Swanson, 1999). The studies reported proficiency through reading
comprehension strategies that demonstrated knowledge of story components and
literary tenns for narrative and expository stories (Faggella-Luby et al.).
In order to elicit the key components of story maps, it is important for teachers
to ask questions that encourage students to think beyond the standard literal answer
application of infonnation (yes and no answers) and pry for the meanings beyond the
facts in print. When teachers ask questions of students in instructional settings, there is
a different intent than when students are involved in conversational questions
(Hunkins, 1989). In instructional settings, questions are used as specific tools for
stimulating the mental activity of students to a higher level ofthinking (Hunkins).
Questions in the educational setting provoke students to think about specific situations
and comment on their perspectives. By comparison, conversational questions among
students are used to evoke interest, maintain a discussion, or serve as practice for
24
verbal interactions (Allington, 1993; Hunkins). Verbal interactions in a social context
do not require preconceived ideas of a right or wrong response.
Information taught to evaluate student understanding and application of specific
information must align with teacher questioning strategies. Teachers must gather
information about specific topics and formulate story questions. When teachers phrase
questions appropriately and allow time for delivery of responses, students can answer
with less impulsivity. Allowing time for student delivery of responses to questions
posed by teachers stimulates reflection of the question and provokes thinking by all
students.
Teacher questions should be developed and considered carefully in light of
educational goals (Hunkins, 1989). Teacher questions are the primary means of
assessing students' reading comprehension (Raphael & McKinney, 1983). Despite
being a highly used strategy by most teachers (Carlson, 1991), research indicates that
the relationship between teacher questioning and student achievement is inconsistent
(Carlson).
Comprehension strategy instruction enhances reading comprehension in novice
readers (Stahl, 2004). Instructional techniques used by teachers are the keys to the
acquisition of comprehension strategies (Stahl). Strategies such as the development of
story elements, question-answer relationships, and reciprocal teaching are successful
for increasing reading comprehension in the primary grades in students without
disabilities (Baughman & Bergeron, 1993; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Morrow, 1984a,
b; Stein & Glenn, 1979). Several studies indicate that students in all grades benefit
from instruction in question-answer relationships, but below-average readers do not
25
have the background knowledge to answer questions based on prior knowledge or
experience and therefore have less success with the question-answer relationships
instruction (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996; Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, &
Strain, 1992; Raphael, 1984).
Teacher-led questioning acts as the model for critical thinking (Hunkins, 1989;
Stahl, 2004). Students with learning disabilities often lack confidence, opportunities to
talk about their thinking, and the strategies to develop background knowledge or
stimulate their prior knowledge about a subject area (Stahl). Teaching students how to
take a critical stance in their questions relating to text is the fIrst step in generating a
powerful knowledge base of questioning strategies (Hunkins).
Because questioning is a natural human behavior, it is imperative that students
develop an inquisitive demeanor. Young children use questioning strategies in response
to puzzling statements. Young children repeatedly use why questions to reflect their
inquisitive natures and attempt to resolve such statements (Hunkins, 1989). Although
the inquisitive nature of young children leads to questioning, they require guidance to
think critically as they become school-aged students. Instructional direction will help
students raise questions of signifIcance and formulate ideas that with maturity lead to
critical thinking and analysis (Hunkins).
Feedback and Critical Thinking in Reading Comprehension
Teacher-led questioning influences student thought (Hunkins, 1989). Factual
questions lead students to recall specifIc story facts (Hunkins). Simple recall or fact-
fInding expands as students use their prior knowledge to process questions. Knowledge
26
about the topic allows retrieval and expansion of prior knowledge (Kintsch, 1988;
McNamara & McDaniel, 2004). Thus, teachers must develop questioning strategies
that expand the least complex thinking skills of fact retrieval or story recall, known as
literal comprehension, to help students develop their cognitive capacity.
When teachers ask questions that evaluate information, as in looking for a cause
of some event, students contemplate the variety of relationships involved in the event
and think more critically before giving a response (Williams, Brown, Silverstein, &
deCani, 1994). Questions asked at a higher cognitive level by the teacher (infer,
evaluate, compare and contrast information, predict, analyze, and synthesize) permit
students to process information at a greater cognitive depth (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams,
& Baker, 2001).
Past research shows that teachers rarely help children learn how to use text to
answer questions correctly during class discussions or written requests, thereby leaving
the incorrect answer undirected and unanswered (MacGinitie, 1984). When students
respond incorrectly to a teacher-led question, teachers comment that the answer was
not the answer they were looking for or move the question to the next student.
Frequently, teachers will not encourage the student to make a connection between the
text and questions. Because of their own lack of reading instruction, teachers often
miss that crucial moment of possible redirection or window of opportunity to enhance
student learning.
In order to evaluate text, readers must possess the skills to read critically. The
process of critical reading requires readers to make judgments about the way characters
respond to story situations and about the validity and accuracy of story content
27
(Cooper, et aI., 2006). Critical thinking skills include the ability to interpret, analyze,
evaluate, infer, explain, and self-regulate (Facione, 2006). Each of these skills is
complex and requires the use ofprior knowledge and complex reasoning. Teacher-led
questions that encourage students to give global or comprehensive judgments about
some aspect oftext demonstrate critical thinking (Day & Park, 2005). To accurately
respond to evaluation-type questions, readers need to literally understand text and draw
from prior knowledge or personal experiences related to text topics and issues
(Williams, et aI., 1994). Furthermore, critical thinking requires readers to understand
the world and the relationships between their own ideas and those presented by the
author (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). Critical readers critique, analyze, and evaluate
informational sources such as text, media, lyrics, and hypertext with meaningful
questions (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2003). Students who engage in critical thinking
become open-minded, active, strategic readers who are able to critically analyze and
evaluate text from multiple perspectives (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2003).
Summary
The literature review identified the history of challenges and achievements in
the area of teaching word decoding and reading comprehension. This review explicated
the path ofpoor readers and their struggle to make sense of text and semantic
relationships. Teaching strategies presented support the organization of schemata
through graphic organizers. In this regard, teaching story grammar through story
mapping, a specific type of graphic organizer, has resulted in success for students with
learning disabilities. Additionally, in a few studies, class discussions about stories read
28
orally with rejoinder questions from teachers have also been successful. Teacher-led
questioning during class discussions acts as a model for developing critical thinking for
all students. Finally, teacher feedback and questions encourage students to make
comprehensive judgments about the text topics and ideas.
29
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Participants
Thirty-one middle school students participated in the study. The student
participants were both seventh- and eighth-grade students attending a school of 800
students (grades 6-8) in rural southern Oregon. Participant recruitment occurred among
teams for students identified as LD in reading or writing or both. All student
participants had the primary educational identification of specific learning disability in
reading and writing. All participants had general education classes in science, social
studies, art, music, physical education, and health, as well as using specially designed
instruction in either a reading or writing special education class during the study. None
of the participants took medication.
The early class assignment in the year preceding entry into the seventh grade
presorted the students into seventh- and eighth-grade teams. The presorting allowed all
teams to have equal numbers of students with special education needs, talented and
gifted strengths, English as a second language challenge, and boy versus girl ratios
within the teams. Therefore, the groupings of students in this study occurred naturally
within their pre-assigned team time in special education. The following criteria were
required for participation in the study: (a) students had no previous exposure to story-
mapping procedures during their special education courses; (b) students spent at least
30
one class period a day receiving reading or writing instruction in a resource setting; (c)
students scored a grade equivalent of at least 2.0 on the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test II (WIAT-II) word identification subtest and one grade-level below
grade placement on the comprehension subtest; and (d) students attended 90% of the
previous grading period.
Twenty students were boys whose ages ranged from 12 to 14 years old. Eleven
students were girls aged 12 to 14 years old. Three groups were created from the 31
participants.
Story-Mapping Group
The Story-Mapping Group consisted of nine boys and no girls with an average
age of 13.4 years old. The boys had an average reading comprehension score on the
WIAT-II of a 4.5 grade equivalent and an average GPA of2.6 from the first trimester
of 2007-2008. In this group, 67% participated in the free- and reduced-lunch program.
See Table 1 for complete demographic statistics of this group.
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
The Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group consisted of seven boys and four girls.
The boys had an average age of 12.5 years, and the girls had an average age of 13.3
years (overall, mean age of 12.8 years). The boys had an average WIAT-II reading
comprehension score of4.5 grade equivalent, and the girls had an average WIAT-II
reading comprehension score of 4.3 grade equivalent (overall 4.4 grade equivalent
average score for reading comprehension). The average GPA for the group was 2.99
31
for the fIrst trimester of 2007-2008. In this group, 36% participated in the free- and
reduced-lunch program. See Table 1 for complete demographic statistics of this group.
Comparison Group
The Comparison Group consisted of fIve boys and six girls. The boys had an
average age of 12.4 years, and the girls had an average age of 13.2 years (overall mean
age of 12.8 years). The boys had an average reading comprehension score from the
WIAT-II score of4.1 grade equivalent, and the girls had an average reading
comprehension score of3.6 grade equivalent (overall 3.8 grade equivalent average
score for reading comprehension). The average GPA for the group was 3.32 for the
fIrst trimester of 2007-2008. In this group, 72% participated in the free- and reduced-
lunch program. See Table 1 for complete demographic statistics of this group.
Setting
The study took place in a middle school, special education resource classroom
for students with mild learning disabilities. The intervention occurred within the
resource classroom. All 31 students were familiar with the teacher who delivered the
intervention. No scheduling changes for students were required for their participation
in the study and no changes from the usual classroom procedures were required to
participate in this research. The intervention was kept as close to routine class
instruction as possible and relatively unobtrusive in the classroom setting. Each class
period lasted 75 minutes every other day for 12 weeks.
32
Materials
The following materials were used in the study:
(a) Story Map and Story Map Scoring Guide: The Read/Write publication
of the Weekly Reader Magazine provided the student story map. The
original map was modified to remove graphic and instructional
distractions for the reader. The Story Map Scoring Guide provided
descriptions of story grammar for scoring (Appendix A).
(a) Easy Curriculum Based Materials (EasyCBM) Readings: The EasyCBM
series of narratives was obtained from University of Oregon and
included a 20-question quiz administered by computer from the
EasyCBM site. A sample of the narrative with test questions is provided
(Appendix B).
(a) Reading A-Z Program: This reading program included selected
narrative stories for daily class read-alouds. Nonfiction stories, poetry,
plays, and expository materials were excluded from daily narratives. A
narrative story example with test questions is provided (Appendix C).
(a) Sixth-grade Oregon State Assessment Test--Sample Test (OSAT): The
OSAT sample multiple-choice test for reading comprehension with
passage and questions for student response is provided (Appendix D).
(a) Student Self-Assessment Survey: Each student was asked to respond to
questions about story mapping and school success in reading and
writing. A blank self-assessment survey sample is included (Appendix
E).
33
(a) Study Skills Checklist for Students: The checklist, with a 1 to 5 scoring
scale, was designed to investigate student organizational skills and
provide a reflection of self-performance (Appendix F).
(a) Procedural Items Checklist for Teachers: This checklist was produced to
aid the teacher in providing students with specific questions during class
discussions ofnarrative text (Appendix G).
(a) Teacher Lesson Activation Form and Teacher Rejoinder Checklist for
Story Discussions: The teacher used the Teacher Lesson Activation
Form at the end ofthe lesson to activate processes for teaching new
lessons as well as review past lesson strengths and challenges. The
Teacher Rejoinder Checklist used during story discussions functioned as
a reminder to use all five forms ofrejoinder questions (Appendix H).
Independent and Dependent Variables
Independent Variables
The independent variables of the study included the story map and rejoinder
questions. The story map contained seven main areas for recording characters, time,
place, problems, solutions, outcomes, and themes. The rejoinder questions included
five types for analysis: (a) null, (b) evaluative response, (c) elaboration or
embellishment, (d) repeat or rephrase, and (e) correction.
34
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables of the study included the pre- and posttesting materials
previously described:
(a) Quizzes assessing literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension.
Quizzes were part of the EasyCBM series obtained from the University
ofOregon Behavioral Research and Teaching department.
(a) Oregon State Assessment Test (for 6th grade) assessing reading skills.
OSAT sample test obtained from the Oregon Department ofEducation,
Assessment Division, Resource Section for sample tests.
(a) Scores obtained from story grammar elements on story-mapping
assignments. One point for each story grammar element included on the
story map, with an additional point (1.0) per item for description of any
story grammar element.
(a) Teacher Observation Form. The teacher observation form provided
recordings of the reading instruction observations of teacher-led
rejoinder questions that described teacher-student interaction patterns.
Protocol and Data Collection
Story Mapping, Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Questioning, and Assessment
During the 12-week intervention, students in the Story-MappinglRejoinder
Group participated in the EasyCBM readings and quizzes each session that followed
story-mapping instruction and teacher rejoinder questioning on the Reading A-Z,
fictional, narrative read-aloud by the teacher to the students. Students in the Story-
35
Mapping Group received the same instruction as students in the Story-
MappinglRejoinder Group, minus the rejoinder-questioning strategies delivered by the
teacher during the class discussions ofthe Reading A-Z read-aloud. The EasyCBM
computer narrative and quiz provided specific information to the student and the
teacher about the type of questions the student answered. The questions identified as
literal, inferential, and evaluative provided specific scores for each of the
comprehension pieces. Although both groups of students answered the same questions
for each story, the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group used the teacher rejoinder
questions during the class discussion to help answer the questions, while the Story-
Mapping Group searched for the answers only from the text. Students received a score
for each completed series of test questions but no other feedback. The teacher recorded
scores upon completion of each testing session. The Comparison Group received no
story maps or teacher rejoinder questions but took the same EasyCBM readings and
quizzes as the intervention groups. Following the intervention, the Comparison Group
was able to participate in the intervention that had been delivered to the intervention
groups.
Students also completed Self-Assessment Survey and Study Skills Checklist as
performance measures to obtain an understanding of the reading lesson. Students
completed a student survey about the process of story mapping before and after the
study.
If two or more students missed an intervention session, the entire group
repeated the session during the next class period. If one student missed a session, that
session occurred in a one-to-one setting when the student returned. Each class
36
discussion session for the experimental groups was h'llld recorded by an observer in
order to evaluate the relational statements following student responses or teacher
rejoinder-questioning status of the lesson.
Oregon State Assessment Test (6th grade) and Study Skills Checklist
The Study Skills Checklist and the Oregon State Assessment Sample Test for
the sixth grade were administered to participating students before and after the study.
The Oregon State Assessment Test (OSAT) was obtained through the State of Oregon
Department of Education web site. The OSAT was administered as a school informal
assessment practice. Students wrote on the test itself and the tests were scored by the
teacher.
The Study Skills Checklist provided students with a self-evaluation of their
study skills at the beginning of the year. Questions were related to the topic areas of
assignments, attitude, organization, and use ofclass time. Students scored each topic
question with a Likert-type 1 to 5 scale, where 1 meant never and a 5 was equivalent to
all ofthe time.
Rejoinder Questioning and Assessment
Questions such as "What do you think will happen next? Why do you think so?
Can you prove it?" or "Where in the text did you find evidence for your answer?" are
rejoinder type questions that were used to stimulate students to think beyond literal or
factual answers in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group. For example, the teacher asks
the student, "What is the story about?" The student answers, "Rabbits." The rejoinder
37
from the teacher might be, "Yes, it is about rabbits, but why do you think it is about
rabbits?" Student questioning for the Story-Mapping Group was not inferential or
evaluative. Rather, questioning was literal in type or factual, allowing the students to
find the information in the text as needed. In this regard, students who were in the
Story-Mapping Group had the same task of reading text and completing blank story
grammar maps, but the teacher only asked literal questions, such as "What do you
think?" or "Where in the text did you find your answer?"
Teacher rejoinder responses used in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
included questions that engaged students in a discussion about the elements of a story
or idea. The teacher anticipated an action from students in response to her questions,
not just yes or no answers. Teacher rejoinder responses fell into one of five categories:
null, evaluate, rephrase/repeat, elaborate, and correct. The null category included no
verbal, facial, or body language response to the student answer. The teacher may have
had eye contact with the student, but the eye contact may not have had facial
expression or head motion occur at the same time. The category of evaluate occurred
with simple statements such as Yes or No. Alternatively, evaluate could have had more
explicit statements, such as, "That was a great answer, nice thinking." The
rephrase/repeat category included student responses that were rephrased or repeated
by the teacher, using appropriate grammar and complete sentence format. The
elaborate category applied to student responses that were embellished by the teacher,
who then paraphrased the response and used it in a complete question. The last
category was the correct category, where the teacher, rather than the student, initiated
the elaboration, using language that was descriptive. The correct rejoinders allowed the
38
teacher to let the student know the answer was incorrect by rephrasing or restating the
original question.
Teacher Lesson Activation Form and Procedural Items Checklists
Teacher Lesson Activation FOnD and Procedural Items Checklist were
completed to quantifY fidelity in the study. The teacher completed Teacher Lesson
Activation FOnD after each lesson as a measure of the teaching process and rejoinder
questioning strategies. The Teacher Lesson Activation FOnD reminded the teacher of
the need to continue using the five types of rejoinder questions. The review that took
place each session encouraged the use of all rejoinders over time and increased the
teacher's potential for delivering the questions relative to the five rejoinders. Because
the teacher had little experience with rejoinder questioning strategies within the context
of teaching reading comprehension, it was important to review the strategies daily
before working with the class.
