MAKING STUDENTS PARTNERS

IN THE COMPREHENSION PROCESS:

ORGANIZING THE READING POSSE
C arol S u e E nglert a n d Troy V. M an ag e

Abstract.

This article reports on a com prehension procedure that m akes visible

to students their prior knowledge about a topic and the structures in expository
text. The procedure used reciprocal-like teaching form ats for the design of group
interactions during instruction, as well as sem antic m apping to make text struc
tures ap p aren t to students. Results suggested that strategy instruction using this
procedure significantly affected recall of expository ideas and knowledge of com
prehension strategies am ong students with learning disabilities. More im portantly,
it was the extent to which teachers were able to transfer control of reading strate
gies to students that appeared to affect students developing strategy knowledge.

Students' background knowledge, knowledge

of text structures and reading strategies, and self
regulation of reading strategies provide an im
portant basis for developing a comprehension
curriculum. The number of successful training
studies that concentrate on the combination of
these factors Is relatively small, with the recipro
cal teaching procedure as a notable exception
(Brown. Armbruster. & Baker. 1986)

Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal teaching refers to the process
whereby students take turns assuming the re
sponsibilities of the teacher for leading discussion
about short sections of the text by using four
reading strategies: questioning, summarizing,
clarifying, and predicting text information (Bos &
Anders, 1990; Palmcsar & Brown. 1986), For
example, the student leading the discussion
poses a question about the main idea to the
reading group for other students lo answer The
student leader summarises the Information in
the section by including the main idea and details
in a summary statement The student leader and
other students clarify their understanding of the
text. resolving questions about unfamiliar words
or unclear referents Students also make predic
tions about the content of the next section of
text Three features of the process promote the

success of reciprocal teaching

1. Reciprocal teaching is based upon devel
opmg students proficiency In a small set of
reading strategies that are related to compre
hension (Palincsar & Brown. 1986). Research
supports the effectiveness of activating back
ground knowledge through prediction activities
(Bos & Anders, 1990; Wilson & Anderson.
1986); actively rehearsing the ideas in text
through summarization (Armbruster. Anderson.
& Ostertag. 1987. Winograd. 1984); asking
questions about major ideas (Wong, 1979;
Wong & Jones. 1982). and monitoring and reg
ulating comprehension by clarifying ambiguities
and vague concepts (Baker &. Brown, 1986;
Bos & Filip, 1984: Reis & Spekman. 1983)
2, Reciprocal teaching develops comprehen
sion abilities by creating a social community
where students collaborate in using strategies.

CAROL SU E EN G LERT. Ph D., ts Associate

Professor, Department of Spectal Education.
Michigan State University
TROY V M ARIAGE. Ph D . Is a Research As
sistant, Department o f Special Education.
Michigan State University.

AH members of the rt*^dir>g group actively parlk1

ipate in the comprehension process by answer
ing The discussion leaders' questions, leading the
comprehension diKUS$k>n, and contributing to
the discussion to support if*; group In arriving at
i butler uryJeisijndirkg of the text's meaning.
Students assume the roie of discussion leaders,
responsibility for implementing anti monitoring
strategy me is handed over from teacher;; ro stu
dents. Thus, the reciprocal teaching format pro
vides <i built in mechanism for transferring
control for Srategy use and regulation. Teachers
gradually cede responsibility to students for the
selt-talk. and inner dialogue related to the com
prehension process, as students directly empkw.'.
direct, and monitor strategy use while reading.
3 Students actively collaborate in senspmeJdrcg o cflu iil to construct new iiK\jnJrhg,.s
Tn reciprocal teaching, meaning is conceived of
as a social process In which students negotiate
and reach consensus about the text's meaning
1see Aivermann. 19S5). as opposed to tech
niques whereby meaning is conceited of as a
form of objecliue realny that resides In the words
of the text For example., in remprocal reaching
siuderils buikl U[X>n each other s ideas. :nontor
answers, and contribute new understandings as
they Jointly work to frame an answer to a ques
t>on or to comprehend ideas. Comprehension,
therefore, is based upon mutual collaboration,
with Lexl serving as the medium for creating
meaning and arriving at shared understandings
Jn this way, the existence of meaning is believed
to be fundamen rally social rather than residing

tory text structures include description, problem

solution, and compare/contras: (Armbruster,
1984, Armbmster et al. 1987; Meyer, 1975},
With naturally occurring expository te^rs, text
structure Is more likely to be vjrldble jnd repiesented by categories of superordinate and subor
dinate details related to a topic. For example, an
expository text about an animat is likely to con
tain information pertaining to iuch categories of
information as. Where does it liue^ Whii does
it Look like? What does it eat? What are its
habits?"
Knowledge ol these text structures not only
.Gems to be related to overall reading compre
hension (Hnglert Sc Hiebert. 1934). but format
instruction in test structures can improve stu
dents' comprehension of expository texts (Arm
bruster et al,, 1987; Taylor & B<jach, 19S4).
Specifically, by using graphic representations of
these structuies and by mapping ideas onto text
struclure maps, teachers can make text strUC
lures and relationships vUible to students iBos (i
Anders. 1990). However, text structure instruc
tion rind mapping need to be incorporated into
(he reading lesson sc that students understand
their use within an entire reading process involv
ing: before, during, and after reading strategies.
Furthermore. Instruction needs to promote stu
dents' abilities to internalize text structures so
that thev can independently ijoritrol and itguJuiK
the Jitrategy even w,hen the teacher is unavail
able to guide them in making graphic repri^en
taiinns thrcujgh mapping.

within an individual, an author, or a teacher

(Bruffee, 1986) Moreover, the students social
and cognitive histories are considered an impor
tant facet of comprehension, which Is brought to
bear upon the comprehension process is stu
dents draw upon their rich background of knowl
edge and experiences to understand and explain
text concepts

The purpose of this article is to report on the

effectiveness of an instructional procedure
known as PO SSE, which was developed Ivised
upon previous research on reciprocal teaching
with at-nsk students (Palincsar & Brown, 1986).
and on teaching expository text structures to stu
dents with learning disabilities (Bos & Anders.
1990; Englert. Raphael, Anderson. Anthony,
Fear. & Gregg 1988; Englert. Raphael, Ander
son, Anthony, & Stevens. In press). In POSSE,
students employ a variety of reading strategies,
such as predicting ideas based upon background
knowledge. Qrganizing predicted textual ideas
and background knowledge based upon text
structure. Searching/Summarizing by searching
for the text structure in the expository passage
and summarizing the main ideas, and Evaluating
their comprehension As students apply the stra

