Three Decades of Cooperative Reading from Theory to Practice: Implications for the 21st Century
Curtis Jay Bonk, Ph.D.Indiana UniversityDepartment of Counseling and Educational Psychology201 N. Rose AvenueBloomington, IN 47405-1006(812) 856-8353
Jill Salisbury-Glennon, Ph.D.Auburn UniversityDepartment of Educational Foundations, Leadershipand Technology4036 Haley CenterAuburn University, AL 36849-5221(334) 844-3064
Running Head: Cooperative Reading
A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April, 1991.
Three Decades of Cooperative Reading from Theory to Practice: Implications for the 21st Century
Abstract
The present theoretical review elucidates the cooperative reading techniques which
have emerged during the last three decades using a historical perspective. Practices
grounded in the motivational theories produced some of the first cooperative learning
techniques discussed in the present review, Student Team Learning and Learning
Together. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was the theoretical framework for
the structured controversy cooperative learning technique. While these three programs
are more general cooperative learning programs, the remaining four cooperative reading
programs were specifically designed for enhancing reading comprehension.
The cognitive revolution, with its emphasis on the cognitive information-processing
system was the theoretical framework of a cooperative reading technique known as
MURDER/cooperative scripts. A cognitive information-processing approach to learning
emphasizing cognitive strategy instruction also served as the theoretical basis for CIRC
and reciprocal teaching. CIRC and reciprocal teaching were further differentiated
however, by their emphasis on a process based on the work of Vygotsky. Finally,
technology supported cooperative reading is more firmly grounded in a student-
centered constructivist approach to instruction and learning.
The conclusion of this theoretical review integrates common themes and questions
among cooperative reading techniques and poses implications for cooperative reading
research for the 21st century. These implications suggest the following: Aspects of the
various cooperative reading techniques may interact in a synergistic manner to lay the
groundwork for additional comprehensive cooperative reading techniques. Cooperative
reading may become an important catalyst for the educational reform movement and the
changing role of the teacher from an information dispenser to more of a coach or
consultant. In line with the previous implication, evidence suggests that cooperative
reading necessitates more collaborative, multidimensional and authentic assessment.
Further, as we rapidly approach the information age, technology assisted cooperative
reading will continue to become more and more prevalent. Finally, as our society
becomes increasingly diverse, cooperative reading will become more widely used to
integrate learners of varying races, ethnicities, SES, ability levels, special education
classifications such as LD, and ESL students to name a few of the many diverse types
of learners.
While this literature review synthesizes the results of a variety of studies grounded
in motivational, cognitive developmental, cognitive information-processing, and more
constructivist frameworks rooted in the work of Vygotsky, there is still a need for much
more systemic investigation into the many variables that are at work in the complex
process of cooperative reading, as well as their interactions.
Introduction and Rationale
Cooperative learning techniques evolved significantly in a variety of domains since
the early 1970's. However, cooperative learning techniques were tested mainly in the
areas of science, math, and language arts, not reading. Early attempts at cooperative
learning in reading using generic cooperative learning methods were minimal and
inconclusive. This was due both to the original focus of these methods as well as to the
numerous measurement difficulties of students reading cooperatively from text. In
response to these generic methods, specific cooperative reading techniques were
developed during the past two decades in an effort to shift attention and control in the
reading classroom from correct answers toward the joint negotiation and co-
construction of meaning from text.
The purpose of the present theoretical review will be to elucidate the cooperative
reading techniques which have emerged during the last three decades using a historical
perspective. This review will discuss cooperative learning and cooperative reading from
the theoretical perspectives of motivational theories, the cognitive developmental theory
of Jean Piaget, cognitive information processing theories, and constructivist
approaches to instruction based on the work of Vygotsky. While the purpose of the
present review is not to elucidate the sociocultural factors central to cooperative
learning and reading, a theoretical review of cooperative reading techniques would not
be complete without mentioning the sociocultural factors central to cooperative learning
and reading. Hence, these sociocultural factors will be briefly mentioned first. (For a
more comprehensive review of these factors, see Webb and Sullivan Palinscar, 1996).
Practices grounded in the motivational theories produced some of the first
cooperative learning techniques discussed in the present review, Student Team
Learning and Learning Together. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development was the
theoretical framework for the Structured Controversy cooperative learning technique.
These three programs were more generic cooperative learning programs that have been
adapted to the reading classroom. The remaining four cooperative reading programs,
discussed below were specifically designed for enhancing reading comprehension.
The cognitive revolution, with it’s emphasis on the cognitive information-processing
system was the theoretical framework of a cooperative reading technique known as
MURDER/cooperative scripts. A cognitive information processing approach to learning
emphasizing cognitive strategy instruction also served as the theoretical basis for CIRC
and reciprocal teaching. However, what differentiates CIRC and reciprocal teaching
from previously mentioned programs is their emphasis on the constructivist principles
rooted in the work of Vygotsky. Finally, technology-supported cooperative reading is
firmly grounded in a learner-centered constructivist approach to instruction and
learning. Interestingly, while many cooperative learning techniques are grounded to
some degree in constructivist principles, at the same time, a learner-centered
constructivist approach to instruction has increased practitioners’ demand for
cooperative learning and cooperative reading techniques.
When given the higher-order tasks evident in most recent cooperative reading
approaches, reading partners or teams (i.e., co-processors) jointly explore, interpret,
and interrelate meaning derived from text. The cooperative reading skills emphasized in
this paper address reading comprehension as opposed to word identification,
recognition, or decoding skills. A listing of 15 possible cognitive and metacognitive
activities within a cooperative reading environment are listed in Table 1 (the cognitive
gains of cooperative reading will be more obvious after the later review of cooperative
reading methods and techniques). Table 1 is partitioned into prereading and
postreading cooperative activities.
_________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_________________________
As implied within the processing skills highlighted in Table 1, the display of reading
competence is now viewed as an active, constructive act, wherein readers continually
refine their comprehension strategies and use situational cues to eventually build a
personal representation of meaning (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991).
Sociocultural Factors Underlying Group Interaction
In spite of two popular theories claiming that peer interaction is the most powerful
influence on achievement, development, and socialization, the didactic teacher-student
view of schooling has continued to de-emphasize student-student interaction in reading
and most other classrooms (e.g., Johnson, 1980). In response, researchers, teachers,
and theorists have attempted to convince school administrators, policy makers, and
other educators that student-student interaction is valuable by investigating student
achievement in cooperative groups (Cohen, 1982). Importantly, increased interaction in
a reading classroom would be affected by such factors as grouping practices, ability
and perceived status, ethnic background and SES variables, cooperative learning
norms, the reading task, student autonomy, evaluation procedures, and the cognitive
skills of group members. Several of these variables are explored below.
Ability and perceived status
One of the primary arguments for using heterogeneous grouping practices is to
benefit low-ability students, since they can learn from their more able peers (e.g., Webb
and Sullivan Palincsar, 1996). This practice receives theoretical support from the
cognitive developmental work of Piaget, believed that interacting with others helps
students to confront their own misconceptions. This practice is also grounded in one of
Vygotsky’s principles, the zone of Proximal Development, in which more able peers help
students to learn at a level that is above the level at which they can learn alone. Webb
(1980) found that when low ability students worked in heterogeneous groups, they
tended to receive more explanations than when they work in homogeneous groups.
Importantly, similar research has also demonstrated that heterogeneous grouping
practices tend to benefit high ability students as well, since they take an active
leadership role, and tend to elaborate and synthesize information as they “teach” it to
others (e.g., Webb, 1980). Further research has demonstrated that the tendency for high
ability students to serve as the leader in a heterogeneous group may be due more to
their perceived ability than to their actual ability (e.g., Dembo and McAuliffe, 1987).
Ethnic background, race and SES variables
Cooperative learning was initially emphasized in Gordon Allport’s work which
demonstrated ways for reducing prejudice in multiethnic settings. In diverse
classrooms, the preponderance of research suggests that white students are more
likely to take leadership roles, while minority students tend to be less assertive, and
make fewer contributions (Cohen, 1982;as cited in Webb and Palincsar, 1996). In a
series of studies conducted by Elizabeth Cohen and her colleagues, (e.g., Cohen, 1973;
Cohen & Roper, 1972; Cohen, Lockhead & Lohman, 1976) low status non-white students
received special training and then taught high-status students how to do the tasks. One
important aspect of this research was that in having the low-status students teach the
high status students, the high-status students’ perceptions of the low status students’
abilities were also changed in the process, and hence, interaction was increased.
Cooperative learning norms
While some cooperative learning programs emphasize developing cooperative
norms as part of the process, in other cooperative learning programs, developing
cooperative norms is at the heart of the process. The Child Development Project, for
example, emphasizes a variety of classroom experiences designed to promote
autonomy, self-regulation, collaboration, and critical thinking and problem-solving
within a community of learners through emphasis on five major steps (D. Solomon et al.,
1990). In Cohen, Lotan, and Catanzarite’s (1990) version of Finding Out/Descubrimiento
(De Avila & Duncan, 1980), the teachers encouraged cooperative norms by emphasizing
that academic tasks required different abilities and that everyone would be good at
some tasks but not others.
The teacher’s role, classroom environment and evaluation
The didactic teacher-students view of schooling has continued to de-emphasize
student-student interaction in reading and most other classrooms (Johnson, 1980).
Meloth (1991) asserts that the use of cooperative learning methods in the classroom is
affected by teacher belief systems regarding cooperative learning, the tasks selected for
learning, and the nature of teacher direction and feedback regarding cooperative work.
First, when teachers fail to grasp the importance of collaborative group discussion and
dialogue, student-directed learning and intrinsic motivation, ineffective use of
cooperative learning results. Second, Meloth’s work indicates that teachers can’t simply
expect students organized in cooperative groups to be involved in sophisticated
discussions regarding text; teachers must first model this behavior and provide
feedback that explicitly relates to comprehension issues, not simple task completion.
Also, teacher modeling of high-level questions may promote deep-level cognitive
processing and enhance reading comprehension.
The incorporation of the above cooperative learning and reading suggestions may
require instructors to make significant philosophical shifts in the amount of control,
responsibility, and decision-making they afford students. While cooperative learning
and reading have been associated with many positive learning outcomes, classroom
teachers may not have developed the instructional models for developing and
controlling this kind of learning. Because of prior teacher beliefs about learning,
teachers often face a personal dilemma in thinking about their role in the classroom
when implementing cooperative learning (Cohen, 1986). In cooperative learning, the
teacher’s role is that of a coach, guide, or facilitator, as opposed to that of an
information transmitter. Both the role of the teacher and the role of the student are
changed considerably in cooperative learning.
A classroom environment emphasizing a behaviorist, lecture transmission model of
instruction will not lend itself to effective cooperative reading. Rather, the complex
process of the co-construction of text must be supported by a learner-centered
constructivist or social constructivist orientation to learning which emphasizes guiding
and supporting students as they learn to construct their understanding of the culture
and communities of which they are a part (A. Brown, Ash, Rutherford, Nakagawa,
Gordon, & Campione, 1993; J. S. Brown, Collins, Duguid, 1989; Cobb, 1994; Collins,
1990; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Pea, 1993b). Adjustments must be made in a
cooperative learning setting with regards to assessment as well. While a skill-based
traditional curriculum may lend itself to the assessment of low-level facts that can be
learned through rote-memorization, cooperative learning and reading, rooted in the
principles of constructivism may lend itself to more authentic, longitudinal,
multidimensional assessments, such as those suggested by Paris, Lawton, Turner, and
Roth (1991).