The teacher used the Procedural Items Checklist during the class discussions as
a self-help checklist to measure the inclusion of all story grammar elements. These
items included story-grammar elements of time, characters, problem outlined in the
story, and possible solutions. The teacher completed the checklist during each
instructional session.
Reading Selections
The stories selected for the read-aloud segments of the study followed five
criteria: (a) Stories were narrative (i.e., fictional or factual); (b) stories contained all
story grammar elements (i.e., time, setting, characters, action, problem, goal, and
39
outcome or resolution); (c) stories used standard language; (d) stories were unfamiliar
to the student, yet typical of children's stories; and (e) each passage had to be similar in
length to standard fourth-grade narrative passages. These criteria were similar to those
adopted by the studies of Carnine and Kinder (1985); Hall (1993); Montague, Maddux,
and Dereshiwsky (1990); and Sadoski (1983).
The Reading A-Z narratives provided the teacher with narratives comparable to
the EasyCBM computer-generated narrative series. The Reading A-Z narratives (1,200
to 2,000 words long) contained no pictures and provided a set ofquestions the teacher
could transform into rejoinder-type questions. The Reading A-Z series was an online
reading program with a leveled reading materials series. The series provided all of the
material needed for the class intervention stories. The narratives were equivalent in
length and difficulty level to both the sample Oregon State Assessment Test and the
EasyCBM narratives. Passages from the Reading A-Z narratives were selected for
appropriateness and interest level of seventh- and eighth-grade students with
disabilities. The teacher read stories aloud to students. In addition, the Reading A-Z
series included quizzes that provided the basis for discussion questions after the read-
aloud.
Observational Records
Observational records were taken on the Class Observation Form to document
instructional time. The start and stop times ofeach instructional session were recorded.
Written recordings that documented statements spoken by the teacher were made for
40
each instructional session. These statements were used to code specific rejoinder
statements or lack of rejoinder statements during the reading instruction.
Statistical Analysis Procedures
Two statistical procedures were employed to analyze data from this study. The
first was an analysis ofvariance (ANOYA) and the second was the Kruskal-Wallis.
Initially, a parametric statistic was used to analyze the overall reading score. It
was believed that the ANOYA was robust enough to overcome the many problems that
this study encountered around the (a) nature of the underlying scale on the CBMs, (b)
homogeneity ofvariance, (c) nonrandomized sampling, and (d) unequal and small
sample sizes. However, Trachtrnan, Giambalvo, and Dippner (1978) warned that
violations of anyone or a combination ofthose four assumptions could lead to errors in
the use ofparametric tests. Thus, a secondary nonparametric analysis was proposed.
As noted, that secondary analysis was a nonparametric statistic. Harwell (1988)
advised that data that has poor distributional characteristics (e.g., skewedness of
distribution and low sample size) should employ a nonparametric analysis. Because
this study suffered from those poor distributional characteristics, the Kruskal-Wallis
test, a nonparametric statistic, was used to analyze the data from the three groups.
Rationalization/or Using the Kruskal-Wallis
The Kruskal-Wallis test is most commonly used when there is one nominal
variable and one measurement variable, and the measurement variable does not meet
the normality assumption ofan ANOVA. It is the nonparametric analogue of a one-
41
way ANOVA. A one-way ANOVA may yield inaccurate estimates of the P-value
when the data are very far from normally distributed. The Kruskal-Wallis test does not
make assumptions about normality. Like most nonpararnetric tests, it is performed on
ranked data, so the measurement observations are converted to their ranks in the overall
data set: the smallest value gets a rank of 1, the next smallest gets a rank of 2, and so
on. Tied observations receive average ranks. Thus, if there were four identical values
occupying the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth smallest places, all would get a rank of
6.5. The loss of information involved in substituting ranks for the original values can
make this a less powerful test than an ANOVA, so the ANOVA should be used if the
data meet the assumptions. If the original data set actually consists of one nominal
variable and one ranked variable, the Kruskal-Wallis test should be used in place of an
ANOVA.
After summing the ranks for each group, the test statistic H is calculated. His
calculated by a formula that represents the variance of the ranks among groups, with an
adjustment for the number of ties. His approximately chi-square distributed, meaning
that the probability of getting a particular value ofHby chance, if the null hypothesis is
true, is the P-value corresponding to a chi-square equal to H. Finally, the degrees of
freedom are the number of groups minus 1.
42
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Participant Data
Table 1 includes demographic data of participants, Oregon Technology
Enhanced Statewide Assessment (TESA) scores from the spring of 2007, WIATword
identification (Word ID), and WIAT reading comprehension (Comp) scores.
Table 1. Characteristics a/Participants
ID Gender Grade Eligibility TESA- WIAT WIAT
Reading WardID Camp
Story- Mapping Group
1A M 8 90 231 5.3 5.1
2A M 8 90/50 207 3.2 3.6
3A M 8 90/80 230 5.2 5.3
4A M 8 90 229 5.1 5.6
SA M 8 90 212 4.6 3.1
6A M 8 90 219 3.2 5.2
7A M 8 90 214 3.8 4.1
8A M 7 90 220 3.8 4.5
9A M 7 90 n/s 3.5 4.1
207 - 3.1 -
Range 3.2 - 5.3
231 5.6
Median Score 219.50 3.80 4.50
Mean Score 220.25 4.19 4.51
Standard Deviation 9.04 0.87 0.85
43
Table 1. (Continued)
ID Gender Grade Eligibility TESA- WIAT WIAT
Reading WordID Comp
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group
IB M 7 90 222 4.2 5.1
2B F 8 90 231 4.8 5.1
3B F 8 90 225 2.1 2.3
4B M 7 90 213 2.1 2.9
5B M 7 90 222 3.5 4.5
6B F 7 90 217 5.1 5.5
7B F 8 90/70/50 218 4.1 4.2
8B M 7 90 231 5.7 6.1
9B M 8 90/50 218 3.1 4.3
lOB M 7 90/50 222 3.7 4.5
lIB M 8 90 225 4.1 4.1
Range
213 - 2.3 -
231 2.1- 5.7 6.1
Median Score 222.00 4.10 4.50
Mean Score 222.18 3.86 4.42
Standard Deviation 5.64 1.14 1.09
Comparison Group
1C F 7 90 n/s 3.5 3.1
2C M 7 90 n/s 3.5 3.2
3C M 7 90 222 3.6 4.1
4C M 7 90 196 3.8 3.9
5C F 8 90 230 5.1 6.1
6C F 7 90/50 217 3.1 4.1
7C F 8 90 223 5.1 5.2
8C M 7 90/50 207 3.4 3.7
9C F 8 90 221 3.6 3.2
10C M 7 90 211 3.1 3.2
llC F 8 90 231 2.1 3.1
Range
207 - 3.1-
231 2.1 - 5.1 6.1
Median Score 221.00 3.50 3.70
Mean Score 217.56 3.63 3.90
Standard Deviation 11.27 0.86 0.97
44
Differences Among Groups on the Overall Reading Total and Subtest Scores
Prior to presenting any statistical analysis, I will provide the means and
standard deviations for results ofthe Ea.syCBM (a) overall reading test, (b) literal
subtest, (c) inferential subtest, and (d) evaluative subtest. Table 2 provides the
complete descriptive statistics for the test and subtests, including minimum and
maximum scores.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for All Comprehension Measures Split by Group
Count Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.
EasyCBM Result Detail
Reading Total
Comparison 11 105.27 31.16 60.00 161.00
Story Mapping 9 109.00 31.89 69.00 149.00
Story MappingIRejoinder 11 126.55 26.32 77.00 158.00
Literal Subtest Total
Comparison 11 39.18 1121 27.00 59.00
Story Mapping 9 40.89 12.59 27.00 61.00
Story MappingIRejoinder 11 49.18 10.36 27.00 59.00
Inferential Subtest Total
Comparison 11 37.18 11.19 22.00 55.00
Story Mapping 9 37.33 11.26 22.00 53.00
Story MappingIRejoinder 11 42.64 9.97 23.00 54.00
Evaluative Subtest Total
Comparison 11 28.91 10.58 11.00 47.00
Story Mapping 9 30.78 9.24 19.00 42.00
Story MappingIRejoinder 11 34.73 8.09 17.00 46.00
The next section presents an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the overall
reading scores. Differences in the overall scores for the Comparison Group, the Story-
--------------
45
Mapping Group, and the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group were nonsignificant,p = .22,
as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. ANOVA Table for Reading Total Split by Group
DF SS MS F-Value P-Value
Group Reading Totals
Group 2 2793.80 1396.90 1.58 0.22
Residual 28 24768.91 884.60
Means Table for Reading Total
Count Mean Std Dev.
Comparison 11 105.27 31.16
Story Mapping 9 109.00 31.89
Story Mapping/Rejoinder 11 126.55 26.32
Retrospective Power Analysis
A retrospective power analysis was conducted on this ANOVA. The power
analysis revealed a 30% probability of correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis.
Considering that the commonly accepted power for a study is 80% or greater, the low
power can be attributed to (a) lack of directional hypothesis, (d) small sample size, (c)
measurement error, and/or (d) low effect size.
46
Importantly, this power analysis also calculated what an acceptable sample size
should be if this study were to be conducted again. The required sample size was 28 for
each subgroup compared to the actual participant group numbers of 11, 9, and 11.
This next section reanalyzes the overall scores and subtest scores, using the
Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test.
Differences Among Groups on the Overall Reading Score
The Kruskal-Wallis test for the overall reading score determined whether there
was a significant difference in median scores for the three groups. Results of that
analysis indicated a nonsignificant difference, with a tied p = O.23.The Story-Mapping
Group had a mean rank of 14.17, the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group had a mean rank
of 19.77, and the Comparison Group had a mean rank of 13.73. See Table 4 for
complete statistics.
47
Table 4. Differences Among Groups on Overall Reading Score
Kruskal-Wallis Test/or Overall Score
DF
# Groups
# Ties
H
P-Value
H corrected for ties
Tied P-Value
Kruskal-Wallis Rank for Overall Score
Comparison Group
Story-Mapping Group
Story-Mapping !Rejoinder Group
2
3
8
2.95
0.23
2.95
0.23
Count
11
9
11
Sum Ranks
151.00
127.50
217.50
Mean Rank.
13.73
14.17
19.77
Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension Questions
The Kruskal-Wallis test for the literal comprehension subtest determined
whether there was a significant difference in median scores for the three groups.
Results of that analysis indicated a nonsignificant difference, with a tied p = 0.17.The
Story-Mapping Group had a mean rank of 14.22, the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
had a mean rank of20.09, and the Comparison Group had a mean rank of 13.36. See
Table 5 for complete statistics.
48
Table 5. Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension Questions
Kruskal-Wallis Testfor Literal Comprehension
DF 2
# Groups 3
# Ties 8
H 3.50
P-Value 0.17
H corrected for ties 3.51
Tied P-Value 0.17
Kruskal-Wallis Rank for Literal Comprehension
Sum Mean
Count Ranks Rank
Comparison Group 11 147.00 13.36
Story-Mapping Group 9 128.00 14.22
Story-Mapping !Rejoinder Group 11 221.00 20.09
Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension Questions
For the EasyCBM inferential questions, the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted
to determine whether there was a significant difference in median scores of three
groups. Results showed a nonsignificant difference, tied p = 0.43. The Story-Mapping
Group had a mean rank of 14.44, the Story-Mapping!Rejoinder Group had a mean rank
of 18.86, and the Comparison Group had a mean rank of 14.41. See Table 6 for
complete statistics.
49
Table 6. Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension Questions
Kruskal-Wallis Testfor Inferential Comprehension
DF 2
# Groups 3
# Ties 6
H 1.69
P-Value 0.43
H corrected for ties 1.70
Tied P-Value 0.43
Kruskal-Wallis Rank for Inferential Total
Sum Mean
Count Ranks Rank
Comparison Group 11 158.50 14.41
Story-Mapping Group 9 130.00 14.44
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group 11 207.50 18.86
Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension Questions
As with the two previous analyses, a nonparametric analysis was used to assess
student scores from the EasyCBM evaluative questions. The Kruskal-Wallis test
indicated a nonsignificant difference between the three groups, tiedp = 0.35.The Story-
Mapping Group had a mean rank of 15.17, the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group had a
mean rank of 19.09, and the Comparison Group had a mean rank of 13.59. See Table 7
for complete statistics.
50
Table 7. Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension Questions
Kruskal- Wallis Test for Evaluative Comprehension
DF 2
# Groups 3
# Ties 5
H 2.12
P-Value 0.35
H corrected for ties 2.13
Tied P-Value 0.35
Kruskal-Wallis Rank for Evaluative Comprehension
Count Sum Ranks Mean Rank
Comparison Group 11 149.50 13.59
Story-Mapping Group 9 136.50 15.17
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group 11 210.00 19.09
Differences Among Groups on the Oregon Statewide Assessment
For reasons detailed in the EasyCBM results, a nonparametric analysis was
used to evaluate the scores on the Oregon Statewide Assessment sample test. The
Kruskal-Wallis test showed a nonsignificant difference, tied p = 0.31, between the
three groups. The Story-Mapping Group had a mean rank of 13.89, the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group had a mean rank of 19.36, and the Comparison Group had a
mean rank of 14.36. See Table 8 for complete statistics.
51
Table 8. Differences Among Groups on the Oregon Statewide Assessment
Kruskal-Wallis Test/or OSAT
DF 2
# Groups 3
# Ties 8
H 2.35
P-Value 0.31
H corrected for ties 2.36
Tied P-Value 0.31
Kruskal-Wallis Rank for OSAT
Count Sum Ranks Mean Rank
Comparison Group 11 158.00 14.36
Story-Mapping Group 9 125.00 13.89
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group 11 213.00 19.36
Differences Between Groups on Study Skills Perception
Closed-ended survey results. Students in the Story-Mapping and the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group completed the Study Skills Checklist. The checklist was a
survey of their perceptions around their learned study skills. The first question was
about assignment completion. While only three ofthe nine students in the Story-
Mapping Group reported better assignment completion, 9 of the 11 in the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group thought they had been better at this task. Score range
increased by 3.0 points in this group, and the mean increased by 4.4 points over time in
the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group, while the Story-Mapping Group's range
52
increased by 2.0 points and the mean increased by 1.1 points over time. See Table 9 for
complete details.
The second question on the Study Skills Checklist referred to student attitude.
All 11 of the students from the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group students reported
better attitudes about school assignments. Specifically, they rated themselves high in
the area of being more organized and producing clear, neat, and complete assignments,
as well as showing thought and effort in their coursework. All students in this group
were reading more and demonstrating their knowledge of text in their language arts
classes, as disclosed by teachers at conferences. The student scores in the attitude
section increased by 2.1 points over time. At the same time, only 4 of the 9 students in
the Story-Mapping Group reported an increase in positive attitudes towards reading
assignments, with no changes in their language arts organization or completion of
tasks. The Story-Mapping Group had a mean increase of 1.3 points over time in
attitude. See Table 9 for details.
Questions on organization from the checklist produced higher scores by 8 of
the 11 students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group, as compared to only 4 of the 9
students in the Story-Mapping Group. The Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group increased
its mean score over time by 2.0 points, while the range increased by 3.0 points. The
Story-Mapping Group's organization mean increased by 1.3 points, while its range of
scores increased by 3.0 points. Again, see Table 9.
The last set of Study Skills Checklist questions reviewed use ofclass time,
asking about independent work, work completion, appropriate participation during
class discussions, and listening to teachers and peers. All 11 students in the Story-
53
MappinglRejoinder Group reported improvement at the end of the study. Mean scores
for the Story-MappinglRejoinder students increased by 3.3 points over time. Only four
of the nine students in the Story-Mapping Group reported improvement in use ofclass
time. Mean scores for this group increased by 2.3 points over time. See Table 9 for
complete student scores.
Table 9. Study Skills Checklist Results
Storv-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group N= 11
Mean Range Standard
Deviation
Story-Mapping Group
N=9
Mean Range Standard
Deviation
Assignments
Pretest 19.4 15-24 3.01 16.6 10-22 3.41
Postiest 23.7 15-27 3.32 17.7 15-24 3.73
Attitude
Pretest 11.7 10-13 0.90 10.3 6-13 2.32
Postiest 13.8 13-15 0.60 11.6 8-15 3.06
Organization
Pretest 8.5 8-9 0.52 8.7 8-10 0.67
Postiest 10.5 8-12 1.29 10.1 8-13 1.94
Use of Class Time
Pretest 20.3 15-22 1.95 16.1 15-17 0.88
Postiest 23.6 20-25 1.57 18.4 15-24 3.43
54
Open-ended survey results. In the open-ended student Self-Assessment Survey
questions about use of story maps resulted in 7 of the 11 Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group students writing more than two sentences describing the use of the story map, its
elements, and how it might help one as a reader or writer. In comparison, 7 of the 9
Story-Mapping Group members gave brief details of less than one sentence about the
functional use of story maps, and many did not include all seven elements in their
answer. Students were asked to (a) explain what a story map was, (b) tell when they
might use a story map, (c) describe the elements of the story map, (d) tell how a story
map could help their writing, and (e) tell how a story map would help them write.
In response to the five questions asked in the Student Self-Assessment Survey,
the students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group responded with two sentences or
more about what a story map is. Students in this group reported that (a) story maps
helped put ideas in order before writing or reading; (b) story maps helped with
describing the setting, plot, characters, problems, and solutions; (c) story maps
provided students with a better understanding of the books or story; and (d) story maps
helped the student keep track of ideas about the reading. Students in this group stated:
"Story maps help you understand things you might not understand just because it is
more organized." In sharp contrast, the students in the Story-Mapping Group added,
"You could tell someone a story from the map. You could name the characters and the
place the story happened. The map is like a web." Students in the Story-Mapping
Group were unclear about how a story map could help a person in reading or writing.