Text Structure
The success of the reciprocal teaching proce
dure has been demonstrated witfi low-achieving
and at-risk students; however, strategies that
make comprehension processes visible to stu
dents with learning disabilities need to be
explored In addition to reciprocal teaching,
instruction in expository text structures holds
promise for students with mild handicaps
Although the terms may vary, common exposi
224

l~*amine

(Xu^trV

POSSE

1982; Wong St Wilson, 1984}; and monitoring

and regulating their comprehension flios it Filip,
1984). Experimental and control students wsrte
contrasted on two tasks involving their ability to
(a) recall ideas from an expository passage and
(I)) apply comprehension strategies (e,g., identify
the main idea, ask questions, make predations)
to short, one-paragraph segments uf text. It was
predicted tha students in the POS5F. condition
uyomJd make significantly greater gains m reading
comprehension and strategy implementation
than control students

tegies. the teacher simultaneously constructs a

semantic man of students1ideas to visually repre
sent rhe lext structure ar*d organization of idea*;.
According to several authors (Bos & Anders.
1990: Graham & Johnson 1989) these are es
sential prere.xting. during reading. nd po^t
reading aebvitte for special education students,
PO SSE also draws heavily upon Paiincsar s
wjork in reciprocal teaching for (he selection of
reading strat^gie^ and for the design of the
group interactions during reading to promote in
ternalization of strategy knowledge. Specifically,
similar to the reciprocal teaching format. PO SSE
students take turns leading the comprehension
dialogue by asking questions, summarizing, and
clarifying. Liktr reciprocal teaching, PO SSE re
lies upon the lesson dialogue and interactions
among group members to promote internaliza
tion of strategies development of self-regulation,
and transfer of strategy control from teachers to
students.
The PO SSE procedure was implemented in
this study to evatusle a strategy that combined
text St met ure mapping and reciprocal teaching
within the reading process. Furthermore, the
complexity of the strategies represented in
POS5F. provided an occasion for examining the
effectiveness t>f a procedure that immersed sludents with learning disabilities in a holistic and
integrated reading process That it. rather tlian
reducing the complexity ul the reading process
by introducing a few strategies at a rime or pre
senting them in isolation from other strategies
unilt they are well learned |cf, Pressley, Good
child, Fleet. Zajthowik], & Fwms. 1989; Press
ley, Symons. Snyder, & Carlglla-Bull, 1989

I lAienly-tsight iuurth-, fifth, and sixth -grade stu

dents with learning dtsahiliiies partir ipa red in the
study Student* were drawn from five class
rooms: two participated in the experimental
condition and three in the control condition.
Subject* had met slate and local guidelines for
LD placement, requiring that they had shown (a)
intelectuaJ ability in the average or above avE^rage range, (bl significant discrepancies between
expectancies based on intellectual functioning
and actual academic achievement: (cl no evi
dence of mental retardation, emotional distur
bance, or cultural or economic disadvantage;
<ind Idf reteplive or expressive language abilities
below mental age expectations. Eleven students
A'ere assigned to the PO SSE intervention; their
approximate redding grade level was 3 2 and
mean 10. 95.4; the remaining 17 students were
in the control conduit in: their approximate read
ing grade level was 2.4 and mean JQ 93.6, In
the PO SSE group, 6 of (he students were em

Swanson. 1989}, the strategies were combined

in the PO SSt procedure to evaluate the effec
tive ue^ of Jrie-: simultaneous and integrated pft?SenlatLon of a com- plex set of comprehension
strategies to students with learning difficulties
This oombinaiion would permit an examination
of the relative effectiveness of an integrated,
multicomponent comprehension procedure
The effect Iwtiuss of the procedure wafi evalu
aied using experimental and control groups of
Students with le^rniny disabilities ILDJ, given
prior research evident^ Itiul [fxTse students have
difficulty activating background knowledge
(Wong, 1979; Wong & Jones. 1982): reoognir1
ing and employing expository text structures
(Fnglert & Thomas. 19JJ7: Wong & Jones

rolled In the fourth grade, and 5 in the fifth grade.

In the control group, 3 students were in the
lourth grade. 9 in the fifth gmde. and 3 in the
sixth grade.
To determine the comparability of students in
the two groups, i-tests were performed on their
pretest scores. The results revealed no signifi
cant differences, p > 05. for any of the depen
dent measures, including the ability t<j read!
ideas from expository passages or to app!y com
prehension strategies to short segments of
expository text. Thus, both groups were similar
:n their comprehension performance sod itriit^gy knowledge prior to participation in the in
struct!on. The pretest performances of both
groups on the targeted dependent variables a

METHOD
Subjects

shown Jn TabEe 1 The variable5 are described in

more detail in the following sections.

Material*
/U sn tiem M aterials
To ,is>ess their ability to comprehend, students
were asked to produce a written recoil alter
reading an expository texl. The umt t?f this lash
has heen supported by previous research, whitfi
/tijggesis that successful comprehension perfor
mance is associated with free-recali and summirization abilities (Englcrt et si , 3989 Meyer.
Brandt. & Rluth. 198} However. lo eliminate
problems associated with decoding ability, all
passages were refid aloud lo students. For the
free recall task, students read a passage of
approximately 385 words. Haif of the students
reitd a passage about ram ek The other half read
a passage about dolphin*. Th* administration or
der W3! balanced within the experimental and
control conditions, and from pretest to posttest
Average passage readability was 4 4 bawd upon
(he Spache readability formula {Spache, 19->3)
tjich sludenl s written renaJ was assigned three
score*, a total recall score hota! number of ideas
recalled rom the onginal passaqes), number ot
main ideas recalled from the passage, and a
holistic score that refiefted the degree to which
the studeni s written recall matched the primary
trails and structure of the stimulus passage.
In addnlon to the recall measure, students
took a test that measured their strategy knowl
edge and application ol strategies to short para
graphs. The measure, adapted from a strategy

measure used by Pa:mcsar fPaimcsar & Brown,

19R4), consisted of three parts In the first parr
Students u^re asked lo predict the kinds of Infor
mat ion they would find in a story about a wild
animal (e.g., leopard) Next, students were given
two posit Ory paragr^phi for which they were
asked to generate a iiidi.ii Idea, ask a question
about the paragraph, and make a prediction
shout UlK. V.w in:Ny;r
~.i\ ripjlt Finally
students were asked I d kicntify approprit** Trad
ing strategies to use before, during, and after
Teading Students scores on the test were
summed to yield a single score that reflecled
their strategy knowledge.