Implications of the factors underlying group interaction
Given the previous research reviewed here, the most obvious suggestion that can
be made when grouping students for instruction in reading and other content areas is to
maximize verbal interaction patterns within the cooperative reading group (both giving
and receiving high-level elaborations), while minimizing the possibility of negative or no
feedback (Webb, 1989). Also, teacher modeling of high level questions may promote
cognitive processing goals and enhance reading comprehension. To foster these high-
level elaborations and question-asking behavior, reading teachers may want to group
the least able with the most able, group medium-ability students homogeneously, and
place an equal number of boys and girls in all these groups. Further, reading
classrooms should encourage some more Piagetian notions such as positive conflict
and dialogue; as well as situations ripe for extending zones of proximal development
(Vygotsky, 1978). Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, grouping of students may affect
and be affected by perceived student status. Heterogeneous grouping opportunities
allow children to alternate their social roles within the group, thereby constraining the
dominance or high academic status conferred students performing well on standardized
reading tests (Cohen, 1982). Finally, both reading teachers and their students should be
taught the benefits of increased verbal interaction; especially asking questions, giving
assistance, and other interpersonal skills necessary to build positive collaborative
relationships with their peers.
The incorporation of the above cooperative learning suggestions may require
reading instructors to make significant philosophical shifts in the amount of control,
responsibility, and decision making they afford students. While the developmental
research from Piaget and Vygotsky suggests that reading comprehension would be
enhanced when group members with divergent views engage in extended dialogue
forcing one or more members to reexamine existing beliefs, the amount of student
control over discussion and debate about a passage varies significantly from teacher to
teacher. Though extended discussion and debate about a passage should take place in
an environment of trust, care, assistance, and peer support, such positive conflict is not
easy to manage since most academic disagreements are suppressed or avoided
(Johnson & Johnson, 1985, 1988). Hence, though cooperative learning in a reading
classroom would be associated with many positive learning outcomes (e.g., perspective
taking, reading comprehension, and social support), classroom teachers may not have
developed an instructional model for structuring and controlling this type of learning.
Adding to this potential dilemma is the fact that researchers have yet to document or
compare the effective cooperative reading instructional models and associated learning
outcomes.
.Cooperative Reading: A Theoretical Review
Since the late 1970's, numerous cooperative reading techniques and possibilities
have sprung up from a few pockets of research. Most of the approaches for reading
cooperatively from text described in the next section are multi-component programs
that include such components as initial teacher modeling, direct instruction, scaffolded
instructioni, group discussion, oral summarization, question asking, clarification,
elaboration, and teacher feedback. Although there are reading comprehension gains
associated with each of these methods, it is extremely difficult to attribute cooperative
reading effectiveness to specific group interaction variables until a more detailed
analysis is made of the components of these methods.
_________________________
Insert Table 2 about here
_________________________
The Motivational Theories of Learning
Until the late 1960's, a more behavioral orientation to learning dominated which
construed learning as emitting responses to environmental stimuli. This behavioristic
framework suggested a relatively passive learner who was somewhat dependent on the
environment to affect his or her learning. A behavioral orientation to learning also
places a great deal of emphasis on reinforcers and punishers as the source of
motivation to learn.
The first cooperative learning programs discussed in this review are grounded in
the motivational theories of learning. The motivational theories are grounded in the work
of Deutsch and emphasize cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures.
This motivational theoretical orientation led to programs developed by Slavin et al.at
Johns Hopkins University, such as Student Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) and
Teams Games and Tournaments(TGT), which emphasized a cooperative reward
structure. This theoretical orientation also led to programs such as Learning Together,
developed by the Johnsons, which emphasized positive goal interdependence and a
cooperative reward structure.
Student Team Learning
An offshoot of behavioral research at Johns Hopkins University emphasized the use
of a cooperative reward structure as opposed to a cooperative task structure or division
of roles (De Vries & Slavin, 1978; Slavin, 1984). According to Slavin (1987a), cognitive
growth within environments like cooperative reading was mainly promoted by external
reward expectations, not by social interaction. Student Team Learning is a
general cooperative learning method, as it’s researchers have rarely applied this
technique to the teaching of reading. The Student Team Learning approaches include
such methods as Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Teams-Games-
Tournaments (TGT). In these methods, students work in teams to learn the material, then
take individual quizzes. Improvement points are rewarded on the individual quizzes and
added together to form team scores. Finally, if teams earn a pre-specified number of
points, teams receive rewards such as certificates. TGT is identical to STAD, with the
exceptions that quizzes are replaced by academic games in which students
demonstrate their knowledge of the material they have learned in their teams.
In-line with a more behavioral orientation to learning, STAD and TGT are most
appropriate for teaching well-defined subject matter that has one right answer. These
techniques can however, be adapted for use with less well-defined subject matter if
assessment such as essays or performances are used. In the past, studies were often
conducted in language arts or mathematics because one right answer could be found
(Slavin, 1978). In fact, an early technical report by De Vries, Mescon, and Shackman
(1975) noted considerable caution on the part of these researchers when they were
using TGT to teach more complex reading skills. The authors optimistically concluded
that this study represented only the first step in extending TGT research to a new skill
area, reading, and suggested the approach may soon facilitate both higher and lower-
order cognitive skills related to reading. However, 20 years later, extensive research
using either TGT or STAD in cooperative reading can’t be found. Perhaps, the
techniques are in fact best suited to learning well-defined subject matter.
One reading related study, however, did appear in the early 1980's. Here, Slavin and
Karwiet (1981) used multiple cooperative reading methods, TGT, STAD, and JIGSAW II
with fourth and fifth graders. Results indicated that achievement in basic reading
vocabulary increased, while no effects occurred in the complex process of reading
comprehension. Using Slavin’s (1990) Student Team Learning approach, Meloth and
Deering (1990b) also investigated cooperative learning for the co-construction of
meaning. Results indicated that the classrooms implementing task rewards, as
recommended by Slavin, were more focused on superficial task features such as
correct answers, pace, directions, and materials. In contrast, those in the cooperative
learning condition without rewards were more involved in discussion about facts,
concepts and strategies, while experiencing greater counter assertions and content talk.
Additionally, interview data indicated that the no reward group became more aware of
learning goals and task products and operations.
As with the behavioral orientation to learning, these Student Team Learning
techniques have proven successful in drilling “the one right answer” into the minds of
children, but not the construction of higher level meanings from text. As the results of
these and similar findings, many constructivist researchers have questioned whether
direct instruction methods like STAD and TGT can enhance more complicated
processes such as the co-construction of meaning from text and the resolution of
conflicting opinions (Harris & Pressley, 1991).
Learning Together
Based in part on the notion that cooperation appears to promote higher
achievement among students than either competitive or individualistic effort (Johnson,
Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981) Learning Together was developed.
Theoretically, this technique is based on the work of Deutsch (1962) which
demonstrated that positive goal interdependence results in a promotive interaction
pattern which in turn increases achievement.
When one compares this cooperative learning technique, and it’s underlying theory,
to Student Team Learning for example, it becomes obvious that there is a basic
theoretical disagreement among researchers as to whether positive goal, or positive
reward interdependence mediates the relationship between cooperation and
achievement. In contrast to the theoretical underpinnings of The Johnsons’ Learning
Together, which emphasizes positive goal interdependence, the research by Slavin
(1983) is largely grounded in a theoretical position stating that positive reward
interdependence largely explains the relationship between cooperation and
achievement.
One study in particular (Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1988), demonstrated that
positive goal interdependence in and of itself increased achievement over individualistic
efforts. However, the combination of positive goal and reward interdependence had an
even great effect. Hence, this particular study demonstrated that two ways of structuring
positive interdependence were more effective than one. Perhaps the important issue to
debate is not whether positive goal or positive reward interdependence mediates the
relationship between cooperation and achievement, but rather, how positive reward and
positive goal interdependence can be combined to affect achievement. Perhaps the two
can work in a synergistic manner.
As with the cooperative reading findings on Student Team Learning above, it was
surprising to discover that there are also few investigations of the Learning Together
Method (Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986), one of the purest and most popular
forms of cooperative learning. Learning Together is similar to STAD in the fact that it
uses heterogeneous learning groups and emphasizes positive interdependence.
However, Learning Together also has some fundamental differences. In Learning
Together, face to face interaction and positive interdependence are emphasized over
group competition, as Learning Together recommends that team grades rather than
certificates be used as a reward. Again, as with most research in cooperative learning,
the focus of the Learning Together method has been on the overall effectiveness of
cooperative learning, not on reading comprehension, or the construction of meaning in
the reading classroom.
Finally, like Slavin’s Student Team Learning methods, most of the Johnson and
Johnson research pertains to areas other than reading, such as math and science.
However Learning Together’s emphasis on group discussion, and it’s focus on tasks
involving such complex processes as problem solving and higher order thinking skills
align the Learning Together technique more closely with some of the more social
constructivist reading methods discussed below. Given the results of the specific
cooperative reading methods, the Learning Together method may find useful application
in the co-construction of meaning from text.
Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
Structured Controversy
The structured controversy technique relies on cognitive conflict and student-
student dialogue and interaction to promote comprehension of text materials (Johnson
& Johnson, 1988). This cooperative learning technique is grounded principally in the
work of Piaget and the belief that cognitive conflict leads to higher levels of reasoning
and learning. In the Piagetian tradition, cognitive development in a reading classroom is
contingent on individuals confronting those who hold contradictory thoughts and
claims, thereby creating conflicts that spur higher levels of reasoning (Piaget, 1963).
Within Piaget’s equilibrium model, sharing conflicting ideas with another person
regarding a passage is considered vital to cognitive growth, while compromise and
conformity is not. The uncertainty brought on by the discussion and conflicting views
causes group members to seek additional information to resolve that disagreement
(Inhelder and Piaget, 1956).
The structured controversy method involves the following sequence of steps:
assign heterogeneous groups of four as pairs, assign each pair a perspective with
supporting materials to read, present conflicting positions to one another, argue
strengths and weaknesses, take the opposite view without reading it, drop assigned
roles and work as a foursome toward a consensus. Based on studies that compared
performance differences in various interaction patterns, Johnson and Johnson (1985)
argued that such conflict could have constructive outcomes. They compared the
learning of: 1) controversial situations- where one person’s ideas or theories were
incompatible with those of another, thereby causing them to reach a common position;
2) concurrence seeking-where members of a group are asked to inhibit each other from
arguing and 3) individual learning- where students study by themselves.
In two separate studies of sixth-grade students that compared the results of
controversy and concurrence seeking conditions (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Smith,
Johnson, & Johnson, 1981), the results indicated that the controversy condition
promoted achievement and retention, search of information, cognitive rehearsal,
reevaluation of one’s positions, perspective-taking accuracy, motivation, concern for
others, acceptance of handicapping conditions, and cross-sex and cross-ethnic
relationships.
