combining strategy instruction disadvantaged students...

This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 27 October 2013, At: 10:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

Improving ReadingPerformance for EconomicallyDisadvantaged Students:Combining Strategy Instructionand Motivational SupportChi-Hung Clarence Ng a , Brendan Bartlett a , IvanChester a & Susan Kersland aa School of Education & Professional Studies ,Griffith University , Brisbane , AustraliaPublished online: 11 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Chi-Hung Clarence Ng , Brendan Bartlett , Ivan Chester & SusanKersland (2013) Improving Reading Performance for Economically DisadvantagedStudents: Combining Strategy Instruction and Motivational Support, ReadingPsychology, 34:3, 257-300, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Psychology, 34:257–300, 2013Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702711.2011.632071

IMPROVING READING PERFORMANCE FORECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS:

COMBINING STRATEGY INSTRUCTION ANDMOTIVATIONAL SUPPORT

CHI-HUNG CLARENCE NG, BRENDAN BARTLETT, IVAN CHESTER,and SUSAN KERSLAND

School of Education & Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane,Australia

Seventy-six fifth-year students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds partic-ipated in three different instructional conditions in an intervention study. Thefirst combined strategy training in top-level structuring and interrelated moti-vational support; the second implemented the strategy training only; and thethird was a control condition where no specific training in top-level structuringor motivational support was provided. Both trained groups showed substantialimprovement in their reading performance, as indicated by two different readingtests administered before and after the 6-week intervention. The control group didnot show any significant improvement on these tests. Students in the combinedinstructional condition made most progress in reading, indicating additionalvalue in combining both explicitly performance-linked motivational support andstrategy instruction in promoting reading.

Introduction

There is a strong link between low socioeconomic status (SES)and students’ low level of literacy achievement (Greene & Anyon,2010; Rothman & McMillan, 2003). In Australia, the 1996 Na-tional English Survey identified the significance of this link byshowing the reading achievement gap between disadvantagedand nondisadvantaged students (Masters & Forster, 1997). Overa decade later, low-SES and other disadvantaged students remaindisproportionally represented among those who fail to attain theminimum benchmark in reading and other literacy assessmentsin national literacy tests (The Ministerial Council for Education,

Address correspondence to Chi-Hung Clarence Ng, School of Education & Profes-sional Studies, Mt. Gravatt campus, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt. Gravatt, QLD 4111,Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

258 C.-H. C. Ng et al.

Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, MCEECDYA,2008, 2009). This experimental study trialed a reading interven-tion design that focuses on both motivation and strategy instruc-tion for promoting reading engagement and performance usingthree classes of Year 5 students from a school situated in a low-SESsuburb in Brisbane, Australia.

Reading comprehension is an important skill, critical for stu-dents’ academic success, future employment, and personal well-being (Desjardines, 2004; DeWalt & Pignone, 2005). Designingeffective intervention to motivate students to read and to improvetheir reading performance is an important educational challengethat always demands attention (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olsen,2001; Schacter & Jo, 2005). Many intervention studies on readingcomprehension have focused exclusively on the teaching of im-portant cognitive and regulatory skills (e.g., Andreassen & Braten,2010; Pressley et al., 1992; Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984) or spe-cific comprehension strategies (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002; Palincsar& Brown, 1984). Relatively few (e.g., Chan, 1994) have addressedsimultaneously both strategy instruction and motivation to read(Guthrie, Mcrae, & Klauda, 2007). In an experimental study, Sou-vignier and Mokhlesgerami (2006) found that combining moti-vational support with instruction on cognitive and self-regulatorystrategies resulted in better reading comprehension levels than fo-cusing on training students solely to develop either their cognitiveor self-regulatory strategies.

The Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) programis another example showing the importance of combining bothstrategy instruction and motivation support in the development ofreading engagement within the domain of science learning. Em-pirical findings, as summarized in Guthrie and colleagues (2007),demonstrated that CORI promotes reading engagement and per-formance by creating a classroom context supporting the devel-opment of cognitive strategies, knowledge mastery, curiosity, andautonomy in science learning. Building on this empirical founda-tion, the current intervention design emphasizes supporting bothlearning motivation and strategy instruction.