POSSE Strategy Sheet and Curriculum

M aterials
The PO SSE curriculum contained a strategy
iheet that was designed to make visible to stu
dents both the strategies and the te*t structures
for performing the reading process. The strate
gies uuere aied by (he acronym PO SSE," which
stood for Predict, Organize, Search, Summarize,
and Evaluate. The strategy sheet served as a
form o( procedural facilitation, a term applied
to specific types of instructional supports thal
he]p students organize, structure, and sequence
their cogniriw activities until the c<^gnitlw pro
cesses have been internalized (sec ScardamaEia
& Berciter. 19861. A strategy sheet developed
for this purpose Is shown in figure 1.
Another type of procedural ifrdfitaTk corvsisled of a set of cue cards thal teachers could dis
play during the reading lesson and that the

dents followed along using their own copy of the

Both sides of the card contained a language
stem or verbal cue lo prompt the self-talk and In
ner language related to a particular reading strat
egy. such as predicting, organizing, searching,
summarizing, and evaluating (These stems are
shown in Figure 2.) Each card was constructed
to stand upright on the table so that It was visible
to all students The discussion leader either held
the card in his or her hand or referred to It on
the table to guide the group's discussion.

Procedure
Assessment
The reading measures were administered in
separate sessions In late October arid in Febru
ary All students were tested in their resource
rooms in small group. When administering the
free recal, teachers first gave the directions oral
ly and then read the entire passage aloud as stu

passage. They then were directed to reread the

passage After students had read the free recall
passage, it was collected and students wrote eve
rything they could remember. They were in
formed that the recall test was not a measure of
their word recognition or spelling ability, and
that they could receive help If they came to an
unfamiliar word while reading, or if they did not
know how to spell a particular word when they
were writing However, for all tasks, students
were told not to be concerned about writing me
chanics, such as spelling or punctuation If stu
dents' writing was not legible enough to allow
accurate scoring, they were asked to read what
you have written so that I can make sure ! know
what it says.' Teachers provided a written tran
scription immediately below the students' written
productions.

PO SSE Instruction
After pretesting, the strategy instruction was
Instituted with the experimental group for two
months. The PO SSE mslruction consisted of
several strategies, including predidmg. organis
ing. searching for the text structure. summariz
ing. and evaluating (see Engtert & Mariage.
1WO). Two of these strategies were prereadinq
strategies (e.g.. Predict. Organize background
knowtatg?.); rhn-e Irategirs wem during reeling
strategies (e.g.. Search/Sum man ic. Evaluate)
The former weite prestinted by the teacher, who
guided the group in making predictions and or
ganizing the predictions for the expository pus
sage. The duringrreading strategies were led by
student leaders, who took turns as the group i

[h administering thp itralegy knowledge test,

teachers read aloud each question to students
twice, Adequate time was given for students to
complete the lest. Questions were repealed
whenever students needed Additional assistance:
[his was rarely requested, however. As with the
free recall tneasuie, students were informed that
writing mechanics were unimportant, and that
the/ should just be concerned with recording
their ideas without worrying about spelling or
punctuation. Again, teachers reread II written
products Lo ensure thdt they were legible When
the writing was not legibJe. teachers asked stu
dents Lo die talc theii answers and recorded d
written transcnpion immediately above the stu
dents' written answer.

Predict

i [yeoct ht. .
I'm rerntmMifig .

Qrganize
I thin* ore cfii^ory mighl Gfl

earch/urnrr>arize
I ltiirJc lhtd main i4e4 is

My ujttSliO" dtiOul [Pu? rtiifi idea '5 .

Evaluate

I iNr* wrt did icfid not) preici Itits fna.n idoa Ccxftparel
Are ihore any ddttie&tion*?
I predict ttie -rex' part will

Figure 2 Prompts on strategy cue cards

I S

l.rTiT~nmjj f~fi|irlhrPifg. QlMMTCrVl

zte abcuJl

leader to guide discussion of the artide (see Pal

incsar & Brown. 1986. 1989). In the next sec
Hon of this discussion, these strategies are

you make that prediction9" (Anders & Bos.

1984. Langer. 1981) To help students internal
ize the self talk and activities related to predic

described in greater delail.

Predict. Activating background knowledge.
The Inlrcduction to a reading article in POSSE
began with activating backqround knowledge
(see Englert Sr Manage, 1990) To Predirt, stu
dents used cues from a variety of sources, indud
ing the title, headings, pictures, or initial pan
graph* to predict what the article would be about.
Using the-sc clues, students simply brainstormed
relevant information based upon what they knew
about the fMSiiign's topics, Teachers helped sti>
denih become more aware of the xnetacogiiitKie
processes related ro predicting by directing them
to "Brainstorm ideas about this topic, and then
asking such queslions as 1Where did that idea
come from? or ~Whai tlnei or strategies helped

tion, teachers also directed students' attention to

the verta] prompts on the strategy cards ('M y
prediction is . . ." "I'm remembering that. . '}.
Since the relevance of one S background knowl
edge cannot be iicUy ascertained before marling,
but mq$i be hcJd in teniative form until it is con
firmed or disconfirmed by the text, teachers
tried to accepl alt predictions tliat seamed n lit
ed to the passage topics (fcwsed upon clue* from
the passage title and pictures), ti sludents gener
ated totally irrelevant predictions, teachers either
guided them to self-evali^te their comments m
jqhr of the passage topics, or helped them make
mon? relevant predictions hy prompting them to
connect fheir predicted ideas to the anticipated
set of passage topics