In similarity to Student Team Learning and Learning Together, the structured
controversy approach has not primarily focused on reading comprehension. However,
the text materials used in structured controversy promotes at least some of the
cooperative reading activities listed earlier in Table 1. Of the first three general
cooperative learning approaches, the structured controversy technique appears to hold
the most promise for the field of cooperative reading. The remaining seven methods
were designed to specifically target cooperative reading activities; particularly focusing
on reading comprehension.
A Cognitive Information-Processing Model of Learning
MURDER/Cooperative Scripts
During the early 1970's the cognitive revolution began to dominate psychology
which posited a cognitive theoretical approach to learning. One major contribution of
this revolution was the cognitive information-processing model. According to this basic
model, information is taken in from the environment through the sensory register. Next,
the information is processed through attention and perception and moved to a
temporary information store called the working memory or short-term memory. Finally,
through effortful cognitive processing, such as elaboration and organization, the
information can be moved to a more permanent information store known as the long-
term memory. One final and critical component of the model are the metacognitive or
executive control processes that oversee and guide the flow of information through the
system.
One educational implication of the cognitive information processing system is that
active, effortful cognitive processes lead to learning and retention. One method of
learning that can take place both individually and in a group context is summarization.
In individual learning settings, summarization promotes learning because it facilitates
such cognitive processes as rehearsal, elaboration and organization, as well as
metacognitive processes such as self-testing (e.g., Doctorow, Wittrock, & Marks, 1978;
as cited in Webb and Sullivan Palincsar, 1996). Summarizing in a group context with
peers can lead to even greater cognitive processing on the part of the learner because it
forces the learner to engage in even greater amounts of cognitive rehearsal, elaboration,
and restructuring of the material to make individual summaries understandable to
others (e.g., Hythecker et al., 1988; S. M. Ross & Di Vesta, 1986; Yager et al., 1985).
To facilitate active cognitive processing on the part of the learner, students can
adopt the role of summarizer and listener, and alternate taking these roles. In one form
of cooperative learning, these roles of summarizer and listener have been incorporated
into a cooperative script. This form of learning is known as cooperative scripting, and
one popular technique based on cooperative scripts is MURDER (Lambiotte, Dansereau,
Rocklin, Fletcher, Hythecker, Larson, & O’ Donnell, 1987). MURDER is an extension of
the SQ3R technique to a cooperative learning environment, and was designed for
students who have difficulty monitoring their own cognitive activities.
There are two MURDER strategy systems, one for reading comprehension (first
degree MURDER) and the second one for information retrieval and utilization (second
degree MURDER). The first approach, designed for reading comprehension, basically
encourages students to make multiple passages through the material, based on the
following acronym representing a series of learning strategies (Dansereau, 1985,
Hythecker, Dansereau, & Rocklin, 1988): setting the Mood for learning, Understanding
the goals of the tasks, Recalling relevant information by summarizing the main points,
Detecting or checking errors, Elaborating on the information, and Reviewing the
material.
_________________
Insert Table 3 about here
__________________
As evident in the two scripts of Table 3, Dansereau developed his multi-component
MURDER strategy with three key features: 1) oral summarization; 2) monitoring; and 3)
elaboration (O’Donnell et al., 1990). There was a wealth of research to validate the use of
these components in prose processing. The numerous studies of First-Degree MURDER
conducted and published during the past decade indicate that these researchers are
engaged in an intensive investigation of the strategy to uncover its active components.
Researchers at Texas Christian University have found the following evidence to be
important in the use of MURDER/ cooperative scripts. Alternating roles between listener
and recaller facilitated learning and transfer, and larger gains are seen in the sections
where students taught, as opposed to where they served as listener (Spurlin,
Dansereau, Larson, & Brooks, 1984). The metacognitive component of the script
facilitated initial learning, while elaboration strategies were important for transfer
(Larson, Dansereau, O’Donnell, Hythecker, Lambiotte, & Rocklin, 1985). Cooperative
teaching scripts helped students to focus on the content while cooperative learning
scripts appeared to focus subjects on the process of reading.
Among the positive findings were also some negative findings. Skaggs et al. (1990)
admitted to difficulty encountered in evaluating cooperative learning interaction
behaviors in a laboratory situation. Other studies have demonstrated that some dyads
misused study time, focused too much on the details of the program, and failed to
understand the MURDER/cooperative script strategies (O’ Donnell, et al. 1986). The
threats to the external validity of the study may warrant studies of MURDER in more
naturalistic settings.
In terms of evaluation, whether the researchers analyzed the total number of
propositions remembered (e.g., Lambiotte et al., 1978) or split the recall between main
ideas and details (Spurlin et al., 1984), or investigated students’ performance on multiple
choice exams, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of
cooperative reading and MURDER/cooperative scripts in particular. For example, it is
not clear how much strategic real-world transfer can be expected outside of
experimental laboratory settings. Also, the original MURDER/cooperative script focus
has become more muddled by the inclusion of such variables as individual differences
(e.g., Skaggs, 1990) and such techniques as concept maps (e.g., Rewey et al., 1990).
As the result of these and other problems, the authors remain skeptical of
Dansereau (1987) when he generalizes that findings among college students and
military personnel are potent and consistent enough to warrant an immediate shift using
cooperative dyads in schools (p. 618). More research is needed to understand where,
when and why cooperative scripting in these dyads is effective.
Toward a more constructivist and social constructivist revolution
Reciprocal Teaching
The fifth cooperative learning technique reviewed here, reciprocal teaching, utilizes
many of the same cognitive processing operations as MURDER, such as summarization,
exploration, review and questioning. Through the use of the processes of summarizing,
questioning, clarifying and predicting, reciprocal teaching was designed to teach
comprehension fostering activities and metacognition.
Reciprocal teaching is perhaps one of the most highly regarded cooperative reading
techniques discussed in this review. Interestingly, however, what distinguished
Palincsar and Brown’s Reciprocal Teaching was not the cognitive strategies that were
taught, but rather, the process through which students would learn these strategies.
Reciprocal teaching was more constructivist in its nature.
During the 1980's-1990's, developments in the areas of science and mathematics
began to draw educators’ attention to the constructive nature of learning. This
constructive orientation to learning created a shift from teaching discrete strategies to
focusing on students’ efforts to construct their own understandings through guided and
independent practice. This constructivist orientation had many implications for reading
comprehension instruction, as it emphasized that reading was an interactive process in
which students gained an understanding of the usefulness of interrelated strategies.
Constructivist principles draw heavily on the work of Vygotsky.
Vygotsky’s’s notions form the basis of the reciprocal teaching process. Reciprocal
teaching was developed around the notion that learning first occurs in a social context,
and then becomes internalized on an individual level. In line with Vygotsky’s notion,
data on reciprocal teaching has shown that students demonstrate improved
comprehension, first in their dialogue in group discussions, and then in their individual
comprehension (Kucan and Beck, 1997).
In a summary article on children’s learning in cooperative groups, Brown and
Palincsar (1989) defined reciprocal teaching as “an expert-led cooperative learning
procedure developed to improve childrens’ understanding of complex text (p.4).
Reciprocal teaching was designed to teach comprehension fostering activities through
summarization, questioning, clarifying and predicting. Reciprocal teaching is an
example of an interactive teaching procedure with the joint responsibility of both
student and teacher for constructing meaning from text.
During the first few lesson of reciprocal teaching, students read a passage silently
before a teacher-led discussion of the text. Then, the teacher models strategies, gives
explanations of underlying processes, and attempts to make the reading task explicit.
Initial teacher responsibility for modeling the four primary comprehension monitoring
strategies is gradually allocated to those students as they become discussion leaders
for the group, while the teacher assumes the role of a coach. Dialogue assumes a
critical role in the scaffolded instruction, facilitating the collaborative interpretation of
text-related meaning while students acquire the cognitive strategies modeled by the
“teacher” (Palincsar, 1987). The extent of teacher modeling and explanation is faded
over time as students become more active in their own learning.
Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) ultimate goal in advocating this technique is the
development of self-regulated learners who are motivated to apply these and other
strategies. In contrast to some of the previously mentioned reading methods, there are
no descriptive roles (other than discussion leader) or reward structures. Among the
many salient features are teacher and peer cognitive modeling, feedback, scaffolding,
proleptic teaching, teacher-student and student-student dialogue.
Although much of the evidence for the effectiveness of this method has been
reflected in qualitative dialogues and relatively small sample sizes, Palincsar and
Brown’s (1984) initial study indicates comprehension gains on a number of cognitive
instruments. In the quantitative measure of that study, reciprocal teaching displayed
growth in summarizing information, generating prediction questions, detecting
incongruent questions, and judging text importance- essentially the four comprehension
monitoring strategies emphasized in reciprocal teaching. Reading comprehension gains
were also apparent on the Gates- Mac Ginitie Standardized Reading Test and daily
reading tasks as well as higher passage comprehension in some tasks.
Palincsar extended this teaching intervention to early elementary students
experiencing academic difficulty (Palincsar & David, 1991; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). In
contrast to previous reciprocal teaching projects where everyone read the material, the
first graders in the (Palincsar & David, 1991) study listened as the teacher read
thematically arranged texts. After three months or thirty lessons, descriptive reciprocal
teaching groups increased their ability to identify the gist of the passage and
understand the text, independently use the questioning strategies and use text
information to solve novel text problems. The researchers believed their students were
beginning to internalize a more student-directed approach to text.
Since reciprocal teaching was a conglomerate of a variety of strategies and
components, that could only be described as the sum of its component parts, Palincsar
and Brown worked hard to “unpack” their multi-component training package (e.g., see
Palincsar, 1985). But, as Dansereau (1987) claimed when investigating cooperative
learning and teaching scripts, they soon found that the whole was greater than the sum
of its parts; all the features had to be in place to maximize learning.
In the context of this work, Palincsar et al. (1987) discovered many “traditional”
teachers who failed to perceive the importance of student-directed discussion and self-
regulated learning. Hence, Palincsar and her colleagues encountered numerous
problems with teaching non-volunteer instructors the benefits of reciprocal teaching
(Palincsar, Stevens, & Gavelek, 1989). This leads to the dilemma of cooperative reading
approaches; unless teacher beliefs about reading instruction are grounded in a more
student-centered, constructivist philosophy, successful methods like reciprocal
teaching will only be a marginal success story.
A meta-analysis by Rosenshine and Meister (1991) which studied nineteen
experimental studies of reciprocal teaching are split into two fundamental types:
reciprocal teaching only and explicit teaching before reciprocal teaching. The former
type of instruction included modeling, prompting, hinting, and dialoguing, while the later
approach added extensive teacher-led direct instruction in various strategies prior to
reciprocal teaching dialogues. Comparisons of study effect sizes favored explicit
teaching before reciprocal teaching for both regular and below average students. In
effect, a combination of explicit strategy instruction and a more constructivist process
is apparent in this approach (Dole et al., 1991; Harris & Pressley, 1991).