55
Differences Between Groups for Story Mapping
Students who were in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group wrote twice as much
as the students in the Story-Mapping Group on their story maps. Students in the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group wrote more descriptive details about the story grammar
elements (i.e., action and events, characters, setting and time, problem or plot,
resolution). An example from the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group included the rich
detail about the French king who wanted to take money, land, or harvested crops from
the poor peasants who lived on the land. The nine students in the Story-Mapping Group
with the same question would respond by saying something similar to the following
statement, "The king was rich and wanted all the poor people's stuff." The lack of
details in the Story-Mapping Groups oral discussions did not provide adequate
descriptions about the place or characters or provide ideas for further discussion within
the group. Additionally, the Story-Mapping Group struggled with completing all of the
story elements for each of the story maps prepared after class discussions. Students
from the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group were able to fill in 90% of the story map
with good to excellent details, as evidenced by the extra points they each received for
detailed description of the story grammar elements. Mean scores ranged from a low
score of 0.8 in goal related to problem to a high mean score of 1.4 in descriptive extra
points.
Similarly, the Story-Mapping Group responded by providing only limited
information for each of the story map elements, with only one person in the group able
to fill out the story map in entirety by filling in all of the elements of the map. Students
from the Story-Mapping Group routinely used only one or two words to name a person
56
or place with little or no additional description of the story elements. Areas that
presented the most difficulty to this group included the goal related to the problem,
with a 0.3 posttest mean score, and setting and time, with a 0.6 posttest mean score.
Mean scores for the Story-Mapping Group ranged from a low score of 0.1 in
descriptive extra points to 0.9 in characters and problem. See Table 10 for descriptive
statistics.
Teacher Use of Rejoinder Questions
Teacher Lesson Activation Forms tracked the teacher's use of rejoinder
questioning strategies during every class for the Story-Mapping Group and the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group. Table 10 and the following two paragraphs break down the
Teacher Lesson Activation Form's descriptive statistics for the two groups.
--- -------------------------
57
Table 10. Story-Mapping Descriptive Statistics
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Story-Mapping Group
Group
Elements of Story Mean Range Mean Range
Mapping
ActionlEvents
Pretest 0.7 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 1.0 1-1 0.8 0-1
Characters
Pretest 0.6 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 1.0 1-1 0.9 0-1
Setting
Pretest 0.6 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 1.0 1-1 0.8 0-1
Time
Pretest 0.6 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 1.0 1-1 0.6 0-1
Problem
Pretest 0.7 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 0.9 0-1 0.9 0-1
Goal Related to Problem
Pretest 0.5 0-1 0.2 0-1
Posttest 0.8 0-1 0.3 0-1
Resolution
Pretest 0.5 0-1 0.5 0-1
Posttest 1.0 1-1 0.8 0-1
Descriptive Extra Points
Pretest 0.8 0-1 0.1 0-1
Posttest 1.4 1-3 0.1 0-1
58
Use ofRejoinder Questions in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
Ofthe 71 rejoinder questions asked ofthis group, 20% were null rejoinder
questions, where no facial expression occurred with the response from students. The
mean score was 1.0 for the null rejoinder. An evaluative response, which judged the
students' response with a statement ofpositive reinforcement, occurred 26% ofthe
time. Example statements that reinforced positively were as follows: "I like your
thinking. You are on the right track. Great ideas. You must listen carefully to be able to
answer my questions so well." These statements encouraged students to be confident in
their oral discussion (Hall, 1993; Weber & Shake, 1988). The mean score was 1.4 for
the evaluative response. The teacher repeated or rephrased questions or answers 19%
ofthe time. The mean score was 1.3 for repeat/rephrase. The elaborate or embellish
student rejoinder response occurred 22% of the questioning time and had a mean score
of 1.1. The teacher demonstrated the most difficulty with incorporating the correction
rejoinder. In this instance, if students were wrong with an answer, the teacher told them
they were inaccurate in their thinking and led with more questions to the answer that
was correct. The correction response occurred only 11% of the overall discussion time,
as most students understood the questions and gave answers considered correct. The
mean score was 0.6 for the correction response. When the teacher used the rejoinder
questioning strategies that evaluated, repeated, and rephrased student answers, the
responses were about 75% more descriptive and informative of background knowledge
or prior experiences.
59
Use ofRejoinder Questions in the Story-Mapping Group
For the Story-Mapping Group, only rejoinder questions that focused on literal
information were asked. Questions included when and where the story took place, or
what time the story took place, or why something specific happened. The teacher did
not embellish, elaborate, repeat, or rephrase responses for this group to review. The
teacher did request more information and sometimes acted curious about the student
responses. Ofthe 100 questions asked of this group over the course of the ten sessions,
a few times the teacher gave an evaluative response to the Story-Mapping Group by
telling a student his or her response was a good response, and that rejoinder-type
response had a mean score of 0.3 over time. The teacher did not correct any student
responses but instead skipped to another student for the correct answer. See Table 11
for descriptive statistics.
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics for Teacher Rejoinder Questions
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Story-Mapping Group
Group
Rejoinder Type Mean Range Mean Range
Null Rejoinder 1.0 1-1 0.0 0-0
Evaluative Response 1.4 0-2 0.3 0-1
Repeat/Rephrase 1.3 1-3 0.3 0-1
ElaboratelEmbellish 1.1 0-2 0.0 0-0
Correction 0.6 0-2 0.0 0-0
60
Visually Analyzing Group Differences
Differences Among Groups on Literal Comprehension Questions
In the next section, results from this study are shown using box plot graphs for
visual inspection. The box plot for literal questions in Figure 1 demonstrates that with
more students, significant differences might have occurred in reading comprehension
results when using story mapping and teacher rejoinder-questioning strategies.
65,-----------j----------------,
60
--
I
55
50
45
40
35
30
•25 +--------------.---------------'-
Literal Total
Figure J. Box plot for literal questions.
'1 Comparison
.:J StoryM~ping
"0 Slorymtpping_Repinder
61
Table 12. Percentiles for Literal Comprehension Scores Split by Group
Groups
10th
%tile
25th
%tile
50th
%tile
75th
%tile
90th
%tile
Comparison Group 28.20 29.50 39.00 45.00 57.80
Story-Mapping Group 27.40 28.00 41.00 51.25 58.60
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
33.00 42.75 54.00 57.50 59.00
Group
Table 12 shows that the 10th percentile scores for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group is higher than the 25th percentile scores for the Story-Mapping Group and
Comparison Group. Further, the 50th percentile score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group is higher than the 75th percentile score for the Story-Mapping Group and the
Comparison Group. Finally, the 90th percentile score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group is higher than either the Story-Mapping Group or the Comparison Group. See
Figure 1 and Table 12 for complete percentile scores.
Differences Among Groups on Inferential Comprehension Questions
The box plot for the inferential questions in Figure 2 demonstrates greater
inferential scores in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group than in the other two groups.
Table 13 shows that the 10th percentile score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
is higher than either the Story-Mapping Group or the Comparison Group. The 25th
62
percentile score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the 50th
percentile score for the Story-Mapping Group and the Comparison Group. Further, the
75th percentile score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the other
two groups' 75th percentile scores. Finally, the 90th percentile score for the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the Story-Mapping Group's 90th percentile
score. In practical terms, the elevated percentile scores for the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group represents an educational potential with a larger population
of LD students. See Figure 2 and Table 13 for complete percentile scores.
60 -,------------+--------------,
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
---1I-
-
'-- •
T
•
71 Comp,l'ison
.!l StOI)' M~pDlg
'iJ SIOlYIl~)PUlg_ RejJulder
20 -'----------------r---------~
Inferential Total
Figure 2, Box plot for inferential questions.
63
Table 13. Percentiles for Inferential Comprehension Scores Split by Group
Groups
Comparison Group
Story-Mapping Group
Story-MappingIRejoinder Group
10th
%tile
22.00
24.40
25.40
25th
%tile
30.75
28.75
39.00
50th
%tile
37.00
34.00
44.00
75th
%tile
43.75
47.50
49.75
90th
%tile
55.00
52.60
52.80
Differences Among Groups on Evaluative Comprehension Questions
The scores for the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group were only slightly higher
than the Story-Mapping or Comparison Group, as demonstrated by the box plot for
evaluative questions in Figure 3. Additionally, Table 14 displays the 10th percentile
score for the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group as higher than the 25th percentile score
for the Story-Mapping Group and the Comparison Group. Further, the 50th percentile
score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the score for the Story-
Mapping Group and the Comparison Group. Within the 75th percentile, the score for
the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the score for the Story-Mapping
Group or Comparison Group. Finally, the 90th percentile score for the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group is higher than the Story-Mapping Group, with the
Comparison Group being higher than the other two groups. Study limitations may have
had a greater effect on the Comparison Group scores. In practical terms, the results
demonstrate an educational potential when teachers use story mapping and rejoinder
64
questions as instructional strategies for increasing evaluative reading comprehension.
See Figure 3 and Table 14 for complete score details.
50,---------------------------r
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
- ~
-
'--
-~-
T
I Compa'~on
.J Story Mllpping
'71 StorYIl1<1lPing_Rejoinder
10 -+-. ---....::..------------------------'-
Evaluative Total
Figure 3. Box plot for evaluative questions.
Table 14. Percentiles for Evaluative Comprehension Scores Split by Group
Groups 10th %tile 25th %tile 50th %tile 75th %tile 90th %tile
15.20 22.50 28.00 34.25 45.20
Comparison Group
Story-Mapping Group 19.40 20.75 32.00 39.25 41.20
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
24.20 29.25 36.00 40.00 43.00
Group
65
Differences Among Groups on the OSAT Sample Test
All groups completed the OSAT sample test at the beginning of the study as
part of the regular baseline assessment required by the middle school for seventh- and
eighth- grade students. Students also completed the OSAT for comparative analysis.
Although no significant differences from pretesting to posttesting among the groups
occurred, scores within the groups increased over time for the two experimental
groups. On the posttest, Table 15 shows that the 10th percentile score for the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group was higher than either the Story-Mapping or the
Comparison Group. The 25th percentile score for the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group
was also higher than the score for either the Story-Mapping or the Comparison Group.
In the 50th percentile, the score for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group was higher
than the story mapping or Comparison Group. In the 75th percentile, scores for the
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group were higher than the 90th percentile scores for either
the Story-Mapping Group or the Comparison Group. The scores in the Comparison
Group decreased over time, possibly from a decrease in reading comprehension
interest. The increase among the experimental groups demonstrates that with more
students, a larger educational difference over time may occur among groups. The box
plot in Figure 4 demonstrates the educational growth for students in the Story-Mapping
Group and the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group. See Table 15 for descriptions of
percentile scores.
66
260 ,.-----~---------~----,-
250
240
230
220
210
200
..!J COllll<T1son
iii Story M",ping
..!.I Sloryn",>ping_Rg>'ldtr
•190 -'-- ---------_---------L
OSAT Pre OSAT Post
Figure 4. Box plot for OSAT pretest ys. posttest.
Table 15. Percentilesfor OSAT Split by Group
10th %tile 25th %tile 50th %tile 75th %tile 90th %tile
Pre and Post Groups
Pre-OSAT 213.6 218.25 223 224.5 229.2Comparison Group
Pre-OSAT 197.6 205.25 216 221.5 227.8Story-Mapping Group
Pre-OSAT
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder 213.2 214.5 223 223 242.4
Group
Post-OSAT 215.2 218.75 223 227.5 233.4Comparison Group
Post-OSAT 200 212.75 219 231.75 238.8Story-Mapping Group
Post-OSAT
Story-MappinglRejoinder 215.2 220 231 246 257
Group
67
Differences Among Groups on Study Skills Checklist
Table 16 shows the 10th percentile posttest score for the Story-
MappinglRejoinder Group was higher than the 25th percentile score for either the
Story-Mapping Group or the Comparison Group on the Study Skills Checklist. The
25th percentile score for the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group was higher than the 50th
percentile for either the Story-Mapping Group or the Comparison Group. FUlther, both
the 75th and 90th percentile scores for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group were
higher than either the Story-Mapping Group or Comparison Group on this checklist.
See Figure 5 and Table 16 for complete details.
~t-
t¥C:JTE
•-~
L...
L...
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
Study Skills Checklist Pre Study Skills Checklist Post
.21 Co~a'roll
"iii Story M,,>ping
'i1 Sloryrrq>polg_Rt1JDldcr
Figure 5. Box plots for Study Skills Checklist pre vs. post
· ._- _.. ----_._--------------
68
Table 16. Percentiles/or Study Skills Checklist Split by Group
10th %tile 25th %tile 50th %tile 75th %tile 90th %tile
Study Skills Checklist pre- 60.40 61.00 64.00 66.00 67.20
survey Comparison Group
Study Skills Checklist pre-
survey Story-Mapping 36.40 55.75 64.00 68.50 77.20
Group
Study Skills Checklist pre-
survey Story-Mapping/ 59.80 70.00 74.00 77.75 79.40
Rejoinder Group
Study Skills Checklist pre- 60.00 60.75 65.00 66.00 67.20
survey Comparison Group
Study Skills Checklist pre-
survey Story-Mapping 44.60 56.00 63.00 66.00 72.60
Group
Study Skills Checklist pre-
survey Story-Mapping/
Rejoinder Group
64.80 71.25 74.00 77.75 78.40
Students and Story-Mapping Details
Table 17 shows that the 10th percentile scores for Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group post-scores were higher than the Story-Mapping Group. In the 25th percentile,
the scores were higher for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group than the Story-Mapping
Group.
69
10-,-----~---------~--------,-
9
8.
6 r;:- SlOry Ml1lllu1g
ro- SIOIYIl~IlUlg_ Repill(lo·
Story M",Soore Pre
Figure 6. Box plot for story map scores.
St OIY Ml1l Soore Post
Table 17. Percentiles for StOfY Map Scores Split by Group
Groups 10th %tile 25th %tile 50th %tile 75th %tile 90th %tile
Story-Mapping Group
2.40 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.60
Pre: Story-mapping score
Story-Mapping/Rejoinder
Group 2.60 4.25 5.00 5.00 6.40
Pre: Story-mapping score
Story-Mapping Group
2.40 3.00 4.00 5.25 6.00
Post: Story-mapping score
Story-Mapping /Rejoinder
Group 4.60 5.25 6.00 7.50 9.00
Post: Story-mapping score
70
In the 75th percentile, scores were higher for the Story-MappinglRejoinder
Group than the Story-Mapping Group. Finally, in the 90th percentile, the score was
higher for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group than the Story-Mapping Group. These
results are another indication that with more LD students, there might be a greater
educational benefit and significant difference among groups with the use of story maps
and teacher rejoinder-questioning strategies. See Figure 6 and Table 17 for details.
Summary ofFindings
The results of the study showed no significant difference among groups for LD
students when using story maps and teacher rejoinder questions. However, my results
suggest that a possible educational difference might exist for these students using the
described strategies for reading comprehension if (a) my study had more participants or
(b) I repeat the study later. Furthermore, the study indicated that students perceived
improvements in their academic skills, assignment completion, school attitude,
organization, and use of class time.
---- --------
71
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study explored the combined use of story maps and teacher rejoinder
questions on reading comprehension scores for middle school students with learning
disabilities. The discussion that follows summarizes the differences in scores between
the (a) Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group, (b) the Story-Mapping Group, and (c) the
Comparison Group on the OSAT sample test and in literal, inferential, and evaluative
comprehension questions from the EasyCBM. Demographic data was included for
comparison of all participants in the study. EasyCBM details for reading overall totals
and individual subtotals in the areas of literal, inferential, and evaluative scores can be
compared. Although statistical analysis using both ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis
nonparametric tests revealed nonsignificant differences between the three groups
scores, a visual analysis of group differences presented by box plots indicated a
possible educational benefit and thus lends itself to discussion. First, box plots
demonstrate visual differences for both pretest and posttest scores from the sample
OSAT. Second, student survey results illustrate the students' perspective of success
over the course of the study. Finally, visual inspection of box plots and percentiles
presents the educational benefit for students who participated in Story-Mapping Group
discussions with teacher rejoinder questions. Prior to these discussions, however, I
72
believe it is important to provide a context for thinking about this study's results, and
describing the study's limitations is a necessity.
Study Limitations
Limitations of the study include selectivity bias for student selection, research
history of participants, alternative interpretations for the outcome, as well as internal
and external validity threats that decrease generalization outcomes. Consideration of
each limitation is relevant because any single limitation could be detrimental to the
outcome results. Of these, two main limitations were selectivity bias and research
history bias.
Selectivity Bias
A small number of special education students were selected and presorted into
three groups for reading instruction. Because students came from pre-established teams
with given times to see the special education teacher, the special education group
makeup for each team was administratively prearranged. The selection of students
might confound the results ofthe study. In other words, this was not a random selection
of students placed on teams. Instead, the three teams grouped the students needing
special education support (selection threat) at a specific time of day for their
individualized instruction.
Another selection bias occurs when students discover they are in a study; the
students may display different attitudes towards a specific subject because of this
knowledge. This validity threat is described as the Hawthorne effect in the research
73
literature (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The students in the study knew about their
selection for the study, but not the group to which they would be assigned. This
selection variable is not measurable because there are no pretests to measure the study
attitude variable, and therefore there is no information to report for the possible
differences between the groups in the study. The study attitude variable may have a
positive or negative effect on the study results, and it must be considered a limitation.