Whenever students made predictions, the

timber acted as a scnb* in. recoidinq the group's
brainstormed ideas and predictions on the stra
tegy sheet, which wa* shown either on an m.*C!r
bead projector or on a Large shcei of paper dispiduil in the classroom. This procedure minimuad
the time that students pent on Writing rather
than on the more important activity of readcng.
The top section of Figur e 3 shows an example of
the predictions generated by one of the PQSSh
groups for the topic "The Bermuda Triangle "
O rg a n iz in g b a c k g ro u n d kno w ledg e* The
Organize step prepaid students for reading by
prompting iliem to organize (heir brainstormed
Ideas into a semantic map. To employ this strat
egy. students looked back at iheir brainstormed
ideas and considered whether any of them v>venl
togeiher and, if so. what those ideas might be
called. The teacher facilitated this process by
asking questions (e.g , "Do you see any ideas
that go together?' What can those ideas be
called?'). The teacher again acted a* a scribe,
recording the group's details and category labels
in the Organize portion of ihe semanlit map
iinti! a.J the brainstormed l^eas iij*i been catego
rized and labeled (see Figure 3) When students
had difficulty Identifying categories, leathers
prompted them lo ihink of categories that might
begin with Wlvquestions (Who, Where. What.
Why, When). Finely, teachers and students re*
viewed the semantic map by discussing what
new. information tad been tamed (Lartger. 1991).
Teachers also pointed out information about
the topic that was still unknown by reviewing ca
tegories for which few details had been generat
ed, or about which students had raised ques
lions, These questions were recorded on a sepa
rate sheet to represent the prereading questions
that students wished to have answered by the
author of the text. For example the teacher
teaching the lesson about the Bermuda Tnangle
recorded several student questions about the
topic, including 'What does it look like9" Why
do people disappear [in the triangleP" Who dis
covered the triangle?" and What is rhe Dragon
Triangle?" These questions were intended to
help students distinguish information they al
ready knew about the topic from Information
they wished to learn about the topic (see Figure 3).
Search/summarize. In the Search step, stu
dents began reading the passage as they searched
for the author s text structure The Search step
IX

i w u m ; D ita b ittv Q u a r u r t ,

represented a mental set or anticipation for

reading, but did not result in a new entry on the
PO SSE strategy sheet.
In the Summarize1 step, however, stiidents ac
tually began to identify the text structure for shori
segments of the article (i.e.T one paragraph m
length or longer) by Identifying the main idea
and by generating a question about the main
idea. To summarize, the discussion leader litigan
the dialogue by naming ihe main idea for the sec
lion of the article being discussed ('] think the
main idea is . ."). Oncc shidcnts discussed and
agreed upon their reasoning lor selecting a particulai main idea, the teacher recorded the main
idea in one of the category circles in the Search/
Summarize stations of the semantic map.
Alter ihe discussion leader had identified the
main idea he or she completed the summariza
tion process by asking the other group member
a question about the mam idea, editing relevant
details. To do thi$ the leader simply transformed
his or her summary of the main Idea into a ques
tion i My question about the main Idea Is . . ."
Students' responses to this question were re
corded by the teacher as details in the semantic
map correspond inq to a given category. At the
conclusion of Search/Summarize, ihi- reading
group had created a semantic map of the text
information (see bottom portion of Figure 3).
Evaluate. The tvatuate slip included three
leading strategies to furtheT guide ihe grcvp s>
discussion and comprehension ol short sections
of text: comrmre, clorifv. and eredrci.
In the compare step, the semantic maps gen
erated during the Organize and Search/Summa
rize phases were compared As the two maps
were compared, the group's leader directed a
discussion regarding the new information that
had been learned from the text and specific
aspects of prior knowledge that had been con
firmed and disconfirmed (Englert & Manage,
1990). In this way, the reading group directly
examined and summarized the relationship be
tween their predictions and text outcomes, while
elaborating upon their knowledge by making
relational statements linking textual ideas and
prior knowledge This procedure was supported
by prior research, which has shown the impor
tance of encouraging students to make semantic
connections between new and old knowledge
(Bos, Anders. Filip. & Jaffe, 1989).
To clarify, students asked questions about

unlamjliar vocabulary and unclear referents and

posed any questions not answered by [he
authors of the tent This discussion allowed the
group to clarify ambiguities and stimulated a dis
cussion ol kicas that were I routed loo lighiJy by
the* author. Thii step helped siudeni& realize that
ji'any readers questions were left unanswered by
the author, it also helped them recognize that
there were differences between comprehension
difficulties due to readers lack of understanding
and I hose emanating from poorly UTitten texts
In the final Evaluation step, students prccficfed what I he next section of the lexi would be
about. Thex* predictions could be based upon
ne of two sources of Information: |a| the mfortiv^Tpoii provided in the text, or (b) the semantic
map general ed during thf Organize step Stu
dents then read to confirm their predictions
Finally, after they finished reading the passage,
student* summarized the entire selection by exam
ining their texi map and summarizing across the
categories and details in their map, furthermore
they compared their J'redtction and $eardi/5*im
marize maps to draw relationships between their
prioi knowledge and the inlormalion in the text,
and to address any prior conceptions that were
eillier confirmed or disconfirwed by the text,

Control Classrooms
En tf*e control classrooms, teachers and stu
dents engaged In their regular reading routines
As in the experimental classrooms, students re
ceived formal reading instruction and had op
portunities to read the same expository text as
the experimental students. In all control class
rooms. teachers activated students' background
knowledge by asking them to make predictions
Teachers also checked students' understanding
of passages by asking them to answer questions
and participate in a discussion about the exposi
tory text s meaning. In fact, in one control class
room, students were asked to make predictions,
ask teacher like questions, and summarize the
text However, the differences between the ex
perimental and control classes lay in their em
phasis on text structure and the transfer of
control from teachers to students for implemen
tation and monitoring oI comprehension strate
gies in the dialogue about comprehension.

SCORING PROCEDURES AND RELIABILITY

Written Free Recall
To score the free recall measure, two coders

independently read the free recall measures and

assigned three stores. First, students were as
signed a holistic rating from 03 that indicated
the overall organisation of their recalls and the
degree lo which their recalls reflected the pri
mary traits and structure of the s iIttiuIlj* passage.
A score of "3" was assigned to recalls in which
students recalled groups of maLn ide-ils arid de
tails Irorn Several p^rts of the passage, and where
their ideas were? consistenlfy Well Organized nd
chunked" into groups of main ideas and subor
dinate details; a score of '2 was assigned to
recalls in which students produced fairly wellorganized, bul less complete recalls containing
one or more organised chunks of information; a
score of " I was assigned recalls in which stu
dents had attempted (o recall one or more
chunks of related details, but where the recall
had deteriorated to a mere collection of random
ideas. Finally, a score of "0 Hwas assigned recalls
in which students merely recalled random ideas,
with no reflection of the passage s lext structure.
in addition to the holisLic ratings, students
recalls were signed two other scores. One
Kure reflected llie i a t a l n u m b e r of id iiU S fro m
The original pas-sage contajnt^d in ihe recall, the
other the number of main ideas from the pas
sage