While Palinscar’s consistent qualitative documentation of reciprocal teaching
dialogues provides a rich depiction of the processes transpiring during cooperative
reading that the other techniques fail to address, there are still a number of questions
regarding reciprocal teaching that need to be addressed. The following questions
regarding reciprocal teaching need to be more extensively investigated: how dialogues
and scaffolds transform over time, the role of peers, the combined effect of this program
with further strategies such as semantic mapping, and the applicability of reciprocal
teaching to other content areas. Additionally, the effects of gender, ability and social
skills in reciprocal teaching have not been sufficiently explored in reciprocal teaching.
Finally, further studies are warranted in contrasting alternate approaches to reciprocal
teaching as well as determining which dialogue prompts are most useful for the joint
construction of meaning (Rosenshine & Meister, 1991).
The Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) program
As with reciprocal teaching, the next cooperative reading technique discussed here
is also theoretically grounded in a cognitive information-processing approach and uses
a process based on the work of Vygotsky. The Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition (CIRC) program is based on research in cognitive psychology which
demonstrated the effectiveness of strategy instruction. Day (1986) demonstrated that
when students received instruction that integrated strategy instruction for writing
summaries with self-management strategies, their summaries were more accurate than
subjects who had received training in either self-management or summarization
strategies alone. This research demonstrates the importance of metacognition and self-
regulation in cognitive strategy instruction (e.g., Brown, Campione, & Day, 1981).
CIRC is also theoretically grounded in one of Vygotsky’s educational applications,
cognitive apprenticeship. In a cognitive apprenticeship, the instructor or expert initially
models the process and then gradually places the responsibility for learning on the
learner[s] while taking a “back-seat” role as a guide, facilitator, or scaffold. The
cooperative aspect of CIRC is also grounded in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978). In a cooperative learning setting, learners come to the
cooperative setting with a variety of different ability levels. According to Vygotsky,
learning may take place in a student’s zone of proximal development, which is the zone
in which the student can’t accomplish a task by him/herself, but can accomplish a task
through the assistance of a more able other. Four steps are central to CIRC: teacher
directed instruction, team practice, individual assessments, and team recognition. In
CIRC, the above cycle of instruction has been applied to reading and writing instruction
in the elementary grades. The CIRC program resembles a cognitive apprenticeship. In
the direct instruction component, initial instruction in a comprehension skill would
begin with a teacher modeling and describing the strategic process, and providing
feedback. Students then engage in structured cooperative activities in which they first
practice with peers and later practice the strategies independently. In a cooperative
learning team, the team may be composed of two students from the top reading group
and two from the bottom group. The students would first read a passage silently, and
then, read the story aloud while their partner listens and corrects errors. Students are
also given questions about the grammar.
As the teacher is interacting with one group, the other groups might be working on
one of the following cognitively oriented paired activities: 1) reading to one another, 2)
making predictions about a narrative ending; 3) identifying story characters, setting, and
plot (i.e. story structure), 4) summarizing major episodes of stories to one another, 5)
mastering main ideas, 6) writing meaningful sentences with new vocabulary, 7) drawing
conclusions, 8) comparing and contrasting ideas, 9) process writing and publishing; and
10) helping one another master spelling lists (Slavin, Madden,& Stevens, 1989/90;
Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1989). Through this process, the students gradually take
more responsibility as they successfully internalize and master complex cognitive
processes.
Results from research based on the CIRC program are mixed. In two of the initial
studies, the data were generally favorable in the areas of reading comprehension,
reading vocabulary, language mechanics, language expression and oral reading
(Madden, Stevens, & Slavin, 1986; Stevens, Slavin, Farnish, & Madden, 1987). These two
studies focused on third- and fourth- graders, the first one for 12 weeks and the later one
for the entire school year. Across both studies, gains in grade equivalent scores
averaged between 20 and 72% more than control subjects; more specifically, in terms of
reading comprehension, the gains were 30% in the first study, 65% in the second.
In another study, however, Glassman (1988) implemented both STAD and CIRC in
third through fifth grade math, reading, and writing classes over a six month period. She
found improved writing scores, but no significant achievement improvements in math or
reading. She suggested that the teachers at this sight may have been overwhelmed with
the information needed to use cooperative learning methods in three content areas.
Stevens et al., (1991) evaluated the effectiveness of CIRC’s reading comprehension
component with 486 third- and fourth- graders representing 30 classes of teacher
volunteers. Classes were randomly assigned to either direct instruction, cooperative
learning with direct instruction, or traditional instruction. Results indicated that both
experimental groups, direct instruction and cooperative learning with direct instruction
performed better on main idea questions. There was however a non-significant effect for
inference questions which were used to measure the transfer of learning main-idea
comprehension strategies to performance on a different comprehension skill.
As with reciprocal teaching, many open issues still remain with regards to the
activities and processes central to CIRC’s modest success in reading comprehension.
For example, in the above study, the cooperative learning treatment did produce an
effect size of + .32 standard deviations above that of the direct instruction treatment on
the main idea questions; and compared to the control, the effect size for cooperative
learning was large (+.82 standard deviations). However, there was no significant
difference between the treatment conditions of the cooperative learning and the direct
instruction groups on students’ ability to answer inference questions which were used to
measure the transfer of learning main-idea comprehension strategies to performance on
a different comprehension skill. This suggests that there is little or no transfer of training
to inferential comprehension, hence perhaps this main-idea instructional intervention
produces only skill-specific changes.
Additionally, in the previous study, administering just one 20-item multiple choice
assessment device targeting main idea and inference questions was somewhat
perplexing given the extensiveness of the study and the range of cognitive activities
emphasized using CIRC. For example, there was no attempt to analyze metacognitive
processes, changes in cognitive structures, or intergroup processing. Perhaps one
important conclusion that this research makes is however, is that cooperative learning
classrooms’ organization and direct instruction in reading comprehension are
complimentary and their integration forms an effective and dynamic instructional
process.
Cooperative Reading as a Means to Include Students with Special Needs
In the past, students with special needs were placed in a special education program.
Often, students in these special education programs spent at least part of their day in
separate classes. The passage of PL 94-142 in 1975, The Education of All Handicapped
Children Act, mandated that students with special needs be placed in less segregated
environments. Increasingly, students with special needs are being mainstreamed and
included in the regular classroom.
One question that must be addressed is how these learners with special needs can
be accommodated in the regular classroom. One possibility is through cooperative
learning. Cooperative learning has demonstrated both social and academic effects on
learning, when used in a variety of contexts (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Slavin,
1990). Cooperative learning has also been effective in improving the social relations
between students with and without disabilities in regular education classrooms (Stevens
& Salisbury, 1997).
One particular cooperative learning program, CIRC, has been used frequently to
include special education students. Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish (1987),
conducted two separate studies using CIRC with students in the third and fourth grades.
In the first they conducted, remedial and special education students were pulled out of
their reading class for part or all of the reading period. In the second study, remedial
reading and special education students were pulled out for CIRC classes at times that
did not conflict with their reading and language arts classes. Results indicated that in the
second study but not the first, special education and remedial reading students in the
CIRC classes achieved higher scores than controls on most of the achievement tests as
demonstrated by substantial effect sizes. It is important to point out however, that for
special education students, the only effect that was significant was reading vocabulary.
In Stevens et al. (1989), the previous study was extended to a wider range of
elementary students (grades 2-6) and over a longer implementation time, an entire school
year. Results of this extended study demonstrated significant effects for special
education and remedial reading students who were enrolled in CIRC on reading
vocabulary and reading comprehension on standardized reading subtests. In this
extended study, the data for the students who received special or remedial education
was analyzed separately to examine the impact of mainstreaming through cooperative
learning. The students in the control group received their instruction in self-contained
classrooms or through pull-out instruction.
Jenkins et al. (1994) also extended the Stevens et al. (1987) study, but made some
critical changes. In the Jenkins et al. study, all 13 classrooms in a single school used an
adapted version of CIRC without ability grouping, remedial and special education
teachers were brought into the classroom, and supplemental peer tutoring and
instruction was used for decoding. Hence, while the Stevens et al. (1987) study tested
the effects of a single, complex treatment program, CIRC; using the framework of school
restructuring, the Jenkins et al. study tested the effects of a multicomponent treatment
program that included CIRC. Remedial education students in the experimental school
demonstrated significantly greater gains on standardized reading subtests. Jenkins et al.
conclude their study by suggesting that in the nationwide movement toward school
restructuring, applied reading research will increasingly examine complex combinations
of treatments. Some examples of these are Reading Recovery (Pinnell, 1989), and
Success for All (Slavin et al., 1990), as well as CIRC (Stevens et al., 1987).
While this section focused primarily on using CIRC and adaptations of CIRC as a
method to include students with special needs in the regular classroom, other forms of
cooperative learning may also be used to mainstream diverse learners. For example,
another program which also emphasizes cooperative learning, Reciprocal Teaching, is
well-suited for mainstreaming due to the fact that it can be applied to remedial education
in general classes and it emphasizes increased responsibility for learning. Reciprocal
teaching has been demonstrated to improve reading comprehension performance on
standardized tests for poor comprehenders (e.g. Lynsynchuk, Pressley, and Vye, 1990).
Reciprocal teaching has also been demonstrated to significantly improve standardized
reading comprehension for ESL students with learning disabilities (e.g., Kettman Klinger
& Vaughn, 1996).
Technology-Supported Cooperative Reading
[Intro paragraph on constructivist and social constructivist principles....?]
The final cooperative reading approach mentioned here is a collection of research
using computers and other new technologies in small groups or as stand-alone
cooperative partners that have been designed or re-purposed to foster strategic reading
awareness and performance in a cooperative setting. Although any of the previous six
cooperative learning strategies could be supported by computer technology, only the
MURDER/cooperative script approach has evaluated within a computer-assisted
environment (Hythecker, Rocklin, Dansereau, Lambiotte, Larson, & O'Donnell, 1985).
Here, the computer-based training in paraphrasing and imagery combined with paired
use of the MURDER strategy resulted in superior learning of text materials. Other
computer-based tools that might foster cooperative reading activities include concept
mapping aids, thinking skill prompts, outliners, idea generators, group activity or
reflection logs, hypertext devices, notecard and commenting systems, electronic books,
and co-authoring tools (Pea, 1985).
The first new method reviewed in this section is the most obvious linkage to the six
cooperative reading approaches already discussed (Swallow, Scardamalia, and Olivier,
1988). The Swallow et al. project evolved out of the work to develop Computer-
Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean,
Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989). The CSILE project allows for informational links in several
types of media (notes, drawings, graphs, pictures, time-lines, and maps). In accordance
with many of the principles presented in this paper, the CSILE project attempts to give
more responsibility to students for their own learning, by encouraging knowledge
construction, perspective-taking, student-student dialogue, deeper processing of
information, and product ownership. One of the main goals for the CSILE project was to
design a learning environment wherein students would build knowledge bases and
construct knowledge-building (or top-down) questions as opposed to a reading
environment controlled by teacher use of text-based questioning (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1991).