Comprehending a passage is a demanding cognitive task thatrequires not just the effective use of relevant strategies but alsomotivation to learn and use these strategies. It is highly likely thatinstructing low-SES students on effective reading strategies and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

Improving Reading Performance for Economically Disadvantaged Students 259

simultaneously providing motivational support will be beneficial,as the current literature often discusses issues related to the lackof motivational support and slow reading development amongstudents coming from low-SES backgrounds (e.g., Archambault,Eccles, & Vida, 2010; Dickinson, 1991; Guthrie et al., 2009; Pan,Rowe, Singer, & Snow, 2005). The current intervention, therefore,attempted to help low-SES students to master a core reading strat-egy known as top-level structuring (Bartlett, 1978, 2010), and tomotivate them to learn and use this strategy. Our design differedsomewhat from the CORI design. While CORI focuses on creat-ing a motivational context nurturing students’ content interest,knowledge, and independence related to science learning, thecurrent design aimed to build an explicit link between motivationand acquiring and using a learning strategy.

Top-Level Structuring as a Reading Strategy

To comprehend a passage, it is critically important for readersto understand how authors structure a text. Therefore, we havefocused on helping them do so by modeling structure-findingand structure-using skills, termed “top-level structuring” (Bartlett,1978, 2010), to cluster ideas into increasingly larger units of mean-ing. The children in our study adopted this model, using it in in-creasingly more complex reading and writing situations across thedaily routines and content domains of their Year 5 experience.

Meyer’s prose analysis system (1975) has identified differentmajor organization patterns in expository texts, which includedescription, sequence, compare/contrast, problem-solution, andcausation. It was found that good readers are capable of findingand using these patterns to represent the structure of ideas at itsgreatest level of abstraction (“top-level”) to recall important in-formation in a text (Bartlett, 1978, 1979, 2010; Meyer, Brandt, &Bluth, 1980; Meyer & Wijekumar, 2007; Meyer, Young, & Bartlett,1989). A wealth of research has explored the benefits gained fromunderstanding the top-level structure property of text and us-ing this understanding to guide reading comprehension. In gen-eral, past studies provided convergent and conclusive evidence at-testing to the positive effects of training for top-level structuring(TLS) on facilitating recall, memorizing main ideas, and writingeffectively (e.g., Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Bartlett,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


2010; Meyer & Poon, 2001; Meyer, Talbot, Stubblefield, & Poon,1998; Meyer et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2005). In addition, Meyerand colleagues (2002) found that learning top-level structuringpromotes the development of reading efficacy.

Teaching low-SES students to understand top-level structuresand to use them in reading comprehension is strategically impor-tant. First, low-SES students may lack sufficient exposure to ex-pository reading at home and in school (Duke & Pearson, 2002).Therefore, instructing them about the structure of text and onhow to use this knowledge strategically as a reader is pedagog-ically designed to compensate for their limited reading experi-ences (Bartlett, 1978, 2010). Gaining strategic knowledge thatauthors structure a text in predictable ways will facilitate readingengagement and improve reading performance. Second, top-levelstructuring as an “effective mnemonic” (Meyer et al., 1980, p. 99)will strategically focus students on main text structures rather thanon minor grammatical links. Learning top-level structuring there-fore is likely to help low-SES students develop a stronger sense ofreading control and to help them select the important informa-tion in a text.

Motivational Support

Strategy instruction alone will not ensure acquisition and de-ployment of these important cognitive skills in reading compre-hension (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Students need to be moti-vated to use top-level structuring (Anmarkrud & Braten, 2009;Meyer et al., 1998). The current intervention explores the pos-sibility of tapping motivational support derived from a resourcemade available to the students and teachers in this study in theform of a third party, an older adult volunteer, to assist low-SES students’ reading pursuits. The important consideration inthe current study is that older adults were to provide effec-tive feedback to support students’ learning of top-level struc-turing and to convey genuine interest in students’ reading ac-tivities. Meyer and colleagues (2002) previously had recruitedolder adults to tutor fifth-graders on top-level structuring usingan online system. We, too, connected students with our volun-teers online using e-mail. However, while the older adults inMeyer et al.’s study assumed a teaching role as their primary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


function, in our study their role was to provide motivational sup-port on the basis of what students informed them about theirclassroom learning of top-level structuring and of their applica-tions of this.