Strategy Knowledge Measure

In scoring the strategy knowledge measure,
students were assigned a rating from 0-2 points
based upon the accuracy of then responses. For
the question about predicting the kinds of infor
mation found in a story about a wild animal, stu
dents received 2 points if they provided a
superordinate idea or category (i e., 'where it
lives), a score of T for each relevant subordi
nate detail, and a score of 0" for ideas that
were irrelevant or not expository.
For the second part of the questionnaire, m
which students generated main ideas, questions,
and predictions for short paragraphs, students
again received ratings from 0-2 points General
ty, a score of "2" was awarded for correct main
ideas, questions, or predictions, a score of 1"
for partially correct main ideas, questions, or
predictions (i.e.. a prediction that was accept
able, but that focused on a less central idea relat
ed to the topic): and a score of O for incorrect
main ideas, questions, or predictions (I.e.. a pre
diction that was not acceptable because it
focused on an irrelevant idea or topic)

For the third part of the questionnaire, stu

dents were asked to identify strategies for use
before, during, and after reading, When stu
dents response* Included two or more accept
able strategies. thev were signed 2 points: 1
point was assigned to response that included
only one acceptable strategy, tvherees 0 pornts
ivere as^gned when the response included no
acceptable ^trategie*.
Scoring H i liability
Reliability was calculated on 1OSii of the free
recall measure and the questionnaire responses,
by dividing Ihfl number of agreements by the
sum of agreements plus diSfayreements On all
measures, reliability was above SO'^j far each
triable.

RESULTS
W ritten Free Recall
For the free recall, analyses urere conducted in
rwo sieps. Flrrt, a Multivariate Analysis of
Covanance (MANCOVA) was performed on Ihe
three dependent measures. COWaryin^ for initial
performances on th.e pretest. Second, if the
MAhK.'OVA yielded significant findings for a fac
tor, fhi* wparate univariate ratios were examined
for each dependenr variable to determine where
significant results Lay {The pretest and posrtest
means used In the free recall ai'ialytls are shown
In Table 1.}
The MANCOVA results revealed a signifi
cant main effect for instructional condition,
F13.18)=6 77. p< 01. When the univariate Fratk>5 were examined, the results showed that
effects seemed lo be attributable to the experi
mental students performance on all three de
pendent measures, including their total recall
scores. F( 1.20) 18.71. p<.001, and recall of
main ideas. FU .20)*6.3l. p<.05. The experi
mental group recalled significantly more ideas
than students in the control group and produced
better organized written recalls In fact, control
students recall performance declined from
pretest to posttcst.

Strategy Knowledge Measure

In addition to their writlen recalls, students'
knowledge of strategies was evaluated. Again,
the aggregated score was analyzed in a MAN
COVA. covarying for initial pretest performance.
The results revealed significant effects attribut
able to the instructional condition, Hl,18)=8 39,
p-.OOl Comparison of scores indicated that

132

Lecmtng D\uzhi'ity Quarter^*

experimental students sigraficanth outperformed

control students when pretest scores were en
tered as the cnuariate, In fact, whereas experi
mental students aw raged increases of 7 points
from pretest 10 poshest, control Jitudents' scores
decreased sJightly.
Teacher effect. Although students in the
experimental condition surpassed control stu
dents on the measure of their strategy knowl
edge. the treatment effects for this writable were
not distributed uniformly across the students of
the two experimental teachers. Despite the
power of the experimental treatment, teacher
effect* emerged that warranted more careful
consideration and discussion. In facl, in one
experimental classroom, students made signiflicant gains jp-i.01) on the queslionnaire from
pretest to posttesl (average mean gam of 12
poinls) ]n comparison, students in Ihe other
experimental classroom made only modest gains
(P-,189) from prrtesi to posttest fawrage mean
gain of 2 points), However, these differences did
not distinguish the written recall performance of
the two teachers' students insofar as Ixilh sets of
experimental students made relatively similar
preles! posttest gains
In explainlrvj the differences in studenls strat
egy knowledge. It is Important to note that ihe
two teachers differed in their willingness lo
transfer control for s tra in use to sludents and
to eliminate or fade students reliance on the
POSSE strategy sheets as students became suc
cessful at implementing the strategies Since
these differences seemed to be Important in
understanding how teachers should implement
strategy instruction, they are described in more
detail below
To illustrate the trends in the teacher effects
found in the qualitative analysis of teachers dia
logue. two transcribed segments from the video
taped lessons of the two teachers are reported.
(These transciptions are taken from lessons con
ducted at relatively similar points of time.) In one
experimental classroom, the teacher retained
tight control of the strategies as she prompted
the discussion leader when to use a particular
strategy, guided students more directly through
Ihe use of the strategies, and monitored the
accuracy of their responses. In contrast, the
other experimental teacher was much more
skilled in transferring conttol to her students for
making decisions about when and how to use

strategies, It was in rh^ lalter eKpenmeniat class

room that tine most iiqnificant gai:~-s were made
in slurients control and use oi strategies as evaltuated on the measure of strategy knowledge.
Video 1 Tighter Teacher Control
The transcript immediately following shows
how the more directed teacher maintains tight
control of the readinq group and students' dia
log*^ about the topic, 'The Bermuda Triangle.'
a
=-yhii |aj indicates when students are to proceed
to the next strategy (I.e., by flipping the cue
cards). (Hi selects s-iudents to amwer questions
rather than allowing the discussion leader to
assume total control of the reading group, and
(c) provides feedback to students on the accuracy
of iheir responses rather than aibwmg the dis
cussion leader or read mg group to engage in collahnrative pmbiem soKing The segment dearly
shows the teacher's dominance as she tries
out most of the cognitive work for her reading
group, leaving students the task oF merely
answering her questions or directives. The lesson
talk also consistently moves In a unilateral direc
tion from teacher to student, and then back
to the teacher This pattern oilers few opportu
nities for students to faintly construct text mean
ing or wn monitor each other's iinderslanding,
as mJghl he evident in a lesson talk pattern
involving more frequent occurrences of student
to sludent interactions.
T

Pat:
T:
Pat:
TT
Pat:
T
Pat:
T
Pat:
T
Pat:
T

We re going to Hart he search (process) (Turn

over She card "I think the main idea is . . .")
Okay. Pat. you are on
(Students read the next segment ot texl about
the Bermuda Triangle 1
I think the main idea is
about ships and
planes,
W hat about them 0
That they disappear
1 think you are right (she records information)
I would say the sam e thing I m going to add
information about people . they disappear
Okav Iprom pting the leader to continue)
My question about the main idea is How do
people an d ships disappear?
Does that get answered? I think a better ques
tion w ord m ight be this (points to question
word "Where * on board)
W here do ships and people disappear?
C an you answer that?
In the Bermuda Triangle
Good! C an you give me a detail?
I think one detail is ~planes and ships and peo
pie have never been seen . . .*
Have never been found

|A il'.jtlfir:! named Sue Mart; to w i-interr. bu[

T halts hei a:id asks ii Pat if done iM w n he
s a ^ yEH, ski? u ^ . Good to drain his brain
first be-fote uiv start on yours " Teacher then
gives Sue permission lo p r e l .|
Sue. Mot* th att lO O Lihips/'pij.nes'h h i w

di^ap-

T:

I think another detail m tyiii tw "n o one knows

happened "

T:

Okay. h ir e iwe go {curt d lK ^M o n leader to

continue)

Pat. I 1hiiik uw? did pr-fidicl 1his idea

T:
I rlvnk w? did. loo. We talked <ibojt planes
and -ships What happens to Ihvrri? They dis
(flips card, lo ctariftcation c-je card)
Pat- Ar-e th-TP any clari fkratinns'5 P^ot for m*1
S ue (points touuw di drtappeartid.'