Swallow et al. (1988) used the CSILE system in formative evaluation of a cooperative
reading project (referred to as CSILE* since they did not name their new technique). Like
CIRC, CSILE* is a multi component strategy that combines and extends the cooperative
scripts of Dansereau and the metascripts of reciprocal teaching. Many of the strategies
emphasized in this method--dyadic learning, asking questions, paraphrasing, sharing
and explaining knowledge, relating information to prior knowledge, generating analogies,
critiquing missing information, diagnosing partner misunderstandings, and adult and
peer modeling also were critical to the methods discussed earlier.
In similarity to Dansereau's cooperative scripts, the two roles used in this study of
fifth- and sixth-grade students focus on cognitive confrontation (Piaget, 1963),
discussion and dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978), text comprehension, and, possibly, new
patterns of thought (Damon, 1984). Using CSILE*, the actor is responsible for
paraphrasing a manageable portion of the text and generating ideas and questions
(Swallow et al., 1988). The director, on other hand, is responsible for monitoring and
drawing out the actor's knowledge by suggesting cognitive activities applicable to the
situation.
Initially, these suggestions or hints come from computer menu options designed for
various cooperative reading predicaments. These options include what the director can
do when the actor was stuck, unclear, needing new thoughts, lost or confused, or in
disagreement with the director. The computer assists in analyzing these situations and
also provides prompts for the director to pose to the actor, such as: "Please put what
you have read into your own words.," and "Relate this to what you already know"
(Swallow et al., 1988, p. 14). The support cycle continues as the computer menu options
assist the director in analyzing the actor's response to each prompt. Sample directions
and suggestions made by directors to actors include the following:
Can you make an educated guess? To make an educated guess you need to use the
knowledge that you already know about the thing so you'll go over stuff you already
know about. . . . and then try to figure it out. Can you summarize this . . . your best
thoughts? I guess it would just help me know how you're thinking . . . what you're
thinking about . . . and if you have any questions. ..later on you might have some
questions. (Swallow et al, 1988, p. 28)
These researchers posited that students would eventually exercise critical thinking
skills, causing them to examine their own assumptions and boost the quality of their
dialogues. In the two studies reported in Swallow et al., students with computer
supports and prompts generated more of their own ideas and higher-order questions as
a result of engaging in extended dyadic discussions.
An advanced version of the original CSILE system was designed to address reading,
writing, and thinking skills of elementary students (e.g., fifth- and sixth-graders)
(Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). Scardamalia and Bereiter are particularly concerned with
the level and amount of educationally worthwhile questions connected with the use of
the CSILE system. Presently, the CSILE project is investigating how children might be
supported to cooperatively develop and extend their knowledge. For instance, these
researchers are currently exploring (1) how to provide constructive criticism,
counterarguments, praise, and encouragement; (2) how to structure cooperative
elaboration so that less-knowledgeable students are included; (3) the frequency of
various cooperative actions; and (4) how to make "cognitive cooperation" an overt goal
of classroom activities. The CSILE tool already contains "cooperation icons" as well as
idea browsing and linking tools for marking notes that involve or intend cooperation. In
summary, though hypotheses regarding software support techniques and peer education
constitute the focus of this research, CSILE and other "community knowledge-building"
efforts also provide a technique for creating a cooperative reading environment based on
a blending of current reading, writing, and thinking skill research.
Salomon, Globerson, and Guterman (1989) more directly used a computer-base tool,
the Reading Partner, to act as a collaborative reading partner operating within students'
zone of proximal development (Note: for a similar writing tool, see "the Writing Partner,"
in Zellermayer, Salomon, Globerson, & Givon, 1991). The Reading Partner consisted of
three self-guiding questions (e.g., "Do I understand the text?"), four metacognitively
oriented reading principles (i.e., generating inferences, identifying key sentences,
conjuring up images, and summarizing text read), and a few metacognitive-like questions
(e.g., "What kind of image do I conjure up from this text?") all appearing at the bottom of
the computer screen while a student was engaged in reading a passage. In this study,
seventh-grade students were split into three groups: metacognitive prompting, content
specific prompting, and control. There were eleven electronic texts that were read over
four lessons. The intent was for the computerized prompting program to facilitate
metacognitive awareness or "mindfulness" (Salomon, Perkins, & Globerson, 1991) of
diverse reading strategies by prompting students to reflect on aspects of the text
normally ignored. Students in the metacognitive prompting group, who reported
expending more effort during the intervention, provided better metacognitive advice after
the training program and also significantly improved both their reading comprehension
and essay writing (the transfer task).
Afterwards, Salomon claimed that this computerized prompting program acted as an
intellectual partner by posing metacognitive-guidance questions within the readers' zone
of proximal development (Salomon, 1988; Salomon et al., 1991). Yet, in none of
Salomon's writings is there a description of how the zone of proximal development was
determined and how guided/scaffolded instruction can be embedded in a few randomly
presented prompts. Furthermore, this research appears to ignore individual differences
in zones of proximal development, the need for learner control over prompt selection,
and, an explanation of how a few simple questions can facilitate sudden advances in
reading, writing, and higher-order thinking. Hence, the initial results of the Reading
Partner warrant further examination.
A couple of promising media tools for cooperatively revisiting prose are the use of
videodisc and hypermedia systems. For instance, in combining research on memory,
problem solving, and new technologies in education, the Cognition and Technology
Group at Vanderbilt (Bransford, Sherwood, & Hasselbring, 1988) has designed numerous
instructionally "anchoring" situations called "macrocontexts." Macrocontexts are a
shared knowledge or experience base (typically films adapted to videodisc (e.g., Raiders
of the Lost Ark, Oliver Twist, and Young Sherlock Holmes) that help young students
focus on collaborative meaning making activities, small group dialogue, and the building
of multiple perspectives (The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990, 1991).
A macrocontext environment incorporates aspects of the reciprocal teaching metascript,
including cooperative learning, thinking within familiar learning contexts, teacher
demonstrations and modeling, and joint negotiation of meaning from text (Rowe,
Goodman, Moore, & McLarty, 1990). In regards to reading comprehension, random-
access video has the potential to support group dialogue, perspective taking,
identification text-related linkages or causal connections among story elements (i.e.,
story structure), vocabulary, error detection, awareness of comprehension problems,
and student-directed exploration and questioning of an event (Bransford, et al., 1988;
Risko, Kinzer, Goodman, McLarty, Dupree, & Martin, 1990; Risko, Kinzer, Vye, & Rowe,
1990; Rowe et al., 1990; Vye, Rowe, Kinzer, & Risko, 1990). Perhaps this research group
should consider analyzing how interactive videodisc presentations might stimulate
reading comprehension and enhance cooperative reading techniques discussed
previously.
Hypermedia environments are designed to facilitate the creation of multilayered texts
and the overall construction of meaning as well as the display of complex relationships
and branching between ideas (Kozma, 1991). The browse and link features of common
hypermedia systems enable information sharing and display of relationships between
terms, passages, or ideas that others have yet to witness (Lehrer, in press). Previous
readers within these systems act as guides or assistants by drawing a multitude of future
partners to textual, graphic, and other linkages, thereby capitalizing on the systems
capability to explore text in multiple ways and amplify representation of meaning (Bonk
et al., in press). According to Wolf (1988), "hypertexts may offer readers what could be
called "on-line collaborations" with other minds" (p. 211). Wolf argues that these tools
remind us that the meaning making activities within reading are facilitated by
interactions with other people over widely disparate times and places. The cooperative
reading activity takes place whenever someone uses, alters, or adds to the ideas and
linkages already created. The marriage of hypermedia tools and cooperative learning,
however, remains an open and interesting question.
In all the above technology-related examples, students are posited to be more
involved in discovering and co-constructing new meaning from text, thereby creating
more rich representations of text or deeper grasp of the passage structure.
Commonalities among these technologically enhanced cooperative approaches are
important to understand since cooperative reading from electronic sources is bound to
grow in the upcoming decades (Adams, Carlson, & Hamm, 1990; DeVillar & Faltis, 1991).
Common Themes and Questions Regarding Cooperative Reading from Theory to
Practice
Before new methods or improvements are suggested, it is important to list some of
the commonalities and differences that exist among the techniques mentioned in this
review: Student Team Learning, Learning Together, Structured Controversy,
MURDER/cooperative scripts, Reciprocal Teaching, Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition (CIRC), and technology supported cooperative reading.
The cooperative reading methods discussed thus far, combine a wealth of existing
research on reading and are aimed at increasing the comprehension and retention of text
material. Clearly one of the goals of cooperative reading is to negotiate and co-construct
meaning from text (Paris and Turner, 1990) using information from memory, interactive
dialogue, debate and summarization. The roles typically involve individuals who discuss
or summarize the passage and one or more individuals who listen, critique, and
elaborate on what the discussant has said.
Many additional commonalities are uncovered when comparing and contrasting the
cooperative reading procedures reviewed here. For example, most successful
cooperative reading methods embody explicit cognitive strategy instruction within a
guided or constructivist teaching approach (Dole et al., 1991; Harris & Pressley, 1991).
Reciprocal teaching and CIRC are examples of such methods. Moreover, cooperative
reading researchers use a combination of one of more of the following steps: strategy
introduction, explanation of the purpose, teacher and peer modeling of the method and
sub- components, guided interaction, negotiation of meaning, multiple passage readings
and encoding, presentation of conflicting viewpoints, elaboration and summarization,
ownership of the strategy, comprehension monitoring, and feedback.
Cooperative reading methods differ in the extent of teacher or student direction,
technological intervention, practice or length of treatment, type of text, age group, and
student roles. Cooperative reading methods also differ on the following variables: group
goals, individual accountability, equal opportunities for success, team competition, task
specialization, and adaptation to individual needs (Slavin, 1995).
Similarly, the cooperative learning and reading programs emphasized in this review
have some fundamental similarities and differences. Slavin’s Student Team Learning and
Johnson’s Learning Together are both generic cooperative learning methods developed
using a goal structure/motivational orientation to learning. While Student Team Learning
techniques emphasize positive reward interdependence, Learning Together emphasizes
group skills. The third more generic form of cooperative learning that has been adapted
to reading, structured controversy, is grounded in the cognitive developmental theory of
Jean Piaget and emphasizes cognitive conflict to promote the comprehension of text
materials.
MURDER/cooperative scripts, a cooperative reading technique, is derived from a
cognitive information- processing approach to learning and emphasizes the student
roles of summarizer, and listener to help students to undergo such complex cognitive
and metacognitive processes as summarizing, monitoring, and elaboration. Reciprocal
teaching, also a cooperative reading technique, utilizes cognitive processes similar to
those of MURDER, such as questioning, summarization, prediction, clarification.
However, what distinguishes reciprocal teaching from using a cognitive information-
processing approach to cooperative reading alone is the addition of a more constructive
approach to processing, based on the work of Vygotsky. Reciprocal teaching
emphasizes the initial modeling of cognitive and metacognitive processes by the
teacher, and gradually, the responsibility for learning is transferred to the students, while
the teacher serves as a facilitator.
CIRC, a cooperative reading technique, also developed using a cognitive
information-processing approach to learning, emphasizes cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. However, like reciprocal teaching, CIRC also emphasizes the social nature of
learning, by grounding instruction in Vygotskian principles such as cognitive
apprenticeship and the zone of proximal development.