We used e-mail communication to establish a personal-ized and performance-focused motivational environment. Severalstudies have found that e-mail messages can be manipulated forpromoting personalized support for motivation (e.g., Hodges,2008; Kim & Keller, 2008; Overbaugh, 2002; Visser, Plomp, Ami-rault, & Kuiper, 2002) and facilitate learning (e.g., Absalom &Marden, 2004; Boxie, 2004; van der Meji & Boersma, 2002). Forexample, Kim and Keller (2008) found that personalized e-mailmessages were associated with a higher level of learning motiva-tion. Most of these studies examined the effects of personalized e-mail messages among undergraduate students. Few studies (e.g.,van der Meji & Boersma, 2002) have examined how e-mail mes-sages can be used to promote learning and motivation for primarystudents. In the current study, e-mail exchange between olderadults and students in one of the experimental groups was in-tended to create a motivational dialogue (cf. Ames, 1992) to focusstudents on learning and using the top-level structuring strategy.

To achieve this goal, e-mail exchanges in this study focusedon providing support and promoting learning. First, older adults’e-mails to the experimental group always conveyed a sense of per-sonal interest and support. For example, in the early exchange,older adults often wrote about their interest in understandingwhat students had learned at school and specifically about theirunderstanding of top-level structuring. Second, older adults’ mes-sages were constructed in such a way that they initiated a dis-cussion on the top-level structuring and how this reading strat-egy might be used effectively in daily life. In responding to thesemessages, students retold their understanding of top-level struc-turing, explained how the strategy could be applied to daily use,and practiced using it in common life situations. For example,students discussed the comparison structure in selecting a goodrestaurant and list structure in reading a restaurant menu—andtheir combination in selecting items from the menu. In this way,the e-mail exchange focused not just on providing social support,but also on promoting students’ understanding of these structuresand the strategic application of this knowledge, providing an au-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


thentic opportunity for using them and applying them to real lifesituations. In this way, the motivational dialogue created throughe-mail exchange can be likened to creating a mastery-orientedlearning environment (cf. Ames, 1992), focusing students on un-derstanding and using top-level structuring. In addition, olderadults’ messages were always targeted at a specific individual. Thepraise, encouragement, and other forms of support conveyed inan e-mail message were intended always to be interpreted as hav-ing personal relevance, because of the direct line of response andspecific feedback to what a student had communicated of his/herexperience with a learning moment or a particular application.

Taken together, this study examined the effectiveness of anintervention combining both strategy instruction and motiva-tional support to promote reading for low-SES students. It wasdesigned to test the proposition that motivational support willenhance the positive effects of strategy instruction in improvingreading performance.

This study also assumed that the intervention would havepositive impact on students’ motivation to read. Different mod-els have been used to assess students’ motivation to read, amongwhich students’ achievement goals, reading self-efficacy, and read-ing enjoyment are dominant forms of reading motivation.

Achievement goals refer to students’ perceived purposesfor engaging in reading. In this study, four different types ofachievement goals were included: mastery goals focused stu-dents to read for understanding and development; performance-approach goals focused students to read for outperformingothers; performance-avoidance goals directed students to avoidshowing a lack of reading abilities; work-avoidance goals re-ferred to the avoidance of spending time and effort on reading.In general, past studies on achievement goals have found thatstudents focusing on adaptive goals such as mastery goals andperformance-approach goals would have a more engaged patternof learning compared to those holding avoidance goals (Kaplan& Maehr, 2007). Relatively few studies, however, have investigatedachievement goals in the context of reading. Among the few pub-lished studies, Meece and Miller (1999, 2001) confirmed that pri-mary students held strong mastery goals for reading and writing,and their mastery focus was associated with the use of active learn-ing strategies. In another study, Meece and Holt (1993) found

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


that individuals with a strong mastery goal had a higher level ofreading comprehension than did those holding a weak masterygoal. Botsas and Padeliadu (2003) provided similar findings, andtheir studies found that Greek students’ mastery goals for readingwere associated with effective use of reading strategies and betterreading results. The findings of these studies are consistent withthe bulk of achievement goal research, confirming the adaptivenature of mastery goals. The negative impact of work avoidancehas also been confirmed (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Our knowl-edge about the nature of performance-approach and avoidancegoals on reading is, however, rather limited.