You (too'i krKy* u+at that means? What doei

that rw a n ?

Sue-: Varnished . .
TVcs, gone
T- So we d o n 't really have any clarifications
hwciiiisj? von reaJli, d o know what thal means
Pal- I predict the next p^rt m il bf3 a b m i 1W h at is
m aking them dtsap'ie'ar.

As the transcript leveals. this experimental

teacher did not allow her studenls to perform
significant roles in shaping and contributing to
the lesson dialogue about srraieijiis Thus, stu
dents were not allowed independence in leading
the group making decisions, and collaborating
with ihe discussion leader In consirucitng mean
ing. Further, throughout the lesson. (he teacher
initiated and sustained the lesson dialogue, and
prompted strategy use. She rigidly managed
strategy use by retaining control of the strategy
cards and by cueing the discussion leaders when
to employ specific strategies. She also moni
tored the accuracy of students responses, and
provided feedback rather than fostering a collab
oratiue problem solving process where students
rointly constructed meanings and monitored
their own performance
Most telling was her directive to Pat, "Can you
give me a detail7 Her language and actions sug
gested that she was testing students knowledge
and that they were simply to provide her with
one word answers or fil-in-the-blanks to give her
the answer she sought In fact, when one stu
dent (Sue) tried to volunteer an idea, the teacher
slopped her with a response that might discour
age other spontaneous student contributions.
Later, when Sue suggested that the word disap
peared" might need to be clarified, the teacher
did not explore her thinking, but critically sug

VfeJuw 24

S p rt

M 1991

133

gested that Sue already knew wh^r the word

meant.
Unfortunately, when the tcachcr takes too
much control as ihe manager who eisks ques
lions and retains responsibility for critically evalu
aling response;*. students begm lo carry out tasks
wdlh little investment in ihu product or owner
ship of ihe language or strategies Uiichny &
Watsion Gegeo. 1989). !n the segment above
only two of the five students participated, and
their talk was primarily prompted by (he teacher
rather than other students ideas or th*? problems
encountered in the text. Through her conirol ot
the lesson taLk. the teacher minimized individual
students' opportunities to engage iri decision
making and exercise their problem-solving abili
ties The power and control of strategies and talk
remained with the teacher.

Video

2 More Student

Responsibility

In contrast, the other leather in ihe experi

mental condition encouraged siudents to fade
theft rdLance on strategy cards. allowing the dis
cussion leader to make important decisions
about when lo use strategies and encouraging
students to monitor each other and even estati
lish procedures for Their reading group
In the following videotape segment, tht fa th
er de-empha^ized the PO SSE procedures and
emphasized the responsibilities of leaders and
group members for sustaining and monitoring
the dialogue about lext meaning. At the time of
this lesson, ihe leather had already guided stu
denis to realize that they no longer needed Ihe
strategy cue cards lo lead their reading dis
cussion In the portion of the lesson immediately
preceding this segment, students had brain
stormed Ideas about the Loch Ness Monster that
included details about the lake where it lived
(Loch Ness Lake, rocky bottom, deep water.
Scotland); what it looked like {long neck, possibly
a plesiosaurus); where they got their information
(stories, pictures, new accounts), and so forth. In
the segment below, students are organizing their
ideas into categories (Organize) and applying the
reciprocal teaching process (Search/Summarize
and Evaluate) as they begin to read the exposito
ry text about the Loch Ness Monster
T

Oh we have to do one more thing before we

summarize 1almost forgot What do we do?
Ss: Organize.
T; How can we group these brainstormed ideas
(into categories)? What are some categories9
IX

Learning .'>uai>ii.l, Quarterly

Ann: Where it bw
T: L:i reel I D circle all the ideas about "Where it
IveS.*

Joe: {What about) Ihe reporter Wrjrtfc? (Trying (o

remind (etcher to put out reporter word* uw*1
to help student1
generate queitiiir.? such
whit, foow, when, why."!
T: We don't need them just yet. I think you may
know them.
T for the Cdiugofy "Where it lines', we ll ^ay It
Ikies . . -in Scotland (circles the ditail with a
redm-irkd!.
Ann Oh. I have one" What it does"1
1
T Oh, you have another category. Any more
ideas bout where it li^jes first?
Joe: In Lh Ness Lake
T
Okay. Do you think we have them all Ideas
atxjut whtre it livesp
Joe Deep water, rocky al the bottom. [Teacher cir
cles These ideas.)
T; Okay - -in red, I'll write "Where it lines" so
you iuvsM: ihat th ideas ejreisd ir: red aw all
part of the category "Whtnr it liwrs OK. Itt's
do another cal-egory in peilow.
Sue11hiue another category.
T Joe. you come up and put Sue's category in
yeJbu . . .
Sue. Wwie people litjid it from.
Joe (Greks two ideas misted to category, "Where
people heard it from.')
Tom 1have another caicc|ory. '"Wihai [does?
T. Ann. would you g& up and circle things that
have to do with "What it does?
Ann (thinks- loud *<, Jie circles ihe ideas chf*t an1
related to thts categvry)
TJi^v V the h**ad
. . They haw pictures of it.
Sun; That's not what it does (Ann crosses through
rhc iine she had begun to wiiic around the
detail).
Ann I have one for Joe that is part of his category
This idea (points to They haw pictures of its
head) belongs to his category (Joe sponta
neously comes up and cirdes that idea . . .).
[Students begin reading the passage for the
Search/Summarize and Evaluate strategies
Peg Is the leader for this segment of text,
which focuses upon the characteristics of the
Loch Ness Lake J
T: What is our main topic that the text is talking
about?
Peg The Loch Ness Monster
T: What was this section about? What was the
main idea9
Peg Oh the lake I have two questions What is a
lake.' and What is in it?'
T Do you mean this particular lake or any lake?
Peg This lake Joe7
Joe: It's fogc&>, It's deep, and it is long and narrow .
Peg: Don?
Don The land beside the lake, you don't know if it
is real soft and you could fail through it