The team that made up the Story-Mapping Group had 9 students of the 120-
student team who needed individualized instruction from special educators in the area
of reading or writing. The Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group had 11 students out of the
125-student team who needed reading or writing support from specialists. The
Comparison Group of 11 students who needed reading or writing support from
specialists came from the third team of 110 students. The three groups of special
education students were distributed equally on teams due to their predetermined needs
levels. The age range was between 12 years and 14 years old for the 31 seventh- and
eighth-grade students in the study.
Research History
The research history of the participants was a second limitation. In other words,
a difference in the participants' research history occurred simultaneously with the
treatment. This history, not the actual treatment, may have caused the outcome. There
were two main differences for the three groups. First, the Comparison Group had a
different special education teacher for the study than the Story-Mapping Group or
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group. Second, the class interruptions caused by
74
conferences, holidays, band rehearsals, school plays, teacher in-service days, snow
days, Oregon statewide testing, and student illness caused subject area teachers to
revise their day-to-day schedules in order to make up content area class time. This
change affected all special education students, each team at a different time. The
schedule change caused special education students to miss resource classes for three to
four days, particularly around the holidays, in order to make up content area class
times. More time in content area classes with less direct instruction might have had an
impact on the study, either positively or negatively. Additionally, a student's affinity
for his or her specific team, peers, and teachers may have had an impact either positive
or negatively on the study. An example would be relationship building as a provision
by one team and not the other team. Some of the students with disabilities reported that
they liked their team teachers and class friends, while other students described their
relationship with the team as "not fitting in" with their friends. Each of these specific
types of relationships or nonrelationships one must consider as having either positive
or negative effects on the study.
Instrumentation ofAssessments and Observations
A fmal internal validity threat may have been the instrumentation of both class
assessments and observations. Using an assessment instrument multiple times may
have caused changes in scores due to student familiarity. Repeat performance may
have caused students to gain knowledge about the posttest from taking the pretest. A
potential limitation to consider was the decrease or increase in student performance.
This study did not use an observation of fidelity tool; instead, only teacher report was
75
used. Class observation by a trained observer may have also reflected more growth
because the observer may have expected something to happen. Class observation may
have produced either a positive or a negative effect, depending on the observer's
expectations, and may have produced limitations for the study (Gall, et aI., 1996).
Can the student with learning disabilities be helped by story mapping with
rejoinder questioning strategies anywhere, or is this a result of the specific targeted
population in the study? Several factors that may have influenced generalizability of
the study included students ofdiffering abilities, socioeconomic status, gender,
extraversion-introversion personalities, and anxiety levels (Gall, et al., 1996).Each of
these factors may have affected the outcome ofthe study either positively or
negatively, and each threat must be considered.
Review ofFindings
The results from this study did not support the original hypothesis that story
mapping and teacher rejoinder-questioning strategies would produce significantly
better literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension scores for LD students. The
literal comprehension scores between the three groups demonstrated a tied p = 0.17
value, which reflected a nonsignificant difference between the groups. The inferential
comprehension scores between the three groups resulted in another nonsignificant
difference, with a tied p = 0.43 value. The last score between the three groups on
evaluative testing reported a nonsignificant difference with a tiedp = 0.35 value. The
statistical [mdings in this study are not consistent with prior research indicating that
teacher rejoinder questions and story maps increased comprehension scores, although
--------------------
76
the question remains unanswered with larger groups ofLD students (Hunkins, 1989;
Pressley, 2003; Raphael & McKinney, 1983; Weber & Shake, 1988).
Teacher Questioning
Unlike Hunkins' (1989), who described questioning as the integral part of
student's procedural knowledge, I found no significant differences between the Story-
Mapping Group and the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group. However, I noticed that
students gained skills in answering questions about the narrative stories read aloud in
class as demonstrated by the increase in description and volume of answered questions.
This finding is puzzling, considering that other researchers (Ezell, Hunsicker, Quinque,
& Randolph, 1996; Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, & Strain, 1992; Raphael, 1984; Weber &
Shake, 1988) used teacher questions as a comprehension prompt (as did the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group). It could be that prompting is level specific, as found by
Raphael and McKinney's (1983) study. Their results indicated that fifth-grade students
(elementary) found prompting to use their knowledge ofquestion-answer relationship
helpful, but eighth-grade students (middle school) did not. In that regard, my findings
mirrored the second part ofRaphael and McKinney's study. Furthermore, these grade-
level differences could not be attributed to differences in rejoinder-type questions
asked by the teacher because I used the Teacher Lesson Activation Form, which
addressed differences in rejoinder-type questions. Remember, Weber and Shake (1988)
demonstrated that teachers predominantly favored the null rejoinder and that different
types of rejoinders contributed differently to the reading comprehension lessons.
Pressley (2003) made the most significant report with evidence that explanatory
77
responses to questions as part ofa learning group increase learning for those who are
explaining the question. Furthermore, students who predicted the content of upcoming
text by responding to pre-reading questions displayed relevant learning of text
materials. Students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group often explained the teacher
or peer questions to the class with their predictions of what could happen next in the
story. The 11 students in this group all actively participated in making predictions and
story comparisons, while students in the other groups did not engage in the lesson in
the same manner.
Reading Comprehension Scores
The following discussion presents the differences among groups for the three
comprehension components measured in the study by the EasyCBM and OSAT sample
test: (a) differences among groups on literal comprehension questions on the
EasyCBM, (b) differences among groups on inferential comprehension EasyCBM
questions, (c) differences among groups in EasyCBM evaluative comprehension
scores, and (d) differences in scores among groups on the OSAT sample test.
Differences Among Groups on Comprehension Questions
While there was no significant difference among groups, it is likely that with
more students in the group, the average score between those who received instruction
in story mapping with teacher rejoinder-questioning strategies and those who did could
show a greater difference. Results from the EasyCBM scores indicated an average of 5
correct answers out of7literal comprehension questions by the Story-
78
Mapping/Rejoinder Group. On the other hand, the Story-Mapping Group's and the
Comparison Group's average score of3.5 correct answers out ofthe 7 questions per
test suggests a difference. The 1.5 mean difference suggests that teacher rejoinder
questions with story maps influenced students in their search for literal information.
While there were no significantly different scores, probably due to low sample size, a
visual inspection of the group scores provides a glimmer of educational significance.
Hunkins (1989) reported that students were influenced by teacher rejoinder
questions, and the box plots representing student story-mapping details in this study
suggested an educational benefit during narrative questioning for the students.
Therefore, teacher questioning that promotes the stimulation of recall ideas, as well as
inference and evaluation of text, are a needed area ofongoing study. Research by
Durkin (1978-1979) indicated that when students answered the question with an invalid
response, often teachers moved on in the text to the next question without review for
the students who had incorrectly responded to the questions. Yet in another study,
questioning strategies increased student confidence and stimulated prior knowledge
(Stahl, 2004), which was similar to the reports that students believed there was an
increase in their knowledge even if the questions they answered were not correct.
Students reported that if their answers were not correct, the teacher would help them
find the correct answer by restating the question or providing facts that could initiate a
different answer to the question.
Students who were in the Story-Mapping Group struggled with answering the
questions to narratives after the oral read-aloud. When they answered questions,
students in this group were unable to provide details or description during the class
79
discussion. Student responses to teacher questions were "I guess so," "yes," " no," or "I
don't know." On the other hand, the students in the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group
answered the same questions with detail and description about the story elements.
Additionally, students from the Story-MappinglRejoinder group asked questions for
clarification and tried to respond to questions regardless of the difficulty leveL Students
in the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group responded much like the Story-Mapping Group
during the initial part of the study. The more the teacher used the rejoinder questioning
strategies with the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group, the better the students became at
answering the questions with detail, description, and organization of ideas about the
content of the narrative stories discussed in class.
My findings showed that many ofthe students in the Story-Mapping Group
responded similarly to the elementary students in the research ofRichards and
Anderson (2003), where elementary students were unable to deduce information from
one segment of the text to the next and could not integrate implied information in other
parts of the story. Although students from the Story-Mapping Group in this study were
not as young as the Richards and Anderson readers, they still demonstrated similar
difficulties. While Dewitz and Dewitz (2003) reported that emerging readers
experienced problems due to lack of syntactical knowledge or a limited vocabulary, it
can also be said that the struggling reader displays similar characteristics.
Both types ofreaders, struggling and emergent, have poorly developed
reasoning abilities, a lack ofprior knowledge for story content, or an overdependence
on prior knowledge that causes them to invent credible but incorrect answers
(Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003; Neuman, 1990; Suh & Trabasso,
80
1993). The lack of each of these necessary reading skills contributes to creating barriers
to comprehension. While the research of Cooper, Chard, and Kiger (2006) suggested
that the use of a predicting strategy set a purpose for reading, helped students read
between the lines in text, and increased student engagement in reading, it appears that
the story map with rejoinder questions contributed to that sense of purpose for the
study group. Perhaps rejoinder questions that embellished, restated, or rephrased the
student's response set the stage for reading by activating prior knowledge or
background experiences that stimulated the student's ability to find literal information,
determine inferences, and evaluate text. In essence, readers from the study constructed
text meaning through text information and background knowledge just as they did in
the findings of Beck and McKeown (1987). Their study suggested that rejoinder
questions may increase the level of background knowledge and thus discussion among
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group students. Many students in the study engaged in the
story discussion, while other students participated in the descriptions ofcharacters,
details of time, place, events, and problems. Ongoing classroom discussions with the
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group stimulated answers that were of an inferential and
evaluative nature about the characters, time and place ofnarrative, and problem and
resolution for the story. Finally, Pearson (1985) claimed that organization and retention
of important information in a story by LD students occurred when teachers used
questions related to the elements of story grammar with story maps. Students in the
study reported good retention ofthe story elements by :filling out the story maps. In
essence, the story structure or story map supported important relationships and thus led
to a deeper understanding of the text (Gardill & Jitendra, 1999).
81
EasyCBM score results demonstrated a 1.0 point higher score for the Story-
MappinglRejoinder Group over the Story-Mapping Group. The Comparison Group
averaged 0.5 points less than the Story-Mapping Group and 1.5 points lower than the
Story-MappinglRejoinder Group on literal questions. I expected higher scores in the
area of literal comprehension because the work of Applegate, Quinn, and Applegate
(2002) suggested that students judged as proficient readers can recall information from
the text. Therefore, it was my belief that struggling readers did not find literal
information challenging, and their greatest need was to make inferences or evaluate
text. Previous studies supported this belief. Additionally, Hunkin's (1989) study in the
area of factual recall reported that students who lacked minimal proficiency could be
supported by rejoinder questions that expanded student recall or fact-finding.
Furthermore, Allington (2001) reported that when reading assessments focused on
critical reading and response to text, only a few students demonstrated minimal
proficiency.
The students in all groups of the current study reported that they skimmed the
text for information for the correct answers. This held true for the answers on the
EasyCBM questions and class discussion questions during the read-aloud stories. The
poor scores for struggling readers in literal comprehension were reflective of the
student-reported skimmed text and demonstrated a need for continued work on
strengthening literal comprehension through rejoinder questioning strategies targeted
for literal information retrieval. Future studies that teach students how to find specific
literal information in-text through rejoinder questioning combined with story mapping
are crucial to the support ofearlier studies (Hunkins, 1989), as well as those that
82
develop questioning strategies to increase reading potential in students (Ezell,
Hunsicker, Quinque, & Randolph, 1996; Ezell, Kohler, Jarzynka, & Strain,1992;
Raphael, 1984; Weber & Shake, 1988).
In the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group, the teacher used strategies to expand
the simplest of student answers through rejoinder questions. Elaborating or
embellishing student answers, encouraging group interaction with vocabulary
meanings, and rephrasing questions answered incorrectly in order to guide students to a
correct response were the framework used in developing rejoinder questions.
While students in the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group answered evaluative
questions with description and detail, students in the Story-Mapping Group answered
the same questions without detail. An example of these answers occurred with the
reading of the Robin Hood story. When asked questions about the problem in the story,
the Story-Mapping Group responded to the teacher, "Robin Hood stole money and
gave it to the poor." When the same questions were posed to the Story-
MappinglRejoinder group, one student responded, "Robin Hood stole from the rich
French kings to give to the poor peasants." When the teacher restated the student's
response by saying, "Robin Hood stole from rich kings to give to the poor peasants,"
another student piped in, stating, "The French kings were greedy; they took land and
money from the poor, and that was the reason Robin Hood was stealing from the rich."
When the primary investigator replied with an evaluation of the statement, "Nice
explanation and description," a third student argued, "Robin Hood wanted to make
things better for everyone by stopping the king from stealing from the poor people to
make themselves richer." Discussions with the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group
83
presented richly detailed examples of similar life circumstances and well-organized
explorations ofcontent and ideas. Similar discussions with the Story-Mapping Group
were limited in details, description, or disclosure of prior knowledge or background
experiences. Group percentile scores and box plots indicate a greater level of
understanding by students who received instruction with teacher rejoinder questions
and story maps.
During discussions, students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
demonstrated educational potential for synthesizing and summarizing the story
effectively with details and description. The student reports aligned with the work of
Cooper et al.(2006) because students used strategies that evaluated the text. In contrast,
the Story-Mapping Group struggled with retelling the story with any descriptive details
about the place, characters, or other story elements. The teacher rejoinder questions
enabled the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group to develop that core of critical thinking
that McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004) described as important in making sense in the
world. With an understanding of the importance of adequate teacher questioning
strategies and student interactions, the results of the literal, inferential, and evaluative
comprehension scores between each of the groups should demonstrate a significant
difference. None of the groups made any significant gains in the area of evaluative
literature over the course of the study on the EasyCBM quizzes. Study limitations may
have produced this lack of difference between group scores.
All students in the three study groups fit the profile of unskilled readers; they
lacked the ability to make inferences and evaluate literature, demonstrated by their low
scores on entry testing for special education. Tierney and Pearson (1983) found that
- - ---------------
84
struggling readers' difficulties stemmed from an inability to collate information or
build on the existing knowledge base and a lack of flexibility in using background
information or written cues for inference requirements. Many of the students in the
study reported difficulties organizing information or fmding background knowledge
before they began working with story maps and teacher rejoinder questions. McNamara
and O'Reilly's (2002) work suggested that enhancing the strategy system builds
confidence in the struggling reader. The demonstration ofeducational growth by using
story-mapping and teacher rejoinder-questioning strategies contributed to the
McNamara and O'Reilly research: Building student confidence by stimulating prior
knowledge and background experiences allowed struggling readers to become
confident readers.
Student Perceptions, Story Mapping, and Teacher Lesson Activation Details
The following discussion presents the differences between the groups for three
qualitative components measured by the study: (a) the student Study Skills Checklist
demonstrates perception differences among groups, (b) the breakdown of student story-
mapping details between groups, and (c) the differences between groups on the
Teacher Lesson Activation Form.
Student perceptions o/Self-Assessment Survey and Study Skills Checklist. A
pre- and post-survey using the Student Self-Assessment Survey, asked questions about
student knowledge of story mapping, understanding ofliterature, and student work
perspectives. In addition, a pre- and post-checklist using the Study Skills Checklist, had
85
questions regarding student study skills that required a score of I to 5 for each
question. The scores of I to 5 used a Likert-type scale with I being low and 5 being
high.
Between the two experimental groups, the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
completed both the student Self-Assessment survey and the Study Skills Checklist
more positively. This group provided details about story maps (e.g., "A story map
helps put your ideas down and find the different parts of the story like the setting,
characters, place, and problem before you start to write or answer questions") and high
marks about themselves on the Self-Perspective Survey. Students in the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group gave themselves higher marks on the checklist for
achievement, organization, and accomplishments for the trimester. The Story-Mapping
Group replied with simple detail (e.g.,"Story maps help you write") on their reflective
Student Self-Assessment Survey and low marks on their Study Skills Checklist.
The student Study Skills Checklist include pre-checklist and post-checklist of
the of student academic ability as represented in the box plot in Figure 5 as well as
Table 13. Scores demonstrated an increased score for pre-checklist and post-checklists
in all groups at the 10th percentile level, with the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
demonstrated the highest score at that level on post-checklist. In the 25th percentile, the
Comparison Group scores dropped from the pre-checklist to the post-checklist, while
the Story-Mapping Group and the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group increased slightly
from pre-checklist to post-checklist. In the 50th percentile, the Comparison Group
increased slightly, the Story-Mapping Group decreased slightly, and the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group remained the same. In the 75th percentile, the Comparison
86
Group remained the same from pre-checklist to post-checklist, the Story-Mapping
Group dropped slightly, and the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group increased over time.
In the 90th percentile, the Comparison Group stayed the same, the Story-Mapping
Group dropped by 5.0 points, and the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group dropped by 1.0
point. Because the overall scores of the checklist were at their peak points at the 90th
percentile, a change of one or two points in a student's score could affect the scores in
either direction. On the lower end of the scale, the Comparison Group could make great
increases by gaining three or four points for each student.
The general knowledge about story mapping on the Student Self-Assessment
Survey was positive. In the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group, 10 of the 11 students
described positive self-perceptions, while only 4 ofthe 9 in the Story-Mapping Group
demonstrated similar self-perceptions. Additionally, the Comparison Group scores did
not change much over time on either the story mapping Self-Assessment surveyor
student Study Skills checklist for study skills perceptions, as indicated by the box plot
in Figure 6 and percentile details found in Table 16. The demonstration of prior
knowledge and previous experience on both self-assessment survey and study skills
checklist suggested a higher self-perception at the end of the experimental period by
the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group. The increased self-perspective was the dynamic
that McCormick (1992) might have been looking for in his study of unskilled readers.