Implications of Cooperative Reading Theory and Practice for the 21st Century
Which Technique is Better?
One question that has pervaded education for decades is “Which educational
technique, program, innovation etc. is best?” Cooperative learning and cooperative
reading seems to be subject to this ongoing controversy as well. Each theoretical
revolution seemed to give birth to a different cooperative learning or reading technique.
Along with these new techniques also came debates regarding which technique was
better. For example, there seems to be some controversy between the Student Team
Learning and Learning Together programs in terms of which leads to achievement,
positive reward interdependence, or positive goal interdependence.
Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson (1988) demonstrated that while positive goal
interdependence in and of itself increased achievement over individualistic efforts, the
combination of positive goal and positive reward interdependence had an even greater
effect on achievement. This study suggested that the important issue to debate, was
perhaps not whether positive reward or positive goal interdependence mediates the
relation between cooperation and achievement, but rather, how positive reward and goal
interdependence can interact to impact achievement. Perhaps positive goal and reward
interdependence interact in a synergistic manner.
Additionally, perhaps the question we need to be asking is not which technique is
better, but which technique is better for what? For example, if there is a need for a
cooperative learning technique to teach well-defined subject matter with one right
answer, STAD may be very appropriate. Or perhaps, it could be combined with another
technique to increase it’s effectiveness further. Results of research have demonstrated
that when CIRC is used in combination with direct instruction, the results are
complimentary and their integration forms an effective and dynamic instructional
process, for example.
Evidence of this synergistic nature may also be demonstrated in
MURDER/cooperative scripting and reciprocal teaching. Dansereau (1987) claimed
during his investigation of cooperative learning scripts, that the whole may be greater
than the sum of it’s parts; all of the features had to be in place to maximize learning.
Similarly, Palincsar and Brown noted that while the pattern of improvement in reciprocal
teaching from the group to the individual was consistent with Vygotsky’s theory, the
reason for the improvement was not clear. It was not clear whether reciprocal teaching’s
success was due to the strategies that were taught, the reciprocal teaching procedure,
or the combination (Kucan and Beck, 1997). While these two previous examples
demonstrate the synergistic nature of the components of individual programs, it is
suggested here, that the combined features of various reading programs will perhaps
interact in a synergistic manner as well. Hence, our first implication for the 21 st century
suggests that as cooperative learning and reading programs continue to develop, we
will see more integrated approaches, both in theory and practice.
Teacher Beliefs
Because of prior teacher beliefs regarding learning, teachers face a personal
dilemma in thinking about their role in the classroom when implementing cooperative
learning and cooperative reading (Cohen, 1986). As with many proposed school
changes, the teacher’s role in cooperative reading instruction is more of a coach, guide,
or facilitator, than a knowledge teller. Therefor, although the teacher maintains control
over reading group composition, classroom arrangement, materials, task structure, and
goals, both the role of the student and the role of the teacher change considerably in
this setting (Johnson & Johnson, 1978).
This dilemma was demonstrated by Palincsar et al., (1987). In their work with
reciprocal teaching they discovered many traditional teachers who failed to perceive the
42
importance of self-regulated learning and student-directed discussion. The led them to
conclude that unless teacher beliefs about reading instruction are grounded in a
constructivist philosophy, successful methods like reciprocal teaching will only be a
marginal success story. In a study which implemented both STAD and CIRC (Glassman,
1988), improved writing scores were demonstrated, but no significant improvements in
math or reading resulted. Glassman concluded that this may have occurred because the
teachers may have been overwhelmed with the information needed to use cooperative
learning methods in the content areas.
43
In a three-year study of first to sixth-grade students, Talmage, Pascarella, and Ford
(1984) found that reading achievement was significantly related to teacher experience
using cooperative learning. This research was based on a combination of the methods
from Johnson and Johnson (e.g., Learning Together) and Sharan and Sharan’s (1976)
group investigation approaches. Talmage et al. concluded that teachers need a certain
level of experience in cooperative environments, but students also need a certain level of
skill in working in cooperative groups before its influence can be felt.
The second implication for the 21st century is that cooperative learning and reading
will become an important catalyst for the educational reform movement and the changing
role of the teacher from information dispenser to more of a coach or consultant. Perhaps
too, cooperative reading may fuel new paradigms for evaluating learning and instruction.
Lingering on the constructivist horizon are answers to how to guide student participation
in a cooperative reading environment (Rogoff, 1990) as well as how to analyze the
“socially shared cognition” (Resnick, 1991) that takes place within these environments.
In addition to these concerns, specific questions that researchers may want to ask
before conducting further cooperative reading research include:
1. What does it take to teach students how to effectively use cooperative reading
strategies?
2. From what type of text is it best to learn cooperatively?
3. How do verbal ability and reading rate affect cooperative group learning?
4. Just how early can children be expected to benefit from working together with
peers? For what benefit?
5. How do the ideal forms of cooperative groups, rewards, and activities change
over time?
6. How does metacognitive knowledge of reading change through exposure to
44
cooperative reading groups?
7. How do the children's conceptions of reading change after working in
cooperative reading groups?
8. What do students feel are the most important factors of reading cooperatively
from books or computer screens?
9. Why would children want to work together to read?
10. How might media be designed to foster cooperative reading as well as
cooperative educational goals for the classroom?
11. How can we help teachers to facilitate cooperative reading?
Perhaps a more global question to ask here, is why read collaboratively with a partner or
two? The earlier list [Table 1] should indicate the many cognitive benefits of cooperative
reading; primarily to construct personal meaning from the text. But students must
understand these purposes and goals, or the methods will be forgotten or ignored.
The above cognitive activity list summarizes the potential results from providing
assistance within one's zone of proximal development, wherein elaborate explanations
are both shared and received; hence, knowledge and meaning derived from text is co-
constructed. The rationale provided for cooperatively reading from text matches the
constructivist, whole language, process-oriented reading paradigms espoused by many
contemporary educators and researchers (Chiang & Ford, 1990; Dole et al., 1991;
Edelsky, 1990; Uttero, 1988). However, a skill-based traditionalist paradigm with
associated standardized reading achievement tests orients the curriculum in the
opposite direction (Paris, Lawton, & Turner, 1992). Cohen (1982), furthermore, points out
that scores on standardized reading tests often become the single index upon which is
45
based all other intellectual activities and overall academic status, thereby dramatically
lowering the self-concept and expectations of many minority children. Perhaps the
collaborative, authentic, longitudinal, and multidimensional assessment suggestions
from Paris, Lawton, Turner, and Roth (1991) would, if implemented, parallel the intent of
most cooperative reading theory and methodology while promoting the learning and
motivation of low achievers. Similar to many cooperative reading techniques, Paris et al.
recommend teachers intervene within students' zones of proximal development during
assessment through the use of questioning, prompting, hinting, and even sharing as
Vygotsky (1978) suggested over 60 years ago. Thus, dialogues, individual progress, and
joint enterprises would be welcomed instead of competition with peers. Important to the
emerging field of cooperative reading, Paris et al. state that "if students learn
cooperatively or with partners, teachers should assess their developing abilities to give
and receive help and to work in positive ways with their peers" (p. 19). Hence, the third
implication for cooperative learning and reading for the 21st century suggested here is
that there will be an increase in more authentic, multidimensional, collaborative
assessment of learning and reading. Further, an increased emphasis on assessing
learning and reading both individually and collaboratively will also ensue.
Studies in cooperative reading can lead in many directions. For example, long-term
interventions using cooperative reading techniques may present data discrepant with the
results of worksheet and brief reading passage studies prevalent in most of the early
literature. Such data also may answer many of the previous questions, thereby
enhancing our understanding of the critical features of cooperative reading. As alluded
to earlier, existing cooperative reading strategies should be modified for other ages and
subjects in order for techniques to be available throughout schooling (Van Cleaf, 1988).
This brings us to our fourth implication for the 21st century, based on cooperative
46
reading theory and practice. As we continue to enter into the information age, there will
be an increase in the use of technology assisted cooperative learning and reading. One
possibility, given the limited availability of hardware and software in most schools, is
cooperative reading at a computer. In fact, funding considerations may make it a forced
reality.
While this literature review synthesizes the results of a variety of studies grounded in
motivational, cognitive developmental, cognitive information-processing, and more
constructivist frameworks rooted in the work of Vygotsky; there is a need for much more
systematic investigation into the variables that are at work in cooperative reading, as
well as their interactions. Cooperative reading is a highly complex cognitive process
involving complex interactions between such variables as the individual learner, the
cooperative reading group members, the interactions between the group members, the
cooperative reading task, the cooperative reading materials, motivational variables, and
assessment, just to name a few.
An individual’s contribution to and benefit from a cooperative reading group may be
affected by such individual factors as: gender, race, ethnicity, verbal ability, perceived
ability, and personality factors. These factors interact with the individual characteristics
of other group members, as well as with the dynamics of the group as a whole. Further,
all of these learner variables interact with such task variables as task demands, the
nature of the task, and the classroom structure which may be further affected by the
teachers’ philosophy, as well as the materials and texts used during the task.
Additionally, the assessment used may interact with the learners’ motivation and
cognitive processes, the interaction of the group, and what is learned from the task and
materials. The effects of these variables on cooperative reading are not simply linear, but
rather, involve complex interactions between many different, complex variables.
47
This brings us to our fifth implication for the 21st century, based on cooperative
reading theory and practice. This implication suggests that as our schools become
increasingly diverse, there will be an increased use of cooperative learning and reading
as a means to integrate a diverse range of learners. Further, there is an ever-increasing
need to expand our current knowledge of the sociocultural factors central to cooperative
learning and reading.
Hence, in conclusion, we need further research into the integration of aspects of
various cooperative reading techniques to form new cooperative reading techniques. We
need further research into the effects of teachers’ philosophies regarding teaching and
learning and their impact on cooperative reading instruction. There is a need for further
research into appropriate cooperative reading assessment. Finally, there is a need for
additional research into how cooperative reading fosters the co-construction of meaning,
deep-level cognitive processes and metacognition and motivation on the part of diverse
types of learners.
48
References
A dams, D., Carlson, H., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning & educational media: Collaborating with technology and each other. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 894-897.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D. L., & Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 16-27.
Bonk, C. J., Southerly, T., Brantmayer, M. J., & Smith, V. C. (1991). Project CAQTALS: Extending computer attitude questionnaires for thinking and learning skills of the 1990's . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Bonk, C. J., Medury, P. V., & Reynolds, T. H. (in press). Cooperative hypermedia: The marriage of collaborative writing and mediated environments. Computers in the Schools.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., & Hasselbring, T. (1988). The video revolution and its effect on development: Some initial thoughts. In G. Forman, & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 172-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brown, A., & Reeve, R. A. (1987). Bandwidths of competence: The role of supportive contexts in learning and development. In L. S. Liben (Ed.), Development and learning: Conflict or congruence (pp. 173-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cannella, G. S. (1988). The nature of dyadic social interaction producing cognitive growth in young children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Chiang, B., & Ford, M. (1990). Whole language alternatives for students with learning disabilities. LD Forum, 16(1), 31-34.
Chapman, M. (1986). The structure of exchange: Piaget's sociological theory. Human Development, 29, 181-194.