T: So it could be soft and swampy

Ann: I think the Loch Ne Monger live* there.
T. is Ann answenng your question. Peg?
Peg: No
T: What was your question5
Peg: There are two of them What was the lake"
and What lives n the lake?"
Joe But they never answered that . . . I have a
question about the mam idea. Aren't we sup
posed to do a question about the main idea?
T: Just about what we read
Joe Yes. but she asked us "What hwed in the lake?
but it doesn t really mention it (what lived tn
the lake) in the book
T: That s true. The major idea has to do with the
Loch Ness Lake and what it looks like A
mmor Idea that we really inferred rather than
directly read in the article was that the Loch
Ness Monster lived in the lake.
Peg. Are there any clarifications?
Ss No response
T
I have a clarification You had trouble reading
some of these words and I wondered if you
knew what some of these words were? Ances
tors . ..
The segment above shows that group mem
bers actively monitored each other and con
tributed to the comprehension problem solving
process The leader called upon o th e T students
to contribute to th e dialogue about text, and the
entire group worked together to make sense of
the text For example, Ann monitored the accu
racy of Joe s categorization, and later, Joe inter
ceded when he disagreed with the discussion
leader s main idea. Ann also problem-solved in
deciding where a detail was to be categorized
when Sue provided her feedback suggesting that
her initial placement decision was incorrect.
Only when the group faltered in the problem
solving process did the teacher step in to model
a clarification (e g,. "ancestors"), or provide feed
back (e.g . asking Peg if she meant any lake or
this particular lake) In fact, the teacher carefully
scaffolded students thinking by asking prompts
or questions that required them to pause to eval
uate their thinking or others' success in using a
particular strategy (e.g., Is Ann answenng your
question?").
The teacher also encouraged students to inter
nalize strategics by eliminating problem-solving
crutches as they gained proficiency in the use of
strategies (e.g . use of reporter words, strategy
cue cards). Furthermore, the teacher actively
sought to transfer control to students for the
cognitive work that she initially performed For

example, after the teacher modeled how to cir

cle related details within a category, she invited
students to identify categories and circle related
details This scaffolded assistance has been well
documented in the reciprocal teaching literature
(Palincsar. 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1989)
As the second teacher's lesson continued in
the Search/Summarize phases, she continued to
cede responsibility to students for carrying on
the lesson dialogue. Students were mutually
involved in making sense of text Also, students
responded to other students and asked questions
of each other as they worked as a group to
frame answers or ask questions about the text's
meaning Their involvement in the lesson dia
logue was evident in the fact that five of the six
students offered comments about the meaning
of the paragraph in contrast to two students in
the other expenmental teacher s room Most of
these occasions were not directly solicited by the
teacher, but were prompted by the discussion
leader or by other students comments. Even
though they had not internalized the strategies
and required additional teacher support, students
in the second teacher s classroom showed more
ownership and control of strategies than the first
teacher's students The degree of ownership
and control of strategies seemed to be reflected
in the relative changes of the two groups on a
measure of their strategy knowledge.

DISCUSSION
The PO SSE intervention provided students a
vehicle for guiding them during reading and for
using text structure as a basis for organizing
their prediction and summaries The question
addressed in this study was whether an integrat
ed comprehension program would be effective
in a relatively short-term study. More specifical
ly. whether such an integrated curriculum would
be effective when implemented with a small
number of students with learning disabilities a
population for whom many authors recommend
teaching a few strategies sequentially and thor
oughly, rather than simultaneously in a multipk'
component package such as PO SSE (see Press
ley, Goodchild et al , 1989; Pressley. Symons
etal., 1989, Swanson. 1989).
In this study, students who were trained tn the
PO SSE strategies made significant gains in their
ability to recall textual ideas Since comprehen
sk>n recall is associated with successful compre

kfolumr 14 . S p n n g 1991

115

hension performance {Meyer el a l, 1980l Spl*

vey, 1984), ihese result a suggest the powerful
effect* of the treatment on (he reading compre
hension oi students with learning disabilities
The finding is particularly striking given the
short-1erm nature of the study (2 months) and
(he small number oi subjects (Kirk, 1968). In
fact, the participation of only 11 experimental
students significantly increased the variance and
reduced the likelihood of treatment effects.
In addition, the recall measure provided a slhngeni evaluation of changes in comprehension
performance, because students in the PO SSE
mstnictional condition were never directly taught
how to summarise texts or to use i he compre
hension strategies as a basis for recalling diS'
courseUwel Jtts without tin1 benefit of the
supported lesson dialogue and mapping proce
dures Yet, the tr*)aimen1 ^ffcet* suggested ihat
an integrated set of comprehension strategies
enn be effectively taught 1o ^iudents with learn
ing disabilities when a combination of instruclional factors are present, such as (a) incorpor
ating reciprocal teaching formats in instruction,
ib) presenting a set of effective comprehension
strategies, including instruction in Ihe use ol texi
structures. and fc> including several forms of pro
cedural facilitation that make visible the compre
hension process and that guide students through
their dialogue about texts, including the use of
strategy sheets and semamiL mapping icf. Bos St
Anders. 1990),

members of the group work together to use the

strategies and provide feedback to each other to
ensure ihat the goals of reading for meaning and
moniioring comprehension are accomplished In
doing so. students are challenged to jointly con
sider strategies for resolving co m p reh en sio n
breakdowns, and to employ fix-up strategies
(e.g., lookbacks) when breakdowns occur. The
evidence from this initial study suggests that
when teachers fail to transfer control to students
for strategy use. instead retaitiing control of the
problem-solving process, the success of the
Strategy instruction is diminished isee Palii^sar,
1986). This effcct was evident on the strategy
knowledge measure, whereas effects on the
recall measure were lalriy consistent across the
two experiment! teachers
This latter result raises an interesting question
about ihe differential effects of the two teachers
on students' slrategy knowledge, but not on
their comprehension retell Two explanations
may be offered for this unexpected result. First,
the lesson dialogue showed that neither group of
students had fully internalized the strategies in
the 2 months of instniition, as the teachers still
had to guide them m the use of the strategies,
Over a longer instructional period, performance
differences may emerge that arc more reflective
of the degree to which students have internal
ized tin? strategies, find the:r teachers abilities to
empower them with their use. An alternative
expl.-ination i& that the ability to talk about strate