McCormick's study indicated that it was important for struggling learners to develop a
sense ofconfidence in their reading skills. Story-mapping and rejoinder questioning
strategies helped the students focus on the critical concepts of story grammar in
narrative text. Furthermore, as the research of Cooper et a1.(2006) maintained, students
87
used summary and synthesis to evaluate text when given strategies to be successful.
Students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group reported they felt confident in their
narrative story retellings because they had learned to use story maps and talked about
the stories in class.
Story Map Scores. Students in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group
demonstrated greater confidence in their writing by using details and descriptive
language to identify the story elements of characters, time, place, event, problem, and
resolution in their story maps. Students needing support in writing do not produce
many words for description. The students in this group were not hesitant to use story
maps to produce multiple words under each element. Additionally, when the teacher
used rejoinder questioning strategies, students added words and details after class
discussion of the narratives. Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group students used twice as
many words on the story maps as the Story-Mapping Group. The details and inclusion
of the story elements allowed students to receive scores upward of 6.4 on their first
story maps in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group. The addition of details as well as
all ofthe elements of story grammar increased scores in the last story maps to 9.0
points for the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group. Scores indicate that over time, some
students added more story elements to the story with details. Not as many students
were successful with the descriptive details in the Story-Mapping Group as were those
in the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group.
The observer's and teacher's overall impressions of the students in the Story-
Mapping/Rejoinder Group was one ofmore confidence, better organization of
88
materials, more informed discussions, and a wider breadth of understanding about how
their prior knowledge was important for making inferences and evaluating the
literature. Additionally, the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group of students wanted to use
story maps for note-taking while reading during three out of four stories on the
EasyCBM series. The Story-Mapping Group was not interested in pursuing any type of
story-map writing during the EasyCBM reading series or quizzes. The groups of
students who did use the story maps to guide their reading or writing in either group
were more successful in interpreting and fmding the specifics in the literature they
were reading.
Teacher Lesson Activation details and teacher results. The teacher completed
the Teacher Lesson Activation Form after each class discussion and presentation. In
1993, Hall developed the Teacher Questionnaire for similar research. In this study, the
form was identified as the Teacher Lesson Activation Form. The form contained six
questions. The first two questions required the teacher to rate the instructional
characteristics ofthe lesson. The next four questions required the teacher to give a
judgment of his or her reading instruction during the observed lesson. A four point
Likert-type scale with descriptive anchors allowed teachers to rate their lesson
performance.
The first two questions in the activation form allowed the teacher to rate the
lesson in relation to other lessons taught in class. In other words, teachers rated the
normalcy of the lesson observed as compared to other lessons. Based on the
89
vocabulary, concepts, questions, and story structure, the teacher had to consider and
report on the level of difficulty of the lesson as compared to other lessons.
The next four questions directed the teacher's thinking towards the passage
reading and his or her reflection of interactions with the students during the question
and discussion period that followed the reading. Additionally, the four questions
specifically related to the Class Observation Form that the observer would be
completing during the class lesson. Targeted areas of teacher rejoinder questions or
student responses on the Teacher Lesson Activation Form included evaluate,
restate/rephrase, elaborate, embellish, and correct.
The Teacher Lesson Activation Form results indicated that teachers, including
the teacher in tIre study, felt most comfortable in those questioning strategies that were
easiest. The evaluative rejoinder questioning strategies use was at 26%. Evaluative
rejoinders require a positive response about the action the student takes, such as, "Good
thinking!" or "That was well-stated!" These remarks are an evaluation of the student
thinking, much like positive reinforcement, and are perhaps the easiest to use in a
classroom setting even by the seasoned teacher. Positive feedback encourages students
to answer more questions in class discussions. Both results of repeating and rephrasing
at 19% and elaborating and embellishing at 22% demonstrate instructional effort in the
area of questioning strategies.
Both Hunkins (1989) and Stahl (2004) spoke to the need for teacher-led
questioning as the model for critical thinking in their studies. Teaching students how to
be unafraid to take a stance on the questions they answered in response to text
generates students' critical thinking (Hunkins). Therefore, it is essential that teachers
90
learn questioning strategies that will direct students to think more critically about
literature and guide them in the right direction when they have given incorrect answers.
Implications
Although study implications do not have the statistical strength to add to the
body of literature in the field of story mapping with teacher rejoinder-questioning
strategies, student scores demonstrated an educational impact as they used the
strategies of story mapping and relevant question-gathering to become better readers
and writers in the classroom. Of greatest value to the students was the realization that
they could increase their scores by looking for factual details in literature, documenting
the details, and asking questions about the details before answering literal questions. In
some ways, the knowledge that the answers were apparent in the text, if they looked for
the details, built confidence in their reading and written responses. An example of this
confidence was demonstrated by the two groups of students engaged in literal
questions about the written text after completion of the study. The literal questions
required the student to fmd the facts within the reading text. Students located factual
questions by reviewing the text or recalling the specifics of the story. Literal answers
were often simplistic in nature, requiring only one or two words specifically from the
text. Once answered, the teacher was able to move on to the next question. After
completing story maps, students quickly answered literal questions.
The students in the Story-MappinglRejoinder Group and the Story-Mapping
Group completed the story map while the teacher asked the same basic question to each
group. In the Story-Mapping/Rejoinder Group, the teacher used teacher rejoinder
91
strategies to expand student responses and interactions during the discussion of the
teacher read-aloud passage. Clearly, the educational benefits of the study group were in
line with research of both Hunkins (1989) and Stahl (2004) who reported that teacher
rejoinder questions expanded students' critical thinking, increased students'
confidence, and stimulated students' prior knowledge about a subject area.
With an understanding of the importance of adequate teacher questioning
strategies and student interactions, the results of the literal, inferential, and evaluative
comprehension scores between each of the groups should demonstrate a significant
difference. The lack of difference among groups may have resulted from study
limitations, researcher bias, and small study size or power. A nine-month study, as
compared to the twelve-week study, has the potential to demonstrate a greater increase
in all areas of reading comprehension for LD students.
Future Studies
Future research should include matched demographics among participants to
create group size with equivalent socioeconomic status and average or equivalent
grade- point averages among groups. Time spent in teacher training with rejoinder
questioning strategies would benefit both teacher and students. Students should
demonstrate solid literal comprehension by providing facts from texts and narrative
stories, developed through fact-finding strategies and class discussions before
beginning another study. A solid literal understanding of text would rule out the literal
comprehension variable and allow data collection specifically for inferential and
evaluative comprehension information.
APPENDICES
92
APPENDIX A
STORY MAP AND SCORING GUIDE
93
Story l\'lapping: Map Yotu' Story
[; Who - NlUne chlURctm lUlCl
-"
• When - Date or tune of stOlY
" Wllere - SettuJg & Location 1; describe theIr haits"
r
-/ 'I (
I
St:lrt I ~
I l./
.
Action plan of yom plot" "Vhat i~ the plOblen\ yom
" \Vhat lU"e the Events or Goal~: cl\ftIRcter n\lL~t face~
r
'I
,
r-- ~
\. .J
"-
How i~ the plOblem solved~
1,
-. Outcomelresolution
, Events continued Wl\ftt i~ the lesson or the
, message to yom stOlY: ;
/ "\ /
F'
.J
"- J
94
~---~_._~-~---------
95
Story-Mapping Scoring Guide
Scoring of story grammar elements found in the story map includes one point for the
presence of any mention of the seven story grammar elements as follows:
C= Characters or the who of the story, must name characters.
A = Action phrase, or sentence describing the event or action ofthe story.
S = Setting or where the story takes place.
T = Time, date, or when the story occurs.
P = Problem or what challenge the main character is facing in the story.
G = This is related to the problem - describing the action plan or the goal to resolve the
problem.
o = Outcome or resolution - how the problem is solved. Student describes what the
character learned. The message of the story is clearly stated by the student.
An additional point (l) for each story element may be given if a student writes more
details describing the story element.
APPENDIXB
EasyCBM MATERIALS
96
97
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
Directions: Please read the story and then answer the questions that come after it.
Snow Camping Adventure
It was New Year's Eve. Jake, Will, and Claire were darting around the house.
They couldn't wait to play in the snow! It would be their fIrst overnight, outdoor
trip to Mt. Hood. They were going snow camping near Timberline Lodge. This meant
camping in a tent perched on top of the snow. Their dad, Mr. Wittmer, had a great
passion for the outdoors. He was an active member of the Portland Mountain
Rescue Team and enjoyed climbing mountains, backpacking, and rock climbing. Mr.
Wittmer always said he was made for the outdoors.
Mrs. Wittmer also enjoyed the outdoors, but she wasn't sure about spending
the night on a mountain in the snow. Her hands and feet were often cold, and she
feared that an overnight snow camping trip would be uncomfortable. Knowing this,
Mr. Wittmer bought her the best outdoor gear he could fInd. When Mr. Wittmer
was done shopping, Mrs. Wittmer and the kids had cozy down sleeping bags, thick
gloves, and warm winter clothes. They had goggles and headlamps too.
Timberline Lodge was getting ready for its annual New Year's Eve fIreworks
display. This was another reason Jake, Will, and Claire were looking forward to this
trip with great anticipation. For the fIrst time, Mrs. Wittmer agreed to go snow
camping with her hUSband and three kids. As soon as he heard his wife agree to
come along, Mr. Wittmer raced through the house grabbing snow camping gear for
the family trip. This family adventure was a dream come true for him!
The Wittmer family also invited the Lee family to join them. Mr. Lee often
went on outdoor trips with Mr. Wittmer. The two families had been friends for
many years. Mr. and Mrs. Lee had two older boys, Tran and Sami. On New Year's
Eve morning, the phone rang every ten minutes. Did Mr. Lee have a stove? Could
Sami borrow a sleeping bag? Were there enough water bottles packed? What was
the weather report? Even the kids were planning snowball fIghts and talking about
the trip: Oh what fun!
After loading their separate cars, the two families headed towards snowcovered
Mt. Hood. It was early afternoon when they set out. Jake, Will, and Claire
passed the time by playing games like -I Spy" and Battleship. When Mrs. Wittmer
suggested playing the -Quiet Game," Jake turned on his I-pod and fell asleep.
Sighing, Will and Claire also decided to take a nap.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
With the kids asleep, Mr. Wittmer said, "This is going to be so much fun. I
have always wanted to take my family snow camping."
"Well, I'm not so sure about this," said Mrs. Wittmer. "I am afraid we'll get
really cold or a storm might hit."
"Oh sweetie," replied Mr. Wittmer, "Don't worry. There hasn't been a severe
storm up here in years, and I brought us great gear. Just relax and enjoy yourself."
"I'll try," smiled Mrs. Wittmer.
The children awoke as the car charged up the mountain. Excited, Claire
asked, "Are we there yet?"
"Almost," said Mr. Wittmer.
The kids were thrilled as they gazed at the clumps of snow on the roadside.
"I can't wait for the snowball fight," exclaimed Jake as he poked Claire and grinned.
"Mom, Jake is going to get me in the snowball fight," cried Claire.
"Now Claire," said Mrs. Wittmer, "I'll be on your team and help protect you."
"Then Dad is on my team," hollered Jake.
As the car reached the parking lot, the Lee family was already unloading.
Jake, Will, and Claire popped out of the car. Tran and Sami ran over shouting, "We
beat you. We beat you. Now we're gonna eat you."
"Now boys," said Mrs. Lee, "Come over here and finish getting your gear."
Mr. Wittmer and Mr. Lee went out on a short exploratory jaunt. The kids decided
it was time for their snowball fight to begin. After thirty minutes, the men came
back with a great camping site in mind. They said it was close enough for a great
view of the fireworks yet far enough away from other snow campers to give them
lots ofprivacy. The families grabbed their backpacks and began hiking through the
snow towards this perfect spot.
As soon as they arrived at the site, the Wittmer and Lee parents began
stomping the ground. They looked as though they were participating in some sort of
odd dance. Stomp, stomp, wriggle forward half a pace, stomp, stomp. The kids
watched and giggled. After they had stomped the snow into a hard flat surface,
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
98
99
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
the families waited for forty-five minutes because the snow had to settle before
the tents went up. Finally, enough time had passed. The group unpacked three
tents: one for the Wittmer family, one for the Lee family, and an enormous one in
the center of the campsite that they could use for a common meeting place.
The families planned an early surprise birthday party for Claire. She couldn't
believe it because her birthday was still three days away. Without letting her
daughter know about the plan, Mrs. Wittmer had packed in an elaborate ice cream
cake. They all sang and ate the birthday cake together. They shared stories about
what made Claire so special to each of them. She had a marvelous time! After the
party, the families drank hot chocolate and spiced apple cider to keep warm.
Finally, the New Year arrived wi"th a bang! The fireworks coming from
Timberline Lodge were brilliant. The colors painted the sky in splashes of red, blue,
orange, and yellow. The kids yelled out to welcome the year 2002. The adults
quietly hugged each other and kissed. In the meantime, the sky was turning a dark
gray, and the wind blew stronger. After the fireworks display was over, the
families said goodnight and marched to their separate tents to get out of the
blustery wind.
All night long, the snow fell quietly. It just wouldn't stop. Early in the
morning, Mrs. Wittmer awoke, hearing the wind beat against the tent. It was so
cold; it hurt to poke her head out from where it had been covered by the sleeping
bag. She needed to go to the bathroom outside but didn't want to move. It was so
cold in the tent that it hurt to move. She crawled out of her sleeping bag and
unzipped the tent door. All she could see was white! The tent was surrounded by at
least two feet of snow, and her boots were filled too. She decided not to go out.
Lying next to Mr. Wittmer she asked him, "Do you really love this?"
He was awake and replied, "It's not usually like "this."
There was a call from outside the tent. Mr. and Mrs. Wittmer both leaped
up, and Mr. Wittmer accidentally hit his wife's nose. It started to bleed! Mr.
Wittmer quickly gave her a cloth to help stop the bleeding. At this point, the kids were
awake. "What is going on?" they asked. Mr. Wittmer told them things were fine and to
go back to sleep. Mrs. Wittmer aSked for her glasses. It was a good thing too because
her contacts were frozen in their solution.
Mr. Wittmer went outside to check on the Lee family. As Mr. Wittmer got
within one foot of their tent, he noticed the whole tent had collapsed on top of
them! This was a violent storm. "Are you alright in there?" asked Mr. Wittmer.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
100
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
"Yeah," the Lee family replied. Mr. Wittmer and Mr. Lee decided it was time
to head for the lodge. They were camping in whiteout conditions!
The women along with the Wittmer children remained in the Wittmer's tent.
It took both of the men and the two Lee boys to keep the tent they were putting
away from blowing away. As the struggle went on, Mr. Lee's forty-pound backpack
rolled away. Holding hands so they would not get lost in the storm, the two men and
boys recovered the pack. You couldn't see one foot in front of the other. After the
two families slowly fought through the storm, they finally made it to the lodge.
They soon discovered this was the worse storm Mt. Hood had seen in forty-two
years! All the roads and ski lifts were closed at Timberline. The two families
gathered around the fire to wait for "the storm to pass and roads to open. As the
Wittmer family returned to their Subaru, they discovered that the back window
was cracked. The car was filled to the top with snow! What next? Thankfully, the
dry snow came out easily, and they were on the road before too long. This was a
snow camping trip to remember.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
PLEASE USE YOUR SCAN SHEET TO MARK YOUR ANSWERS.
DO NOT MARK ON THIS PAPER!
1. What did snow camping mean?
A. The tent would be on the ground with snow around it.
B. The tent would be placed right on top ofthe snow.*
C. The campsite would be in a place where it snowed.
2. How did the story end?
A. The families were safely on their way home.*
B. The families sat around the fire waiting to leave.
C. The families decided to stay inside the warm lodge.
3. What probably caused Mr. Lee's pack to roll away?
A. It was on a hill.
B. The wind blew it.*
C. It was too heavy.
4. What was this story mostly about?
A. How families can have fun doing something they haven't done before.
B. How a New Year's Eve fireworks party was ruined by the weather.
C. How a trip can go wrong even when there is careful planning.*
5. How often had Mrs. Wittmer been snow camping with her family?
A. This was her first time.*
B. She had gone once before.
B. She always went with them.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
101
102
EasyCBM - Student Copy Fonn
6. What will Mrs. Wittmer probably tell her husband the next time he invites her to go
snow camping?
A She will never go snow camping or any other type of camping again.
B. She will only go if he can promise that there won't be a snow stonn.*
C. She would be happy to go because the last trip was such a fun adventure.
7. What was Mrs. Wittmer probably thinking about the trip when she woke up to the
snow and cold?
Alt was her husband's fault that this happened, and she was freezing.
B. Her husband made a big mistake talking her into going on the trip.
C. This was just the thing that she was worried could happen.*
8. What were the children looking forward to most?
A Snow fights and fireworks.*
B. Sleeping in tents in the snow.
C. Drinking hot chocolate and cider.
9. What did Mrs. Wittmer discover right after her nose bled?
A She had to go to the bathroom.
B. Her shoes were full of snow.
C. Her contacts were frozen.*
10. What was Mr. Wittmer probably thinking when he awoke and realized there had
been a snowstonn?