Clarke, D. C. (1986). The READER strategy for learning disabled readers. Unpublished manuscript, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Clarke, D. C., & Bonk, C. J. (1992). READER, READERS: Who's the most effective reader? Unpublished manuscript, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34-40.
Cohen, E.G. (1973). Modifying the effects of social structure. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 861-879.
Cohen, E. G. (1982). A multi-ability approach to the integrated classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(4), 439-460.
Cohen, E. G. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohen, E.G., Lockhead, M.E., & Lohman, M.R. ( 1976). The center for interracial interaction disability: A field experiment. Sociology of Education, 59, 47-58.
Cohen, E.G., and Roper, S. (1972). Modification of interracial interaction disability: An application of status characteristics theory. American Sociological Review, 37, 643-657.
Cosden, M., Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. H. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52(2), 103-114.
Confrey, J. (1991). Steering a course between Vygotsky and Piaget. Educational Researcher, 20, 28-32.
Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9-19.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, R. G. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 1. Relating instruction to research (pp. 209-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
Dansereau, D. F. (1987). Transfer from cooperative to individual studying. Journal of Reading, 30(8), 614-618.
De Avila, E.A., & Duncan, S.E. (1980). Finding Out/Descubrimiento. Corter Madera, CA: Linguametrics Group.
DeVillar, R. A., & Faltis, C. J. (1991). Computers and cultural diversity: Restructuring for school success. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
DeVries, D. L., Mescon, I. T., & Shackman, S. L. (1975). Teams- Games-Tournament (TGT) Effects on reading skills in the elementary grades. Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Report No. 200.
DeVries, D. L., & Slavin, R. E. (1978). Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT): Review of ten classroom experiments. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 28-38.
DeVries, D. L., Slavin, R. E., Fennessey, G., Edwards, K. J., & Lombardo, M. M. (1980). Teams-Games-Tournament: The team learning approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Dembo, M.H., & Mc Auliffe, T. J. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415-423.
DiSibio, R. A., & Parla, J. (1985). Expand children's limits in reading, integrate REAP: Reading experiences associated with partners. (Report No. CS-008-350). 1985 New York State Reading Association Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 268 479).
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.
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effect of repeated reading on second-grade readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389-406.
Dowhower, S. L. (1989). Repeated reading: Research into practice. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 502-508.
Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 7-11.
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. (1990). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading POSSE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Farnham-Diggory, S. (1991). Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (1991). Two-tiered scaffolding: Congruent processes of teaching and learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, policies, and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glassman, P. (1988). A study of cooperative learning in mathematics, writing and reading as implemented in third, fourth and fifth grade classes: A focus upon achievement, attitudes and self-esteem for males, females, blacks, Hispanics and Anglos . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Bruning, R. H. (1990). Cognitive psychology for teachers. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.
Granott, N. (1991). Play, puzzles, and a dilemma: Patterns of interaction in the co-construction of knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Hall, R. H., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., O'Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G., & Young, M. D. (1988). The role of individual differences in the cooperative learning of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 172-178.
Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 392-404.
Hiebert, E. H., & Fisher, C. W. (1991). Task and talk structures that foster literacy. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies . New York: Teachers College Press.
Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1991). The effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive reading on improving reading fluency and comprehension of at-risk sixth grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Hythecker, V. I., Dansereau, D. F., & Rocklin, T. R. (1988). Analysis of the processes influencing the structured dyadic learning environment. Educational Psychologist, 23(1), 23-37.
Hythecker, V. I., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Lambiotte, J. G., Larson, C. O., & O'Donnell, A. M. (1985). A computer-based learning strategy training module: Development and evaluation. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 1(3), 275-283.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Jenkins, J.R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Connor, R.E., Jenkins, L.M., Troutner, N.M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructuring. Exceptional Children, 60, 344-358.
Johnson, D. W. (1980). Group processes: Influences of student-student interaction on school outcomes. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The social psychology of school learning (pp. 123-168). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 3-15.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237-256.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 58-64.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Collaboration and cognition. In Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R., (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction books.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53(1), 5-54.
Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
Kagan, S. (1985). Co-op Co-op: A flexible cooperative learning technique. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Kamii, C. (1973). Pedagogical principles derived from Piaget's theory: Relevance for educational practice. In M. Schwebel & Raph, J. (Eds.), Piaget in the classroom. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Kettman Klinger, J. & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293.
King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664-687
Koskinen, P. S., & Blum, I. H. (1986). Paired repeated reading: A classroom strategy for fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 40(1), 70-75.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Kucan, L. & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Rocklin, T. R., Fletcher, B., Hythecker, V. I., Larson, C. O., & O'Donnell (1987). Cooperative learning and test taking: Transfer of skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 52-61.
Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A. M., Young, M. D., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Rocklin, T. R. (1987). Manipulating cooperative scripts for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 424-430.
Larson, C. O., & Dansereau, D. F. (1986). Cooperative learning in dyads. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 516-520.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 289-295.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A. M., Hythecker, V. I., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1985). Effects of metacognitive and elaborative activity on cooperative learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 342-348.
Lehrer, R. (in press). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hypermedia design. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lew, M., & Mesch, D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Positive interdependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies, and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 476-488.
Lynsynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N.J. (1990) Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469-484.
Madden, N. J., Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1986). Reading instruction in the mainstream: A cooperative learning approach (Tech. Rep. No. 5). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Maring, G. H., Furman, G. C., & Blum-Anderson, J. (1985). Five cooperative learning strategies for mainstreamed youngsters in content area classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 39(3), 310-313.
Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 113-119.
McDonald, B. A., Larson, C. O., & Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Cooperative dyads: Impact on text learning and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 369-377.
Meloth, M. S. (1991). Enhancing literacy through cooperative learning. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 172-183). New York: Teachers College Press.
Meloth, M. S. (in press). The effects of different incentives structures on comprehension, metacognition, and group discussion during cooperative reading instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1990a). A descriptive study of task definitions and discussions in collaborative reading-writing groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Meloth, M. S., & Deering, P. D. (1990b). Task talk and task awareness under different cooperative learning conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128(3), 345-352.
Montague, M., & Tanner, M. L. (1987). Reading strategy groups for content area instruction. Journal of Reading, 30(8), 716-723.
Newmann, F. M., & Thompson, J. A. (1987). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement in secondary schools: A summary of research. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D.F., Hall, R.H., and Rocklin, T.R. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective, and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 431-437.
O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., Skaggs, L. P., Hythecker, V. I., Peel, J. L., & Rewey, K. L. (1990). Learning concrete procedures: Effects of processing strategies and cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 171-177.
O'Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., Hythecker, V. I., Larson, C. O., Rocklin, T. R., Lambiotte, T. R., & Young, M. D. (1986). The effects of monitoring on cooperative learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(3), 169-173.
Palincsar, A. S. (1985). The unpacking of a multi-component, metacognitive training package. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1 & 2), 73-98.
Palincsar, A. S. (1987). An apprenticeship approach to the instruction of comprehension skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Classroom dialogue to promote self-regulated comprehension. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Teaching for understanding and self-regulated learning (Vol. 1, pp. 35-71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 231-253.
Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1990). Learning dialogues for comprehension and knowledge acquisition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Toronto, Canada.
Palincsar, A. S., & David, Y. M. (1991). Promoting literacy through classroom dialogue. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies . New York: Teachers College Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Examining and influencing contexts for intentional literacy learning. In C. Collins, & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty-first century. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Palincsar, A. S., Stevens, D. D., & Gavelek, J. R. (1989). Collaborating in the interest of collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(1), 41-53.
Paris, S. G. (1988). Fusing skill and will in children's learning and schooling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Paris, S. G., & Cross, D. R. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.
Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., & Turner, J. C. (1992). Reforming achievement testing to promote students' learning. In C. Collins & J. N. Mangieri (Eds.), Teaching thinking: An agenda for the twenty-first century (pp. 223-241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12-20.
Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Teaching children to be strategic readers: Lessons learned from the 80s and new directions for the 90s . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
Piaget, J. (1963). Psychology of intelligence. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-182.
Pressley, M., & Associates (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really works. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Rasinski, T. V. (1988). Caring and cooperation in the reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 41(6), 632-635.
Rasinski, T. V., & Nathenson-Mejia, S. (1987). Learning to read, learning community: Considerations of the social contexts for literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 41(3), 260-265.
Reder, L. M. (1980). The role of elaboration in the comprehension and retention of prose: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 5-53.
Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Pitre, U. (1989). Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 604-609.
Riel, M. (1990). Cooperative learning across classrooms in electronic Learning Circles. Instructional Science, 19, 445-466.
Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C., Goodman, J., McLarty, K., Dupree, A., & Martin, H. (1990). Effects of macrocontexts on reading comprehension, composition of stories, and vocabulary development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Risko, V. J., Kinzer, C., Vye, N., & Rowe, D. (1990). Effects of videodisc on comprehension and composition of causally-coherent stories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 31-63.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Wilson, B. (1980). The effect of classroom structure on shared perceptions of ability. American Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 75-82.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1991). Reciprocal teaching: A review of nineteen experimental studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Ross, S. M., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1976). Oral summary as a review strategy for enhancing recall of textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 689-695.
Rowe, D. W., Goodman, J. R., Moore, P., & McLarty, K. (1990). Effects of videodisc macrocontexts on classroom interaction and student questioning during literacy lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123-139.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 1. Research and open questions (pp. 563-577). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(1), 51-68.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 241-271.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-group teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Skaggs, L. P. (1990). Dyadic learning of technical material: Individual differences, social interaction, and recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 47-63.
Skaggs, L. P., Rocklin, T. R., Dansereau, D. F., Hall, R. H., O'Donnell, A. M., Lambiotte, J. G., & Young, M. D. (1990). Dyadic learning of technical material: Individual differences, social interaction, and recall. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 47-63.
Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 633-650.
Slavin, R. E. (1978). Student teams and achievement divisions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12(1), 39-49.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative Learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342.
Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York, NY: Longman, Inc.
Slavin, R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429-445.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentives, cooperative tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 53-63.
Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to classroom motivation meet. The Elementary School Journal, 88(1), 29-37.
Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58(5), 1161-1167.
Slavin, R. E. (1989/90). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1981). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive student team learning experience. Journal of Educational Experience, 50, 29-35.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Stevens, R. J. (1989/90). Cooperative learning models for the 3 R's. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 22-28.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Karweit, N. L., Livermon, B.J., & Dolan, L. (1990). Success for All: first-year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255-278.
Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 651-663.
Solomon, D., Watson, M., Schaps, E., Battisch, V., & Solomon, J. (19900. Cooperative learning as part of a comprehensive classroom program designed to promote prosocial development. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 231-260). New York: Praeger.
Spurlin, J. E., Dansereau, D. F., Larson, C. O., & Brooks, L. W. (1984). Cooperative learning strategies in processing descriptive text: Effects on role and activity level of the learner. Cognition and Instruction, 1(4), 451-463.
Stein, N., & Yussen, S. R. (1985). Review of Wertsch's analysis. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children (pp. 99-101). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated
reading and comprehension: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433-454.