Similar results were obtained when students'

performance on the measure of strategy knowl
edge was examined TJie ability to use and iden
tify strategies increased significantly for ex*
perimental students, whereat 1 decreased for
control students Thus, students who received
instruction in (he PO SSE strategies made Kjriifi
cant gains in their understanding of the compre'
hension strategies they could use before, during,
and after reading.
The teacher effect* for strittegy knowledge
suggested that instruction in which teachers
retain control of strategies may not he as suc
cessful as when students are assigned significant
idles in shaping and contributing to the lesson
dialogue about strategies. In PO SSE, students
are exp^cied to assume significant roles in lead
ing the group and collaborating with die leader
to construct meaning. This meaning is shared
and negotiated among group members. That Is,

gy knowfedge is not necessarily reflected in stu

dents abilities to employ the strategies in the
service of comprehension and recall In other
words, students declarative or statable knowl
edge about strategies may not be related to their
actual comprehension performance. At ihis
point, both of these explanation* are only con
jectures that need to be addressed in a longer
term study Invoking more subjects, and permit
ting a closer examination of the relationship
between instructional practices students starable knowledge about reading strategies, and
comprehension.
On Ute basis; uf ih^se findings, it sterns unnec
essary to decompose or reduce the reading pro
cess to a .iquenllfll set of strategies that are
learned and practiced in isolation. Instead,
inslructkm in the reading process and expository
text structures can be effective when these are
embedded in an instructional framework that

REFERENCES
Alvermann. D .E (1989). Teacher student mediation o(
content area lexts. Theory into Practice, 28[2),
142-147
Anders, P.L.. & Bos. C.S (1984} In the beginning
Vocabulary Instruction In content classrooms. Top
ics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 3. 53-65.

Brown. A L . Armbruster B B . & Baker, L (1986)

The rote of metacognition in reading and studying.
In J Orasanu (Ed,), Reading comprehension
From research to practice (pp 49-75) Hillsdale.
NJ; Erlbaum
Bmffce, K A. (1986) Social construction, language,
and the authority of knowledge A bibltographkr
essay College English. 48. 773 790.
Englert. C.S., & Hiebert. E.H. (1984). Children's
developing awareness of text structure in expository
materials Journal of Educational Psychology. 76.
65-74
Engtert. C S.. 8t Mariage. T. (1990). Send for the
POSSE Structuring the comprehension dialogue
Acodemic Therapy. 25, 473-487.
Englert. C.S . Raphael, T.E.. Anderson. L M , Fear,
K . & Gregg. S L (1988) A case for wnting inter
vention Strategies for wnting informational text
Learning Disabilities Focus, 8. 98 113
Engtert. C.S , Raphael. TE., Anderson. LM ., Antho
ny. H M , & Stevens, D D (in press) Making ant
ing strategies and seif-talk visible: Cognitive strategy
instruction in wnting in regular and special educa
tion classrooms American Educational Research
Journal
Englert. C.S . Raphael. T.E.. Anderson. L M , Gregg,
S.L . & Anthony. H M (1989) Exposition Read
ing. wnting. and the metacognltlve knowledge of
learning disabled students Learning Disabilities
Research, 5. 5-24
Englert. C.S., & Thomas C.C (1987) Sensitivity to
text structure in reading and anting A comparison
between learning disabled and non-learning dis
abled students Learning Disability Quarterly, 10,
93 105.

Armbruster. B B, (1984) The problem of inconsider

ate text In G G Duffy. L R Roehler, & J M
Mason (Eds ). Comprehension instruction. Per
spectives and suggestions (pp. 202-217). New
York Longman
Armbruster. B B., Anderson. T.H., & Ostertag, J,
(1987). Does text structiire/summarization instate
tion facilitate learning from expository text? Read
my Research Quarterly. 22{3). 331 346
Baker L . lit Brown. A L (1986). Meiacognltive skills
and reading In P.D Pearson (Ed ). Handbook of
reading research (pp 353 394) New York: l-oogrrvan
Bos. C S . & Filip. D. (1984). Comprehension moni
tonng in learning disabled and average students.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17. 229-233
Bos. C S . & Anders, PL (19901 Interactive practices
for teaching content and strategic knowledge In
T.E. Scruggs & B Y L Wong (Eds ). Intervention
research in learning disabilities (pp. 116-185).
New. York: Spnnger-\A?riag
Bos, C.S.. Anders, PL-. Filip. D , St Jafte, L E- (1989)
The effects of an Interactive instructional strategy
for enhancing reading comprehension and content
area learning fo students with learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22. 384-390

Graham. S.. & Johnson, L.A. (1989). Teaching read

ing to learning disabled students: A review of
research supported procedures. Focus on Excep
tional Children, 2116), 112.
Kirk. R E. (1968). Experimental design Procedures
for the behavioral sciences- Belmont. CA:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Langer. J A. (1981) From theory to practice: A pre
reading plan Journal of Reading. 25, 152-156.
Meyer B JF (19751 The organization of prose and
its effects on memory Amsterdam: North-Holland
Meyer, B J F., Brandt. DH.. & Bkrth. G J (1980).
Use of author s textual schema Key for ninthgraders comprehension. Reading Research Quar
terly. 16. 72-103
Palincsar, A S. (1986) The role ol dialogue in scaf
folded instruction Educational Psychologist. 21,
7398.
Palncsar, A S., & Brown. A L. (1984) Reciprocal
teaching of comprehension-fostering and compre
hension-monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction. 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A.S . & Brown, A L. (1986). Interactive
teaching to promote independent learning from
text The Reading Teacher. 711-777
Palincsar. A S., & Brown. A.L. (1989). Classroom

emphasizes reciprocal teaching, scaffolded assis

tance, procedural facilitation, and peer collabora
tion. Nevertheless, the results also suggest that
the lesson dialogue and students' control and
contribution to the dialogue about the compre
hension process seemed to promote students
strategy awareness
Teachers play an important role in teaching
students to make use of background knowledge,
text structures, and comprehension strategies In
expository reading. PO SSE provides one type of
structure for making these processes visible to
students, and offers one example of how such a
dialogue can be conducted within the curriculum
to further students' reading comprehension. Ad
ditional research needs to be conducted to exam
ine the effects of such instruction with a larger
group of students with learning disabilities and
over a longer instructional period. Also, exami
nation of teacher effects would be helpful in pin
pointing the specific instructional facets of scaf
folded instruction that promote comprehension
success

Ui/tmv /4 Spn/iy 1991

137