The current study assumed that the intervention would im-prove students’ desire for mastery and high performance in read-ing, while their intention to avoid showing their lack of abilitiesand to reduce effort and time on reading would be lessened.This hypothesized result would be more pronounced for studentswho were provided a chance to interact with older adults using e-mail communication. Given that the e-mail communications weremeant for promoting mastery, endorsing achievement, and pro-viding support, it was likely that these students would becomemore mastery-oriented and intentional about focusing on demon-strating their reading performance. This hypothesized effect wasin line with the result in Meece and Miller (1999).

Reading enjoyment is an intrinsic form of motivation. Stu-dents find engaging in reading activities itself an inherently en-joyable experience. Past studies have shown that reading enjoy-ment was associated with a higher level of reading involvement(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), and more time spent on reading ac-tivities and reading achievement (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). Mostof these previous studies have focused on subject matter or top-ics that have aroused students’ curiosity and enjoyment (Baker& Wigfield, 1999). Relatively few investigations have looked intoreading itself as an inherently enjoyable activity (e.g., Nolen,2007). This study assumed that students’ reading enjoyment itselfwould be improved when they were equipped with better readingskills (the learning of top-level structuring), enabling them to im-prove their reading comprehension. In addition, the motivationalsupport derived from e-mail communication with the older adultswould further strengthen students’ personal sense of reading en-joyment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Students’ reading self-efficacy represents the judgment oftheir ability to complete a specific reading task. Readingself-efficacy has been extensively researched (e.g., Grambrell,Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). In general, past research hasdemonstrated that readers with low reading self-efficacy tend tobe distracted from reading activities, give up easily, and even avoidengaging in reading (Baker & Wigfield, 1999). In contrast, highlevels of reading self-efficacy are associated with better achieve-ment (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 1995; Katzir, Lesaux, & Kim,2009; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009). Within thecontext of the current study, it was argued that mastering oftop-level structuring for students in both experimental groupswould strengthen their reading self-efficacy. In addition, the mo-tivational dialogue with older adults would provide verbal persua-sion facilitating the development of a stronger sense of readingself-efficacy.

In short, we consider that students in the experimentalgroups, relative to those in the control group, would find readingenjoyable, develop a stronger sense of reading efficacy, and focusmore on mastery and outperforming others as goals to drive theirreading pursuit. To track the change in these motivational vari-ables, this study took a pre- and postintervention design, request-ing students in both experimental and control groups to completea questionnaire evaluating their achievement goals, levels of read-ing enjoyment, and self-efficacy.

Method

Participants

Seventy-six fifth year students from a state primary school situatedin a low-SES suburb in Brisbane, Australia, were included in thisintervention study. Students’ reports on parental occupations con-firmed that each was part of a low-income family. The reading andother literacy levels of Year 3, 5, and 7 students in this specificschool were substantially below the national average, according tothe results of national tests in the National Assessment Program ofLiteracy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) in 2008 and 2009 (The Minis-terial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development andYouth Affairs, MCEECDYA, 2008, 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


This current sample contained 40 boys and 36 girls with amean age of 9.57 years (SD = .57). The students belonged to threeYear 5 classes. According to their teachers, students across thesethree classes had similar achievement and motivational levels inreading. These students reported that they spent 1 to 2 hoursweekly reading on their own, which included the time they spenton reading in school and at home. Given the various opportuni-ties in which they were able to read independently and interac-tively in groups in their class each week, apparently these studentswere not keen readers.

Measures

ACHIEVEMENT INDICATORSStudents’ reading achievement was assessed in two differ-

ent ways. First, they took a reading comprehension test beforeand after the intervention. Students read a 196-word passage on“The First Fleet—Why Did It Come?” and completed a free recallquestion on the content of the passage (see Appendix 2). UsingMeyer’s prose analysis scheme (Meyer, 1975), 329 scorable unitswere identified in the passage. This formed the basis for assess-ing students’ free recall responses. Appendix 3 shows the analy-sis template. Two researchers marked students’ written responsesand compared their marking. The inter-rater correlation was.90.