A. It was too bad for the rest of the group that this happened, but he liked it.
B. He could deal with it, but he would need to help his wife get through it.*
D. He was glad it happened because he was hoping this would be a great
adventure.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
103
EasyCBM - Student Copy Fonn
11. What did Mr. Wittmer do to get his wife to agree to go on the camping
trip?
A. Her bought her all the best camping equipment that he could find. *
B. He invited a family to go with them whose mother had been snow camping.
C. He told her the children would be disappointed if she didn't go.
12. Why did Mrs. Wittmer probably go on the camping trip?
A. She enjoyed the outdoors and thought this trip would be a great, adventure.
B. She loved outdoor camping trips in the snow and wanted to be with her
family.
C. She only went to be with her family because she didn't like to be cold.*
13. How did Mrs. Wittmer probably feel when Mr. Wittmer hit her nose?
A. She knew it was an accident, but she was in no mood to forgive him just
then.
B. This was the last straw, and it was time to pack up and get out of the snow.
C. She could take care of the nose bleed and was more concerned about the
kids.*
14. What secret plan did the families make?
A. Make hot chocolate and spiced apple cider.
B. Give an early surprise birthday party for Claire.*
C. Go for a hike to the lodge for a warm meal.
15. Why did the Lee family trust Mr. Wittmer to plan the camping trip?
A. He had a lot of outdoor and camping experience.*
B. He enjoyed being outside more than anything else.
C. He knew where to buy the best camping equipment.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
104
EasyCBM - Student Copy Form
16. What should have happened when the sky turned dark gray, and a strong
wind started to blow during the fire works?
A. The men should have made another check to make sure the tents were staked
down really well and were safe.
B. Everyone should have gone into their tents a little earlier so they would be
protected from the storm that was coming.
C. Mr. Wittmer should have warned the group there might be a snowstorm
because he knew about weather signs.*
17. What was Mrs. Wittmer's worst fear?
A. A storm might hit, and it would get really cold.*
B. They wouldn't be able to see the fireworks.
C. All would be too cold to enjoy themselves.
18. What was Mr. Wittmer like?
A. He loved the outdoors as much as he loved his family.
B. He loved the outdoors but loved his family more.*
C. He loved the outdoors more than he loved his family.
19. Why didn't the families know during the night that it was snowing?
A. They were so tired from staying up late they slept right through it.
B. Their heads were completely covered by their sleeping bags.
C. The wind was loud, and the snow didn't make any noise when it fell.*
20. How would the parents probably talk about the trip after they got home?
A. Mr. Wittmer did a good job of planning, but he should have had a back up
plan in case a storm came up.
B. No one could know that the storm would come, and Mr. Wittmer did a good
job of planning the trip.*
B. They should have listened to Mrs. Wittmer and gone to watch the fireworks
someplace where it was warmer.
© 2006, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon
APPENDIXC
PERNIISSION FOR MATERIALS
READING A - Z PROGRAM - SAMPLE MATERIALS
105
106
Learning A-Z Photocopy Permission Statement
Issued to: Toni Knox
Issued Date: 4/24/08
Expiration Date: 915/08
Learning A-Z, Inc., a division ofVoyager Learning, grants the above named recipient
the right to photocopy Reading A-Z materials for the purpose of including them in a
research project. Permission includes those materials bearing our copyright, granted the
following conditions apply:
1. Permission is granted with the agreement that the recipient named above maintains
an active subscription to the Learning A-Z website from which the materials were
downloaded.
2. Permission is granted with the agreement that no Learning A-Z materials will be
altered in anyway.
Distributing materials to non-registered users or reselling Learning A-Z materials is
strictly prohibited.
This Permission Statement expires with the expiration date of the recipient's current
subscription as noted above. When the current subscription expires, a new statement
will need to be obtained along with a new, active subscription.
1840 East River Road, Suite 320,
Tucson, Arizona 85718
• telephone 520.327.3730 • tollfree 866.889.3729 • fax 520.327.9934
www.readinga-z.com. www.reading-tutors.com. www.raz-kids.com.
www.vocabulary a-z.com. www.writinga-z.com.
--- -------------------
107
Robin Hood and the King
A Reading A-Z Level W Quick Reader
Word Count: 1,633
Visit www.readinga-z.com for thousands of books and materials.
This story is an English folktale adapted for Reading A-Z by Katherine Follett from an
original Robin Hood and the King retelling by Bertha E. Bush published in 1912.
An English Folktale
Adapted by Katherine Follett
Illustrated by David Cockcroft
Robin Hood and the King
Level W Quick Reader
© 2003 learning Page, Inc.
All rights reserved. Correlation Learning Page
1630 E. River Road #121
Tucson, AZ 85718
www.readinga-z.com
Table of Contents
Introduction .4
King Richard 5
The Feast. 7
The Archery Match 9
King Richard Reveals Himself..... 13
Glossary 16
108
Introduction p. 4
Robin Hood and his Merry Men lived hiding in Sherwood Forest, because every
French lord in the land wanted to hang Robin for highway robbery. Even though Robin
and his band were outlaws, they only stole from the rich, so they could give money to
the poor. Robin thought the greedy French lords were the real thieves and outlaws.
They were the ones who seized the money and land from the poor in the first place.
They had conquered England, and they ruled the land while kind King Richard was off
at war. But the French soon found that the English people hated the cruel lords, while
they loved and admired Robin Hood. Even the king himself, when he returned from
war, could not help respecting this outlaw who tricked the corrupt rulers.
King Richard p. 5
"I wish I could see Robin Hood," said King Richard. "I wish I could see him and his
men shoot and wrestle and do all the things that show off their amazing skills. But if
they heard that the king was coming, they would think that I only wanted to arrest
them. They would flee deep into the forest and I would never get a glimpse of them."
King Richard spoke kindly, for he loved all sports and those who excelled in them.
Robin Hood and his band were well known to be the best archers, wrestlers, and sword
fighters in all the land. They spent all their days in the forest practicing these arts.
"I would give a hundred pounds to see Robin Hood and his Merry Men of
Greenwood," he said.
"I'll tell you how you can see him," laughed one of the king's trusty companions. "Put
on the robes ofa fat abbot and ride through Sherwood Forest with a hundred pounds in
109
your pouch. You will be sure he will offer you a feast, to try and steal your money."
For this was how Robin Hood lured the wealthy lords into the forest. No greedy
nobleman could refuse a feast, even if they suspected it was offered by an outlaw. "I'll
do it!" cried King Richard, slapping his knee. "It will be a huge joke."
The Feast p.7
So the king and seven ofhis followers dressed themselves as an abbot and seven friars.
They rode out along the highway toward Sherwood Forest. Sure enough, Robin Hood
and his men took them and brought them to the meeting tree, and there they searched
them and took the pouch of gold. But they returned one third of the gold to the king,
because it was not their custom to leave any man in need. Robin Hood was pleased
with these churchmen because they did not resist or scold him. In fact, they seemed
happy to be in his company.
"Now we shall give you a feast that will be worth all your money," said Robin Hood.
"1 have a good appetite for a feast," said the pretend abbot. "But even more, I would
like to see the archery and wrestling and all those other things in which I have heard
you are so good at."
"You will see the very best we can do," answered Robin, "but, Holy Father, why don't
you take off your hood so you can enjoy this sweet evening air?" "No, I cannot,"
answered the pretend abbot, "because I and my brothers have vowed not to let our faces
be seen during this journey."
"Very well, then," said Robin Hood. "I interfere with no man's vows." And he never
110
once thought that he was entertaining the king. Robin and his men gave a splendid
feast of roasted venison and pheasants and fish and wild fowl, all cooked perfectly over
the roaring fire. The King was very impressed with the delicious food the Merry Men
seemed to produce out of nothing but the forest. He had no idea that outlaws could be
so well fed and happy. After they cleared the dishes, they arranged the sports.
The Archery Match p. 9
The archery target was a mark that only the best archers could hit, made of a tiny
garland of leaves and flowers hanging from a stake a great distance away. "Now
shoot!" said Robin Hood. "Each of you will have three shots, and anyone who fails to
place his arrows within the garland will receive a punch to the side of the head as hard
as I can give."
"Can anyone hit inside that little garland at such a distance?" asked the king in
amazement. "Look and see, friend abbot," answered Robin Hood proudly.
First, David of Doncaster shot and lodged all three arrows within the garland while the
king looked on, astonished. Then Midge, the miller's son, also placed all his arrows
inside the garland. These truly were the best archers in all of England, and the King had
not yet seen Robin Hood, who was the best ofall. Then Wat the Tinker drew his bow,
but he was unlucky-one ofhis arrows barely missed the mark.
"Come here and take your punishment," called Robin Hood. The king supposed that,
since Wat had missed by so little, he would receive only a tap. Instead, he got a blow
that knocked him head over heels. "Ha, ha, ha!" laughed his companions.
111
"Qh ho!" thought King Richard, "I am glad I am not in this." But he was impressed
with the way Robin Hood's men obeyed him. "They are better at following his
commands than my servants are at following mine," he thought. The shooting went on,
and most of the men shot their arrows within the garland, but a few missed and
received tremendous punches.
The last to shoot was Robin Hood. His first shaft struck so hard, it split off a piece of
the stake on which the garland was hung. His second lodged a scant inch from ther
first. But the last arrow he shot was not feathered right and it swerved to one side and
struck an inch outside the garland.
Then all the company roared with good-natured laughter for they seldom saw their
master miss. "Go and take your punishment master" said Midge, the miller's son, "
and I hope it will be as rough as Wat's was."
"Well," said Robin Hood, 'I will surrender my arrow to out guest and takemy
punishment from him."
Robin was being somewhat crafty in this. Although he did not mind hard knocks at all,
he did not like the thought of being sent sprawling in front of his band. He figured that
the arms of a churchman would be soft, for they never worked or used their muscles
much. But the pretend abbot bared an arm so thick and muscular that it made the men
stare. King Richard was an active king, and years at war had made him incredibly
strong. Robin Hood placed himself squarely in front of him, and the king struck a blow
that would have knocked out an ox. Down went Robin Hood, rolling over and over on
the ground stake on which the garland was hung. His second while his men shouted
with laughter.
112
"Well," said Robin Hood, sitting up, half arrow he shot was not feathered right, and it
dazed, "1 did not think that there was an arm in England that could strike such a blow.
Who are you, man? I'll bet you are not the churchman you appear to be."
King Richard Reveals Himself p. 8
King Richard threw back his hood, and Robin knew it was his king. Ifhe had been a
disloyal man as well as an outlaw, he would have trembled. But Robin had always
remained loyal to his King. Indeed, he believed that stealing from the French and
giving to the English poor was the greatest service he could perform for King Richard.
Robin Hood had never knelt for any lord, but there was no shame in his voice when he
knelt before the king.
"Your majesty," he said, "you have no subjects in all England who are more loyal than
I and my Merry Men. We have done no evil except to the greedy and rich who have
abused your subjects. We beg your pardon ifwe have done wrong, and we beg for your
protection, as we always serve you faithfully." Then the king looked down in
amazement that an outlaw should speak so well. He was also amazed that Robin Hood
hadn't run away in fear of being arrested. He saw that Robin Hood truly was one ofhis
best subjects. King Richard also knew that Robin was the best archer in all England,
and he wanted him by his side.
"I will forgive all your law-breaking and order the nobles to leave you alone," he said,
"ifyou will corne with me to my court and serve me there. You shall bring Little John
and Wat and Will Scarlet to become knights in my court. As for the rest ofyour men, I
113
will make them royal rangers, since I am sure they can protect Sherwood Forest better
than anyone. They have done good deeds in providing for the English poor."
"With all my heart," replied Robin Hood, and a great roar went up from the Merry
Men. They adored their king, and though they loved the outlaw life, they had always
wanted their good deeds to be recognized by the throne.
So Robin Hood left the greenwood and went to the king's court where he served King
Richard well. His men became rangers of the forest, and never again feared punishment
from wicked sheriffs. Robin Hood was never far from the forest, though. He often
disguised himself as a greedy noble, laden with the king's gold, and rode through
Sherwood Forest. Only after his men had stolen from him did he reveal himself,
congratulating them on their work. The common folk of England never had to suffer
the injustice of the French again.
Glossary
abbot - the leader of a group of religious monks (p. 6)
friar - a certain kind of Christian monk (p.7)
fowl - birds (p. 8)
garland - a small group of branches arranged in a circle or semicircle (p. 9)
laden - covered with; heavy with (p. 15)
lodged - stuck in deeply and securely (p. 10)
lured - led by the promise of something good; tempted (p. 6)
pounds - British unit ofmoney, worth about $1.50 in U.S. dollars and $2.50 in
Canadian dollars (p. 6)
sangers - people who watch over and protect a forest or wooded area (p. 14)
scant - very little; tiny; barely (p. 11)
sprawling - laid out flat with arms and legs spread out (p. 12)
venison - deer meat (p. 8)
114
115
Level W Reading A-Z Leveled Reader Quick Check Robin Hood and the King
Name
--------------
Date
Directions: Read each question carefully and choose the best answer.
1. When would Robin Hood punch his men in the head as hard as he could?
a. If they were disobeying him.
b. If he wanted to impress the king.
c. If they failed to hit the target with an arrow.
d. If they didn't give him all the gold they stole.
2. Even respected Robin Hood.
a. the French
b. King Richard
c. the robbers
d. all of the above
3. What did Robin Hood do to show he was concerned about the wealthy people?
a. He didn't turn them in the King of England.
b. He gave them back some of their gold he stole.
c. He made sure they got back to their homes safely.
d. He would hide in the forest before he stole from them.
4. Robin Hood sent one of his men sprawling. What does sprawling mean?
a. to fall with no control
b. to steal from the rich
c. to spy on others
d. to chase
Level W Reading A-Z Leveled Reader Quick Check Robin Hood and the King
116
Name
--------------
Date
Directions: Read each question carefully and choose the best answer.
5. What did Robin Hood do when he knew the abbot was really the king?
a. He ran away.
b. He shot at the king.
c. He told his men to hide.
d. He knelt on the ground.
6. What was the conflict/problem of this story?
a. King Richard wanted to see how well Robin Hood and his men could shoot and
wrestle.
b. King Richard wanted to trick Robin Hood into fighting him so he could arrest
him.
c. Robin Hood wanted to test his men's ability to shoot arrows.
d. Robin Hood wanted to work for King Richard.
7. What does it mean to reveal something?
a. to hide it
b. to give it away
c. to keep if for yourself
d. to show or display it
Level W Reading A-Z Leveled Reader Quick Check Robin Hood and the King
117
Name
--------------
Date
Directions: Read each question carefully and choose the best answer.
8. How did the king know that Robin Hood's men truly obeyed him?
a. They told him that they did.
b. He saw them shoot arrows at a small target.
c. He saw them receive hard punches to their head with no argument.
d. They always stole from the rich French and gave to the poor English.
9. What happened to Robin Hood's last arrow during the shooting contest?
a. It split another arrow in the center of the target.
b. It hit an inch outside the target.
c. It flew off in the wrong direction.
d. It missed the tree.
10. Why were Robin Hood and his men such good archers, wrestlers, and sword
fighters?
a. They spent so much time practicing.
b. Robin Hood had taught them well.
c. They stole good swords and arrows.
d. They practiced with the king's men.
1 Level W Reading A-Z Leveled Reader Quick Check
118
Robin Hood and the King
Name
--------------
Date
Directions: Read each question carefully and choose the best answer.
11. What happened after Robin got knocked to the ground by the king?
a.· His men beat up the king.
b. He tried to fight the king.
c. His men laughed at him.
d. His men ran to him.
12. What did King Richard do because Robin Hood decided to come out of the woods
to serve him?
a. He forgave all Robin Hood's law breaking.
b. Robin Hood's men became royal rangers.
c. He ordered the nobles to leave Robin Hood alone.
d. all of the above
13. Extended Response: Why did King Richard think that Robin Hood was truly one of
his best subjects?
14. Extended Response: Explain why, after he went to work for the king, Robin Hood
would disguise himself and ride through the forest.
APPENDIXD
OREGON STATE ASSESSMENT
SAMPLE SIXTH-GRADE TEST
119
SAMPLE TEST
2006-2008
READING/LITERATURE
GRADE 6
Vocabulary
Read to Perform a Task
Demonstrate General Understanding
Develop an Interpretation
Examine Content and Structure: Informational Text
Examine Content and Structure: Literary Text
OFFICE OF
ASSESSMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES
THE OREGON DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
120
121
DIRECTIONS
Read each ofthe passages. Then read the questions that follow and decide on
the BEST answer. There are ofdifferent kinds ofquestions, so read each
question carefully before marking an answer on your answer sheet.
EMMA LAZARUS
Little did Emma Lazarus know that she would one day be remembered in
American history for writing the poem, "The New Colossus. " Read this
passage to learn about the history and importance ofthis poem.
EMMA LAZARUS, WHO LIVED FROM 1849 TO 1887, was a successful writer. By
age eighteen, she had already written her first book. Eventually, she published
several more. She became most famous, however, for one special poem called liThe New
Colossus." The word colossus means gigantic statue.
The colossus Emma Lazarus wrote about in her poem was the Statue of Liberty, then
ready to be raised in New York Harbor. Although the title of the poem is not well known,
the last five lines of the poem are. In them, "Lady Liberty" says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-
Tostto me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus had good reason for writing those words. In addition to her writing,
she was devoted to the cause ofhelping Jewish refugees from Russia. These people,
rejected by their own country, crossed the ocean to America seeking new homes and
freedom. They often arrived penniless. Emma Lazarus spent time and money organizing
help for these immigrants. She believed strongly in America as aplace for people looking
for freedom.