Stevens, R..J., & Salisbury, J. D. (1997). Accommodating student heterogeneity in mainstreamed elementary classrooms through cooperative learning. In J.W. Llloyd, E. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., Farnish, A. M., & Madden, N. A. (1987). The effects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies for identifying main idea of paragraphs (Tech. Rep.). Baltimore, MD: Hopkins University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Swallow, J., Scardamalia, M., & Olivier, W. P. (1988). Facilitating thinking skills through peer interaction with software support. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Swing, S. R., & Peterson, P. L. (1982). The relationship of student ability and small-group interaction to student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 259-274.
Talmage, H., Pascarella, E. T., & Ford, S. (1984). The influence of cooperative learning strategies on teacher practices, student perceptions of the learning environment, and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 163-179.
Topping, K. (1987). Paired reading: A powerful technique for parent use. The Reading Teacher, 40(7), 608-614.
Topping, K. (1989). Peer tutoring and paired reading: Combining two powerful techniques. The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 488-494.
Uttero, D. A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading Teacher, 41(4), 390-395.
Van Cleaf, D. W. (1988). Cooperative learning: Linking reading and social studies. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 9, 59-63.
Vye, N., Rowe, D., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. J. (1990). The effects of anchored instruction for teaching social studies: Enhancing comprehension of setting information. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Warring, D., Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., & Johnson, R. (1985). Impact of different types of cooperative learning on cross-ethnic and cross-sex relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 53-59.
Webb, N.M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69-83.
Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642-655.
Webb, N. M. (1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 33-34.
Webb, N. M. (1985). Verbal interaction and learning in peer-directed groups. Theory Into Practice, 24(1), 32-39.
Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21-37.
Webb, N. M., & Sullivan Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In Berliner, D.C., and Calfee R.C. (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 841-873). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Calculator, S. (1982). Requests and responses in peer-directed reading groups. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 107-120.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Dollaghan, C. (1979). Peer communication in first grade reading groups. Theory Into Practice, 18(4), 267-274.
Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425.
Winograd, P., & Greenlee, M. (1986). Students need a balanced reading program. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 16-21.
Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1982). Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(1), 61-76.
Winograd, P., & Smith, L. A. (1987). Improving the climate for reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 41(3), 304-310.
Wolf, D. P. (1988). The quality of interaction: Domain knowledge, social interchange, and computer learning. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 203-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wood, K. D. (1987). Fostering cooperative learning in middle and secondary classrooms. Journal of Reading, 31(1), 10-19.
Yager, S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60-66.
Zellermayer, M., Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Givon, H. (1991). Enhancing writing-related metacognition through a computerized writing partner. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 373-391.
Table 1
Sample of Cognitive Processing Activities During Cooperative Reading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are sample cooperative reading activities that involve the co-construction of meaning from text with a partner, team, or small group:
Cooperative Prereading Activities:1. asking and recording questions to be answered prior to reading.2. scanning text and text headings and making predictions about content.3. relating passage content to prior knowledge and experiences.4. generating analogies, inferences, and elaborations about the text.5. constructing a data chart, outlining, or graphing for comparisons and contrasts.
Cooperative Postreading Activities:6. explaining, sharing, and expanding on one's knowledge discoveries.7. discussing and summarizing main ideas.8. deciding upon the relevance and utility of information.9. identifying story structure and constructing story theme.10. providing hints, cues, and other supports in comprehension monitoring.11. critiquing missing information and diagnosing misunderstandings.12. paraphrasing, clarifying, defending, refining, and expanding ideas and conflicting thoughts.13. modeling question-asking behavior and other cognitive strategies.14. evaluating and comparing oneself to the thinking of others.15. evaluating strategic effectiveness.
Table 2
Sample of Methods Available for Cooperative Reading________________________________________________________________Note that the first three methods below are useful in other areas besides reading. The remaining seven methods were developed specifically to enhance understanding of text and reading comprehension skills.
1. Student Team Learning (e.g., Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Games-Tournaments (TGT) (DeVries, Slavin, Fennessey, Edwards, & Lombardo, 1980; Slavin, 1983a).In these generic cooperative learning methods, students in grades 2-12 work in heterogenous four- to five-member groups after being presented with lessons by the teacher. They help one another master the worksheets from that lesson. After that, students take a quiz on the material or compete with classmates from other teams with similar achievement earning points for their team. Team scores are determined based on improvement of all team members over previous scores. Teams with the highest scores are then recognized in a weekly class newsletter.
2. Learning TogetherThis generic method, which is close to pure cooperative learning, is particularly useful for problem solving tasks. After the teacher has presented a lesson, students work in small heterogeneous groups on a common worksheet. Teachers emphasize positive interdependence (sink or swim together), face to face interaction, and individual accountability. Teams receive praise, tokens and grades, but there is no competition between groups or individuals (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).
3. Structured ControversyThis method uses controversial or debate-like situations wherein the ideas or theories of one team are made incompatible with those of another, thereby forcing members to attempt to reach a common position (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Typically, heterogeneous groups of four students are assigned as pairs and given opposing materials to read regarding a particular topic. In terms of cooperative reading activities, students read and discuss the assigned topic with a partner before presenting their ideas to those assigned the differing perspective. Afterwards, students alternate positions, before, finally, writing up a joint report about the issue in question.
4. Cooperative ScriptsThe cooperative learning script has students working in pairs to better understand text (see also Table 3) (Larson & Dansereau, 1986). When done, the passage goes out of sight and the recaller must summarize from memory what each member of the dyad has just read. The other member acts as listener and attempts to correct errors in passage recall and help make the information more meaningful and memorable. The main focus is to derive meaning from text by interacting with a partner. After each passage segment, the roles are reversed.
5. READER-READERSThe READERS strategy is a cooperative script for elementary children (Clarke & Bonk, 1992). The seven components to the READERS script include reviewing the purpose of
the assignment, passage exploration, asking questions, discussing questions and drawing conclusions, evaluating conclusions, reading for answers, and sharing findings. In attempting to foster both interaction patterns and self-regulated learning, students using READERS move between individual and paired activities on certain steps. The READER strategy is a similar strategy for individual reading.
6. Reciprocal TeachingThis is a technique to help students monitor their own reading comprehension originally developed for learning disabled seventh- and eighth-grade students working in groups of four to eight members (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). The four steps emphasized in this method, summarizing, constructing a question, clarification, and prediction, are first modeled by the teacher and later by peers. After teacher self-verbalization and modeling of strategies, students practice these skills and receive feedback from the teacher. After preliminary strategy internalization, students are given more responsibility for the strategy as they assume the role of the teacher and discussion leader in additional passages. The direct teacher modeling and explanation of underlying processes is faded over time, while feedback is tailored to each student's developmental level.
7. The Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) ProgramCIRC, a more structured and eclectic cooperative reading approach, was designed for grades three and four (Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, 1991). CIRC focuses on: (1) reading comprehension--summarizing and predicting; (2) reading vocabulary--word decoding and spelling; and (3) writing. Activities include teacher instruction, team practice, preassessment, supplemental practice, and quizzes. Typically students are heterogeneously grouped with four members representing two different reading groups. Paired partners from these groupings might listen and comment on each other's reading of a story, make predictions about a story, identify story structure, summarize major episodes of stories, master main ideas, draw conclusions, and compare and contrast ideas.
8. Paired Repeated Reading:Students select their own passage of about 50 words for silent reading. When ready, one student reads his/her passage aloud three different times to a partner. After the third reading, the listener tells his partner how his reading improved and the roles are switched. Teacher modeling of the listener role is important to strategy success (Koskinen & Blum, 1986). The method is applicable across a wide range of ages and ability levels (Dowhower, 1987).
9. Paired Reading:In paired reading (Topping, 1987), tutees select material to read, while the tutors provide help by reading with the tutee during difficult sections of text, repeating mispronounced words, and offering praise and encouragement. Though useful in home, school, and adult literacy programs, the expert-novice tutoring framework distinguishes it from more team-based cooperative reading approaches. Although both cooperative learning and peer tutoring are emphasized by Topping (1989), cooperative learning components remain unclear. Reciprocal peer tutoring arrangements might better approximate cooperative reading principles and create a more equal learning partnership.
10. Technology-Supported Cooperative ReadingA number of uses have made of technologies to support cooperative reading activities (Hythecker et al., 1985; Salomon, Globerson, & Guterman, 1989; Swallow, Scardamalia, & Olivier, 1988). For instance, questions embedded in electronic text can prompt metacognitive reflection, interactive dialogue, and knowledge construction when reading text. Computer-based tools that might foster cooperative reading activities include concept mapping aids, thinking skill prompts, outliners, idea generators, group activity or reflection logs, hypertext devices, notecard and commenting systems, electronic books, and co-authoring tools. Other technology like multimedia and hypermedia involve students in discovering and co-constructing new meaning from text, thereby creating more rich representations of text and deeper grasp of passage structure.
Table 3.
The cooperative learning and cooperative teaching scripts.
Cooperative learning script Cooperative teaching script
1. Flip a coin to determine who will be Partner A and Partner B.
1. Flip a coin to determine who will be Partner A and Partner B.
2. Both partners read Passage I.
2. Partner A reads Passage I. Partner B reads Passage II.
3. When both are finished, put the passage out of sight.
3. When both are finished, put the passage out of sight.
4. Partner A orally summarizes the contents of Passage I.
4. Partner A orally summarizes (teaches) the contents of Passage I.
5. Partner B detects and corrects any errors in Partner A's summary (metacognition step).
5. Partner B asks clarifying questions (metacognition step).
6. Both partners work together to develop analogies, images, etc., to help make the summarized information memorable (elaboration step).
6. Partners work together to develop analogies, images, etc., to help make Passage I information memorable (elaboration step).
7. Both partners read Passage II.
7. Repeat steps 4-6 for Passage II, with partners reversing roles.
8. Repeat steps 4-6 with partners reversing roles.
8. Both partners read the passage that they did not read originally.
Note: From Dansereau (1987, p. 616). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
Table 4
Components of Common Cooperative Reading Methods_____________________________________________________________
Method Similarities (most cooperative reading methods use one or more of the following procedures):(1) introduction of the strategy within students' zones of proximal development;(2) explanation of the purpose;(3) teacher and peer modeling of the method and subcomponents (e.g., question-asking behaviors);(4) guided interaction, dialogue, and negotiation of meaning;(5) multiple passage readings and encodings;(6) presentation of conflicting viewpoints;(7) elaboration, explanation, and summarization;(8) diagnosis of misunderstandings;(9) internalization and ownership over the strategy; and(10) teacher and peer feedback and assistance in comprehension monitoring.
Method Differences:(1) the extent of teacher or student direction;(2) practice or length of treatment;(3) goals/focus;(4) text type;(5) recommended age group;(6) group size (typically 2-4);(7) student roles and interaction;(8) quality of interaction;(9) reward structures; and(10) technological intervention.
i. In scaffolded instruction, teachers provide the support necessary to extend a child's skill to a higher level (Palincsar, 1986). Stated another way, scaffolded instruction is teacher-provided support that students cannot provide for themselves (see Farnham-Diggory, 1991).