"The New Colossus" was fIrst read at an event to raise money for building he base
of the Statue ofLiberty. For the next twenty years, however, the poem was mostly
forgotten. Emma Lazarus died not knowing how man people her words would inspire.
Then in1903, the poem was chosen tobe inscribed on a bronze tablet inside the
entrance to the state. Since that time, millions of Americans have read theoem. Its
words have helped make the Statue ofLiberty known as a symbol of freedom
throughout the world.
122
1
Why do you think the author ended the selection by telling about the SYmbolism of the
Statue of Liberty?
A. To show People the way to New York
B. To explain how long it took to write the poem
C. To describe how the statue was made
D. To emphasize how important the statue is.
2
"The New Colossus" is a POem about
A. New York Harbor.
B. The Statue of Liberty.
C. Emma Lazarus.
D. Russia.
3
Emma Lazarus was not only a successful writer, she also
A. helped people who were new to America.
B. designed the Statue of Liberty.
C. wrote her POem on a bronze tablet
D. brought the Statue ofLiberty to New York.
4
Although the selection doesn't say, you can tell that Emma Lazarus was a woman who was
A. tired from writing all the time.
B. the first person to help refugees from Russia.
C. important in the building ofthe Statue ofLiberty.
D. kind and caring about people less fortunate.
5
"The New Colossus" was first read in public when
A. a fundraiser was held to build the statue's base.
B. Jewish refugees were finally able to land on U.S. shores.
C. the Statue ofLiberty was opened in 1886.
D. groups from around the world remembered Emma Lazarus.
123
SWAMP TALK
In SWAMP TALK by Jean George, Billie Wind, a Seminole Indian, is punished
for not believing in the "old ways. " She is sent out to the SUXlmp to learn
some lessons. Read about one ofher experiences.
SHE FOLDED HER ARMS AND LOOKED over the forest The trees were flared at the
bases. This uncanny growth buttressed the cypress in the rainy season when the island was
flooded with water and rendered the trees unstable. Near each tree jutted waist-high
triangular "knees" that grew up from the roots. These breathed air when the roots were
under water. Billie Wind walked among them until she found two slender trees that did not
have buttresses.
"These trees are talking to me," she realized. "When the land is high and dry cypress
trees do not grow buttresses, they grow straight like these. So the land is dry here. I have
found a good campground.
"Petang," she called. "Where are you? We are going to camp here until our boat is
made." The otter answered by rustling the palmettos and splashing into the water.
Billie Wind slung her hammock high. The species of mosquito that had been biting her did
not fly higher than nine feet above the land, and so she would hang her bed at least ten feet
high. To get up and down she braided a rope out of one ofthe many kinds of
vines, tied it to the timmock and climbed up the tree. She secured the hammock. Petang
returned as she was putting the last stone on the fireplace. His sides were round and
bulging.
"Goodness," she said. "You have been eating well. What's out there? Frogs? Fish?"
She walked toward the shore to gather for herself whatever Petang had eaten.
A hiss sounded. The palmettos thrashed, and as Billie Wind jumped backward, she
looked down on an enormous mother alligator who was escorting dozens of baby alligators
down the side ofa mound ofhumus, her nest She turned back to help one hatchling who
was still buried and peeping. Using her awkward-looking foot, she gently pulled back the
black plants and let him climb out. A raccoon pounced on a baby at the bottom ofthe pile.
She roared down on him, slashed her jaws and cut off his tail. He ran screaming into the
brush. A heron flapped down and hovered over the tasty
hatchlings. The mother alligator grunted and slammed her jaws, barely missing the bird,
who rose higher to wait for another opportunity to strike. Roaring and snapping, the mother
gator led her brood toward the safety ofthe water.
Billie Wind backed all the way home and climbed her rope to her hammock. She
knew better than to stay anywhere near a mother alligator and her young.
6
124
In the sentence, "The island was flooded with water and rendered the trees unstable,"
rendered means
A. obtained by heating.
B. caused to become.
C. strengthened.
D. performed.
7
When the mother alligator was escorting dozens of baby alligators, she was
A. throwing them
B. watching them
C. going with them
D. teasing them.
8
Which of the following BEST describes Billie Wind?
A. Confused and worried
B. Grouchy and tired
C. Careful
D. Lonely and frightened
9
How could you BEST describe the author's message?
A. Keep away from swamps.
B. Watch out for alligators.
C. Respect nature and learn. from it
D. Always carry proper tools.
10
Onomatopoeia is a term used when words sound like the thing being described. Which of
the words below is an example ofonomatopoeia?
A. Screaming
B. Slammed
C. Roaring
D. Hiss
CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
-------------------
125
Reading and Literature
FAT CONTENT OF SANDWICHES
Too much fat in our diets can be a problem. Examine these charts about
sandwich ingredients to answer the questions.
Deli meat-and reduced fat alternatives
'Meat Calories % calories Total Saturated Sodium
from fat Fat (g) Fat (g)
Deli beef bologna, regular, two slices (2 Oz.) 175 81% 16 7 555
BolognUte, two slices (2 oz.) 45 0% 0 0 490
Butcher Lite Bologna, two slices (2 oz.) 120 60% 8 3 400
Deli ham, regular, two slices (2 Oz.) 105 52% 6 2 745
Slimpig Ham, regular, two slices (2 Oz.) 35 0% 0 0 530
CookIite Ham, regular, two slices (2 oz.) 60 23% 1.5 0.5 470
Delite Fanns Deli Select, two slices (2 oz.) 50 28% 1.5 1 690
Deli turkey breast, two slices (2 oz.) 55 15% 1 0.5 625
Betterba1l96% Fat FreSmoked, three slices (3 oz.) 70 32% 2.5 0.5 490
Delite Fanns Turkey Roast, three slices (3 oz.) 60 8% 0.5 0 620
!Meatless alternatives
NoBologna, two slices (2 oz.) 70 0% 0 0 530
HamltUp, two slices (2 oz.) 65 0% 0 0 390
TurkeyLike, three slices (3 Oz.) 80 0% 0 0
600
S d ' hId'an WIC nl?;re lents
Sandwich Ingredient Serving Calories Fat (g)
White bread 2 slices 90 2
Whole wheat bread 2 slices 80 0
Mayonnaise 1 tablespoon 100 11
Brown Mustard 1 tablesooon 15 1
Cheddar Cheese 1 slice 120 10
Swiss Cheese 11 slice 40 0
126
Reading and Literature
11
Which statement is true?
A. Deli turkey has more calories than its alternatives.
B. Deli beef bologna has more fat than deli ham.
c. You should limit yourself to 2-ounce servings of sandwich meat.
D. Meat contributes the most calories to sandwiches.
12
Which brand of ham has the greatest percentage of calories from fat?
A. Slimpig
B. Cooklite
C. DeLite Fanns Deli Select
D.HamltUp
13
Which sandwich would contain the fewest calories?
A. 30z.of Delite Fanns Turkey Roast with one slice of Swiss cheese
B. 2 oz. of deli ham with one tablespoon of mustard
C. 2 oz. of Slimpig Ham with one tablespoon of mayonnaise
D. 30z.of Betterba1l96% Fat Free Turkey with one slice of cheddar cheese.
GOING BATTY
Many ofus have heard the saying "blind as a bat, " but are bats really blind?
Read this part ofthe book THREE CHEERS FOR BATS by Laurence Pringle to
learn a lot more about these flying creatures.
To MANY PEOPLE, bats are scary, ugly creatures. The superstitions about them range from
tales of Dracula-type vampires to the belief that they entangle themselves in people's hair.
These notions about bats are still common; no wonder bats are still feared and persecuted
in many lands.
These old beliefs are disappearing, however, as people learn about the lives of real bats.
About a thousand kinds of bats live on all continents except Antarctica. None are blind,
and some see very well. Large fruit-eating bats that live in the tropics have big eyes and
doglike snouts. They're called flying foxes.
Office ofAssessment and InfonnationServices 2006-2008 Sample Test Grade 6 Oregon Department ofEducation
- - -------------
127
Reading and Literature
Most bats are insect eaters, and they are the ones with weird faces. They usually have big
ears and sometimes have odd-looking noses. With their beady little eyes they see as well as
mice or other small mammals. To catch food in the dark, though, they rely on a sonar, or
echolocation, system that is more advanced than anything devised by people. In fact,
scientists still don't understand many details of this extraordinary system.
The bats emit high-pitched squeaks that we cannot hear. Some ofthese sounds echo off
objects in front of the flying bats: tree branches, wires, flying insects. Bats listen to the
echoes and get an instantaneous and changing picture in their brains of what lies ahead.
They dodge twigs and other obstacles. They zoom in on moths and even tiny mosquitoes.
The odd-looking noses and ears of some bats are part oftheir sonar equipment Their
echolocation system works beautifully. Bats can and do easily avoid getting tangled in a
person's hair. When they sometimes swoop near people who are outdoors at night, they are
often chasing mosquitoes, which they pluck out of the air before the insects can feast on
the humans.
Where mosquitoes are abundant, a small bat can catch several hundred in an hour. People
who know this take steps to encourage bats to live near their home. They put up specially
designed bat houses in which bats can rest in the daytime.
14
What is true about the noises made by bats?
A. They sound like noises made by foxes.
B. They cannot be heard by humans.
C. They warn mosquitoes.
D. They sound like a low growl.
15
Which ofthe statements below is an opinion?
A. There are more than a thousand different kinds of bats.
B. Bats that live in the tropics usually eat fruit
C. Bats use echolocation to keep from flying into things.
D. Most bats with beady eyes are ugly.
Office ofAssessment and lnfonnation SeIVices 2006-2008 Sample Test. Grade 6 Oregon Department ofEducation 8
128
Reading and Literature
16
The story tells you that "where mosquitoes are abundant, a small bat can catch several
hundred in an hour." The word abundant means
A. making their nests.
B. landing on the ground.
C. appearing in large numbers.
D. living on other insects.
17
The author's main purPOse is to teach people some things about bats. This is probably a
good idea because
A. there aren't enough books about animals.
B. people are often afraid of things they don't understand.
C. bats are an endangered species.
D. now scientists can study echolocation for use in the future.
18
Which word could the author have used instead of persecuted whenhe wrote," ...bats are
still feared and persecuted in many lands?"
A. Hidden
B. Mistreated
C. Worshipped
D. Caged
19
What do you think is mostlikely to happen ifmore people read this story and learn some
things about bats?
A. People will be glad most bats are around.
B. Bats will be killed for ruining our fruit crops.
C. Most people will want to get bats for pets.
D. People will think bats are scary.
CONTINUE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE
Office ofAssessment and Infonnation Setvices '-2008 Sample Test Grade 6 Oregon Department ofEducation 9
129
Reading and Literature
STEAM SHOVEL
Charles Malam's poems ask us to look at everyday objects from a different
perspective.
The dinosaurs are not all dead.
I saw one raise its iron head
To watch me walking down the road
Beyond our house today.
Its jaws were dripping with a loa
Ofearth and grass that it had cropped.
It must have heard me where I stopped,
Snorted white steam my way,
And stretched its long neck out to see,
And chewed, and grinned quite amiably.
20
The machine "grinned quite amiably." Used this way, amiably means
A. in a lonely way.
B. Un an unfriendly way.
C. In the middle of.
D. In a good-natured way.
21
Based upon the description Malam uses, you would characterize the steam shovel as
A. rude.
B. bored.
C. friendly
D.loving.
22
The poet uses a dinosaur to compare to a steam shovel rather than another creature because
A. steam shovels were also prehistoric creatures.
B. dinosaurs ate earth and grass.
c.steam shovels are huge and have long necks.
D.dinosaurs are buried deeply where steam shovels dig.
23
The details in this poem support the idea that Malam wrote it
A. to show that dinosaurs had personalities.
B. to increase the reader's understanding of dinosaurs.
C. to teach the reader about driving steam shovels.
D. to give a light, humorous look at a large machine.
24
The effect ofthe line "Snorted white steam my way" is to
A. compare the speaker's fear to the shovel's size.
B. establish the historic validity of dinosaurs.
C. continue the comparison between the shovel and a dinosaur.
D. emphasize the insignificance of humans when confronted.
--- ----------------
130
APPENDIXE
STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY
131
Student Self-Assessment Survey
Explain in words what a story map is:
Tell me in words when you might want to use a story map:
Student Name:
Team:
Date:
132
Describe in writing what elements you would find on a story map:
Tell me how a story map might help you when you are reading:
Tell me how a story map might help you when you are writing:
APPENDIXF
STUDY SKILLS CHECKLIST FOR STUDENTS
133
Study Skills Checklist Name:
-------
134
5 = All of the time
4 = Most of the time
3 = About half the time
2 = Less than half the time
I = Never
Self-Evaluation
Date:
-------
Assignments
Shows thought, time, and effort on assignments.
Turns in assignments.
Finishes assignments on time.
Assignments are well-organized, clear, neat, and complete.
When absent, comes in next day to get make-up work.
Seeks help when needed.
Attitude
Has a positive attitude.
Shows respect toward other people and property.
Accepts responsibility for own actions.
Organization
Arrives in class on time with necessary materials.
Keeps binder and locker neat.
Keeps track of assignments in binder reminder.
Use of Class Time
Listens well to teacher and other students.
Participates appropriately during class discussions.
Uses class time to complete work.
Avoids distracting other students during work time.
Works well independently.
Works well in groups.
Total Points
APPENDIXG
PROCEDURAL ITEMS CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS
135
Procedural Items Checklist for Teachers
Teacher provides students with a purpose for using story maps.
Teacher presents students with appropriate passage.
Teacher uses transparency of the story map to record answers
during class discussion ofpassage.
Teacher begins a new passage as criteria is met.
Teacher administers directions for the story map.
Teacher addresses the elements of the story map.
...
Notes
YES
o
o
o
136
NO
o
o
o
o
o
o
APPENDIXH
TEACHER LESSON ACTIVATION FORM,
CLASS OBSERVATION FORM
&
TEACHER REJOINDER CHECKLIST FOR STORY DISCUSSION
137
138
Teacher Lesson Activation Form
Please circle the most appropriate number to answer the questions about this lesson.
You may circle N/A to indicate the question is Not Applicable. Use the spaces
provided for any additional comments you may have after the lesson.
In this lesson, you asked comprehension questions of literal, inferential, and
evaluative nature that students have answered. Please reflect on the percentage of
answers in which you provided a reaction (positive, general, or negative) as a
follow up to the student answers.
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 NA
Almost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most of the time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments:
About what percent of the time do you think you rephrased or repeat student
answers to the comprehension type questions during this lesson?
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 NA
Almost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most of the time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments
What percentage of the time did you directly correct student answers to
comprehension questions during this lesson?
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 NA
Almost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most of the time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments:
139
How much of the time did you embellish the students' answers to comprehension
questions during this lesson?
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 ~f\
f\lmost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most of the time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments:
What percentage of the time did you evaluate student answers with a "great
answer, nice response, good search for detail in text" to comprehension questions
during this lesson?
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 ~f\
f\lmost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most of the time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments:
What percentage of the time did you elaborate a student answer to
comprehension questions during this lesson?
1 -----------------------2------------------------------3-------------------------4 ~f\
f\lmost never Quite infrequently Quite frequently Most ofthe time
<10% < 50% 50 - 90% >90%
Comments:
140
Class Obsenration Form
Class Name Date
-------------------- -------
Start Time: Stop Time:, Total Observation Time:, _
Lesson Phase Teacher Structure Student Reply/ Response Teacher Rejoinder /Evaluation
141
Teacher Rejoinder Checklist for Story Discussions
Name of Story:
Null Rejoinder - No facial expression or head motion in response to student answers.
Question:
Student Response:
Teacher expression or reply: Answer yes or no only with no facial response to students.
Evaluative Response - That was a great answer, nice thinking. This demonstrates the
teacher likes the ideas the student has given in the discussion.
Question:
Student Response:
Teacher expression or reply: Positive affirmation of student thinking and how the
answer might have been found by looking back at the text.
Repeat/Rephrase - Rephrase or repeat the student's response, correcting the grammar
as needed.
Question:
Student Response:
142
Teacher Checklist for Story Discussions
Elaborate - The teacher embellishes the students response by paraphrasing and using
the response in the next complete question.
Question:
Student Response:
Correct - The teacher uses more descriptive language than the student who initiated the
elaboration. The teacher will restate the original question to try to get the student to
move towards the correct answer.
Question:
Student Response:
Finally, rejoinder questions are not yes or no type ofquestions. Instead use the
following:
How would you solve the problem?
What would you have done in a similar situation?
Tell me about a time when you were in a similar situation: How did you resolve the
problem?
143
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Urbana-
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Reading Research and Education Center.
Allington, R. L. (1994). Reducing the risk: Integrated language arts in restructured
elementary schools. In L. M. Morrow, J. K. Smith, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.),
Integrated language arts: Controversy to consensus (pp. 193-213). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Allington, R. L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing
research-basedprograms. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Allison, D. J., & AlJison, P. A. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and
expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly,
29(3), 302-322.
Anderson, R. c., & Pearson, P. D. (1984).A schematic-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.) Handbook of
Reading Research (pp. 255-287). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Anderson, R. c., Spiro, R. J., & Montague, W. W. (1977). The notion ofschemata and
the educational enterprise. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required
by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories: Informal reading
inventories may not be the best tool for assessing higher level thinking skills.
The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 174-182.
Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., & Vachon, V. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency:
Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly,
26(2),89-101.
Armbruster, B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building
blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for
Literacy. Retrieved July 1,2007, from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_fustl.html
Barron, R. F. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H. L. Herber
& R. T. Vacca (Eds.), Research in reading in the content areas: First year
report (pp. 29-39). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Reading and Language
Arts Center.
144
Baughman, J., & Bergeron, B. (1993). Story map instruction using children's literature:
Effects on first graders comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 25(4),407-437.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote
comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58,913-917.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1987). Getting the most from basal reading
selections. The Elementary School Journal, 87(3), 343-356.
Blanton, B. B. (1998). The application of the cognitive learning theory to instructional
design. International Journal ofInstructional Media, 25(2), 171-175.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and
behavior problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Boulineau, T., Fore, c., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-
mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 105-
121.
Bradsford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Nye, N. J., & Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in
approaches to learning: An overview. Journal ofExperimental Psychology:
General, 3, 390-398.
Brian, T., Bay, M., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Donahue. M. (1991). Characteristics of
students with learning disabilities: A summary of the extant data base and its
implications for educational programs. In J. W. Lloyd, N. Nirbhay, & A. C.
Repp (Eds.), The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative perspectives on
concepts, issues, and models (pp. 113-131). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
Carlson, P. A., & Larralde, V. (1991). Combining concept mapping and adaptive
advice to teach reading comprehension. Journal of Universal Computer
Science, 1(3), 127-132.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply
generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository materials.
Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20-30.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Language and learning disabilities. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
145
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw Hill.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching &
Teacher Education, 17(5),527-546.
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (2000).Promising Initiatives to
Impove Education in Your Community: Retrieved May 15,2008, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/2pager.html (1998, November
6).
Conderman, G., & Strobel, D. (2006). Problem solving with guided repeated oral
reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(1), 34-39.
Cooper, J. D., Chard, D. J., & Kiger, N. D. (2006). The struggling reader:
Interventions that work. New York: Theory and Practice.
Dansereau, D. E (1978). The development of a learning strategies curriculum. In H. E
O'Neil (Ed.), Learning Strategies (pp. 1-29). New York: Academic Press.
Davey, R, & Macready, G. R (1985). Prerequisite relations among inference tasks for
good and poor readers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77, 539-552.
Davis, R D. (1994). The gift ofdyslexia. New York: Berkley Publications.
Davis, Z. T., & McPherson, M. D. (1989). Story map instruction: A road map for
reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 19, 232-240.
Day, R R, & Park, J. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 17(1),60-73.
Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chaing, R (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading.
Exceptional Children, 49(1), 36-45.
Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. K. (2003). They can read the words, but they can't
understand: Refining comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56(5),
422-437.
Dimino, J., Gersten, R, Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach
for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The
Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.
Dochy, E, Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment
practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge.
Review ofEducational Research, 69,145-186.
146
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old
to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Duffy, G. G., & McIntyre, L. D. (1980). A qualitative analysis ofhow various primary
grade teachers employ the structured learning components ofthe direct
instruction model when teaching reading. Boston, MA: Annual Meeting of
American Education Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service 184085)
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study ofteaching. New York: Holt.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading
comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4),481-533.
Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elementary teachers do and what
basal reader manuals recommend? The Reading Teacher, 37(4),481-533.
Durkin, D. (1987). Influences on basal reader programs. Elementary School Journal,
87(3),331-341.
Earle, R. A. (1969). Use of structured overview in mathematics classes. In H. L. Herber
& P. L. Sanders (Ed.), Research in reading in the content areas: First report
(pp. 49-58). New York: Syracuse University Press.
Ezell, H. L., Hunsicker, S. A., Quinque, M. M., & Randolph, E. (1996). Maintenance
and generalization of QAR reading comprehension strategies. Reading
Research and Instruction, 36, 64-81.
Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of peer assisted
procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third-grade
children. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 15,205-227.
Facione, P. A. (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Journal of
Informal Logic, 20(1), 61-84.
Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning
strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary
literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2),131-152.
Flood, J. L. & Lapp, D. (1988, April). Conceptual mapping strategies for understanding
information texts. The Reading Teacher, 780-783.
----------------
147
Foorman, R R, Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, c., & Mehta, P. (1998).
The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk
children. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Fuchs, L., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum
based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and
student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21,
449-460.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading
comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20-28.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R, & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction
(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gardill, M. c., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on
the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Special Education, 33(1),2-22.
Gamham, A., Oakhill, J. V., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Referential continuity and
the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29-46.
Germann, G., & Tindal, G. (1985). An application of curriculum-based assessment:
The use of direct and repeated measurements. Exceptional Children, 52, 244-
256.
Gemsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
Gersten, R, Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of
research. Review ofEducational Research, 71(2),279-320.
Geva, E. (1983). Facilitating reading comprehension through flowcharting. Reading
Research Quarterly, 18,384-405.
Gough, P. R, & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Graesser, A. c., & Nakamura, G. V. (1982). The impact of a schema on
comprehension and memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology oflearning
and motivation: Advances in research and theory (vol. 16, pp. 53-109). New
York: Academic Press.
------------
148
Guastello, E, Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on
science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 356-364.
Gurney, D., Gertsten, R, Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effective
literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal
ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 335-343.
Hall, T. E. (1993) Teacher student interactions during passage reading instruction: An
observational study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Hall, T. E., & Strangman, N. (2002). Graphic organizers. Wakefield, MA: National
Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved June 15,2007 from
http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_go.htrn1
Hamilton, c., & Shinn, M. R (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation
of the accuracy of teachers' judgments of reading comprehension and oral
reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32,228-240.
Hansen, J. P. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 391-417.
Harwell, M. R (1983). An instructional study: Improving inferential comprehension of
fourth grade good and poor readers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 75(6),
821-829.
Harwell, M. R. (1988). Choosing between parametric and nonparametric tests. Journal
ofCounseling and Development, 67, 35-38.
Heimlich, J. E. P., & Pittelman, S. D. (1986). Semantic mapping: Classroom
applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hickman, P., Pollard-Durodola, S., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Storybook reading:
Improving vocabulary and comprehension for English language learners. The
Reading Teacher, 57(8), 720-730.
Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N., & Battle, J. (1993). Read aloud in classrooms: From the
modal to a "model." The Reading Teacher, 46,496-505.
Holmes, B. C. (1987). Children's inferences with print and pictures. Journal of
Educational Psychology 79, 14-18.
Howell, K. W., Fox, S. L., & Morehead, M. K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation:
Teaching and decision making (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
149
Hunkins, F. P. (1989). Teaching thinking through effective questioning. Boston:
Christopher Gordon Publishers.
Iding, M. (2000). Can strategies facilitate learning from illustrated science texts?
International Journal ofInstructional Media, 27(3), 289-301.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and
unskilled readers. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 20, 196-205.
Idol, L., & Croll., V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving
reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10,214-229.
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). "Just plain reading": A survey of what makes kids
want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4),
350-377.
Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity two measures for formative
teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421-432.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2007). Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research
findings and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 25-49.
Jitendra, A. K., & Xin, Y. (1997). Mathematical word-problem solving instruction for
students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research
synthesis. The Journal ofSpecial Education, 30,412-438.
Jitendra, A., DiPipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An exploratory study of
schema-based word-problems solving instruction for middle school students
with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural
understanding. Journal ofSpecial Education, 36(1), 23-39.
Jones, J. A. (2006). Content subjects and reading: Are all teachers reading teachers?
Childhood Education, 83(2), 100-115.
Kauffman, J. M. (2004). The President's Commission and the devaluation of special
education. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 27(4),307-313.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-
integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
150
Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its
implictions for instruction. In R Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes ofreading (pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Kirylo, J. D., & Millett, C. M. (2000). Graphic organizers: An integral component to
facilitate comprehesion during basal reading instruction. Reading Improvement,
37(4), 179-86.
Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading
expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1),67-86.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn., S. (1998). Using collaborative strategic reading. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 30(6 ),32-37.
Kuhn, M. R, & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Lefever-Davis, S., & Heller, M. F. (2003). Trends in teacher certification and literacy:
Literacy partnerships in education. The Reading Teacher, 58,566-568.
Lerner, J. W. (1993). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching
strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lloyd, J. W., Kauffman, J. M., Landrum, T. J., & Roe, D. L. (1991). Why do teachers
refer pupils for special education? An analysis of referral records.
Exceptionality, 2, 113-126.
Long, D. L., Golding, J. M., & Graesser, A. C. (1992). A test of the on-line status of
goal-related inferences. Journal ofMemory and Language, 31,634-647.
Long, D. L., Oppy, B., & Seely, M. R (1997). Individual differences of readers'
sentence and text-level representations. Journal ofMemory and Language, 36,
129-145.
Long, D. L., Seely, M. R, Oppy, B. J., & Golding, J. M. (1996). The role ofinferential
processing in reading ability. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacGinitie, W. (1984). Readability as a solution adds to the problem. In R Anderson,
J. Osborn, & R Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal
readers and content texts (pp.78-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Magliano, J., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during
comprehension. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 615-630.
151
Magliano, J., Wiemer-Hastings, K, Millis, K K, Munoz, B. D., & McNamara, D.
(2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 181-188.
Magliano, J. P., & Millis, K. K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud
procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21,251-283.
Mandler, J., & Johnson, N. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and
recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
Mantione, R, & Smead, S. (2003). Weaving through words: Using the arts to teach
reading comprehension strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement
in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266-276.
Martorella, P. H. (1990). Strategies for aiding students in comprehending social studies
subject matter. The Social Studies, 81(3), 131-134.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehensive
instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and
teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 103-118.
Mayer, R E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R, & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is
more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science
textbook lessons. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 88, 64-73.
McCormick, S. (1992). Disabled readers' erroneous responses to inferential
comprehension questions: Description and analysis. International Reading
Association, 27(1),54-77.
McGilly, K (1994). Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom
practice. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
McKeown, M. G., & Beck., I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional
development resources: Six teachers implement a model of teaching for
understanding text. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391-410.
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2003). Guided comprehension in the primary
grades. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension:
Expanding reader response. Journal ofAdolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1),
52-61.
152
McNamara, D. S. (1997). Comprehension skill: A knowledge-based account.
Proceedings ofthe Nineteenth Annual Meeting ofthe Cognitive Science Society,
(pp. 508-513). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior
knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22,247-288.
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information:
Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal ofExperimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 465-482.
McNamara, D., & O'Reilly, T. (2002). Learning: Knowledge representation,
organization, and acquisition. In J. W. Guthrie et aI., (Eds.), The Encyclopedia
ofEducation New York: Macmillan Reference.
McNamara, D. S., & O'Reilly, T. (in press). Theories of comprehension skill:
Knowledge and strategies versus capacity and suppression. In F. Columbus
(Ed.), Progress in Experimental Psychology Research (pp. 331-355).
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, W. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000).
Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(4), 179-
189.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization ofprose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam:
North Holland.
Millet, C. P. (2000). The effects ofgraphic organizers on reading comprehension
achievement ofsecond grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of New Orleans.
Minskoff, E. & Allsopp, D. (2003). Cognitive learning strategies, explicit instruction.
In Academic Success Strategies for Adolescents with Learning Disabilities and
ADHD (pp. 31-42). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar and
comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning
disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23(3),190-197.
Morrow, L. M. (1984a). Effects of story retelling on young children's comprehension
and sense of story structure. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Changing
perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction.
(pp.95-100). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
153
Morrow, L. M. (1984b). Reading stories to young children: Effects of story structure
and traditional questioning strategies on comprehension Journal ofReading
Behavior, 16, 273-288.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
(2000).Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment ofthe
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction: Reports ofsubgroups. Report of the National Reading Panel.(NIH
Publication No. 00-4754). Retrieved November 12,2007, from
http://nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm
Neuman, S. (1990). Assessing children's inferencing strategies. In J. Zutell & S.
McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis from multiple
paradigms (pp. 267-274). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (1989). Improving the reading
comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dyslexia using story
grammar. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 22(6), 373-380.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Public Law No. 107-110, 1001, 115
Stat. 1439. (2002). Retreived June 25, 2007 from
http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/nclb.htm
Nodine, B. F., Barenbaum, E. M., & Newcomer, P. L. (1985). Story composition by
learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 8, 167-179.
Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children's comprehension of stories.
British Journal ofEducation Psychology, 54, 31-39.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N., &, Donaldson, M. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions
in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal ofDevelopmental
Psychology, 8,401-410.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability:
Processes and remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.) Reading
comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 69-92.). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum:
Pearson, P. D. (1982). Asking questions about stories. Boston: Ginn.
Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 38, 724-738.
154
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of
research and new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal,
88(2), 151-165.
Pinnell, G. S. (1984). Communication in small group settings. Theory into Practice, 23,
246-254.
Prasse, D. P. (2006). Legal supports for problem-solving systems. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(1), 7-18.
Pressley, M. (2003). A few things reading educators should know about instructional
experiments. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 64-72.
Pressley, M., & Mflebach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols ofreading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering
comprehension questions. Journal ofReading Behavior, 27, (303-311).
Raphael, T. E., & McKinney, J. (1983). An examination of fifth- and eighth-grade
children's question-answering behavior: An instructional study in
metacognition. Journal ofReading Behavior, 15(3), 67-86.
Reutzel, R. D. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38,
400-404.
Richards, J. c., & Anderson, N. A. (2003). How do you know? A strategy to help
emergent readers make inferences. The Reading Teacher, 57(3),290-302.
Richgels, D. (1982). Schema theory, ling~istic theory, and representations of reading
comprehension. Journal ofEducational Research, 76(1), 54-61.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1981). An interactive activation model of
context effects in letter perception: Part I, An account of basic findings.
Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
Schallert, D. L. (1982). The significance ofknowledge: A synthesis of research related
to schema theory. In W. Otto & S. White (Eds.), Reading expository prose (pp.
13-48). New York: Academic.
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Woodruff, S., Hock, M. E, Bulgren, J. A., & Lenz,
B. K. (2006). Reading strategy interventions: Can literacy outcomes be
enhanced for at-risk adolescents? Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 64-69.
155
Shippen, M. E., Houchins, M. B., Furlow, C. E, & Sartor, D. L. (2006). The effects of
comprehensive school reform models in reading for urban middle school
students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 322-328.
Simpson, R, LaCava, P., & Graner, P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic,
40(2),67-75.
Skindrud, K., & Gersten, R (2006). An evaluation of two contrasting approaches for
improving reading achievement in a large urban district. The Elementary School
Journal, 106, 389-408.
Sorrell, A. L. (1990). Three reading comprehension strategies: TELLS, story mapping,
and QARS. Academic Therapy, 25(3), 359367.
Stahl, K. A. (2004). Proof, practice and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in
the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 57, 598-609.
Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). What's in a story?: An approach to comprehension
and instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Stewart, M. T. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of No Child Left
Behind: Recent U.S. education reforms are having an impact on early literacy
instruction. Reading Teacher, 57(8), 732-749.
Stoner, G., Shinn, M. R, & Walker, H. M. (1991). Interventionsfor achievement and
behavior problems. Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Suh, S., & Trabasso, T. (1993). Inferences during reading: Converging evidence from
discourse analysis, talk-alouds, protocols, and recognition priming. Journal of
Memory and Language, 32, 270-301.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis in
intervention outcomes. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 32(6), 504-532.
Sweet, R W. (1997). Don't read, don't tell: Clinton's phoney war on illiteracy. Policy
Review, 83, 38-42.
Taylor, B. M., & Samuels, S. J. (1983). Children's use of text structure in the recall of
expository material. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 517-528.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structure in comprehension and memory of
narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
156
Throne, M. J. (1992). A special needs student in a reading/writing workshop. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Tierney, R J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),
Handbook ofreading research (pp. 609-655). New York: Longman.
Tierney, R J., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Learning to learn from text: Aframeworkfor
improving classroom practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Torgesen, J. K, Morgan, S. T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of
phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children.
Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84, 364-370.
Torgesen, J. K, Wagner, R K, Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P. c., Conway,
T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with
phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to
instruction. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91(4), 579-593.
Trachtman, J. N., Giambalvo, V., & Dippner, R S. (1978). On the assumptions
concerning the assumptions of a t test. Journal ofGeneral Psychology, 99, 107-
116.
Vallecorsa, A. L., & deBettencourt, L .U. (1997). Using a mapping procedure to teach
reading and writing skills to middle grade students with learning disabilities.
Education and Treatment ofChildren, 20, 173-188.
Volkmar, F. R, Klin, A., Marans, W., & Cohen, D. J. (1996). The pervasive
developmental disorders: Diagnosis and assessment. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Clinics ofNorth America, 5(4), 963-976.
Weber, R M., & Shake, M. C. (1988). Teacher's rejoinders to students responses in
reading lessons. Journal ofReading Behavior, 20(4), 285-299.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Manualfor the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio,
TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Williams, J. P., Brown, L .G. Silverstein, A. K, & deCani, J. S. (1994). An
instructional program for adolescents with learning disabilities in the
comprehension of narrative themes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 205-
221.
Wilson, M. M. (1979). The processing strategies of average and below average readers
answering factual and inferential questions on three equivalent passages.
Journal ofReading Behavior, 11, 235-245.
157
Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Service.
Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical
word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal
ofSpecial Education, 32, 207-220.
Yuill, N., Oakhill, J., & Parkin, A. (1989). Working memory, comprehension ability,
and the resolution of text anomaly. British Journal ofPsychology, 80, 351-361.