Second, students took part in the NAPLAN reading test (TheAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,n.d.) immediately before the intervention. The NAPLAN readingtest is an annual standardized test on reading comprehensionadministered to all Year 3, 5, and 7 Australian students. The Year5 reading test contains six stimulus texts and includes literal,sequential, and inferential questions on reading comprehension.Students took this test in a formal examination setting and wererequired to spend 45 minutes to answer a combination of 35multiple choice and short answer (words, phrase, or sentence)questions related to the stimulus texts. Students’ scores in thisstandardized test were taken as an objective indication of theirreading achievement prior to the intervention. The NAPLANreading test was re-administered 4 weeks after the conclusion of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


the intervention, forming a second delayed assessment of theeffect of the intervention on students’ reading achievement.

MOTIVATIONAL INDICATORSStudents’ motivation to read was assessed using achieve-

ment goals, reading enjoyment, and efficacy. Appendix 1 providessample items for these constructs, and Cronbach Alpha values atboth pre- and post-test stage were given. Achievement goals werestudents’ perceived purposes for reading engagement, which in-cluded mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance,work-avoidance, and social approval goals. Mastery goals assessstudents’ intention to read for understanding and improvement.Performance-approach goals focus students on their relative abil-ities in reading, and students read with these goals to outper-form others. Performance-avoidance goals are about not show-ing one’s lack of reading ability. Work-avoidance goals referto the intention to avoid spending effort and time in read-ing. Social approval goals focus students on gaining approvalfrom teachers. Items assessing students’ achievement goals wereadapted from past studies (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece & Miller,1999).

Reading enjoyment assessed students’ interest in reading.Items forming reading efficacy required students to evaluate theirown abilities in reading. These items were adapted from Wigfieldand Guthrie (1997).

PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF TOP-LEVEL STRUCTURINGSix items written specifically for this study assessed students’

perceived usefulness of top-level structuring as a literacy toolfor promoting understanding, facilitating recall, and developingreading efficacy. A high score in this construct indicates that stu-dents consider top-level structuring important and useful for read-ing. Sample items are given in Appendix 1.

SOCIAL SUPPORT DERIVED FROM E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONEight items written specifically for this study assessed stu-

dents’ perceived social support derived from exchanging e-mailcommunication with older adults. These items asked students toevaluate the extent to which they received praise, encouragement,and support from older adults in their e-mail communication. Ahigh score in this construct means that students feel supported in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


their e-mail exchange with the older adults. Appendix 1 showsa sample item in this construct. In addition, students were re-quired to respond to an open-ended question that asked themwhat they liked most about the e-mail interaction with the olderadults.

Procedure

Parental consent was sought for students to take part in the in-tervention. Prior to the commencement of the intervention, stu-dents completed the preintervention survey, the reading compre-hension test, and also the NAPLAN test.

Scores in the NAPLAN reading test verified the teachers’ ad-vice that students in three classes did not differ in reading achieve-ment levels (ANOVA F [2,67] = 2.47, p > .09). Also, nonsignifi-cant ANOVA results at the preintervention survey confirmed thatstudents in the three classes did not differ in reported levels ofreading enjoyment (F [2,74] = 1.01, p > .30) or reading efficacy(F [2,74] = 1.47, p > .40). Nor did they differ in the amount oftime spent on reading at home (F [2,71] = .84, p > .40). All stu-dents reported that they spent around 1 to 2 hours reading ontheir own in school and at home on a weekly basis. In addition,no significant difference was found in gender mix in these threegroups (χ2

(2, 76) = .12, p > .90).The three classes were assigned randomly to experimental

and control conditions.

• TLS-e-mail group receiving strategy instruction and e-mail sup-port

• TLS-only group receiving strategy instruction only• Control group with no strategy instruction or e-mail support

Identical training materials and learning activities were usedin the experimental groups. Students learned to identify top-level structure in texts, to understand the signal words and othercues indicating the various forms of such structure, and to dis-cuss examples of these in commonly encountered text materials.Six lessons covered four main structures found in texts (Bartlett,1978, 2010), specifically listing, comparison, problem-solution,and cause-effect. These lessons were taught to the experimental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


TABLE 1 Text Structures (Adapted From Meyer & Poon, 2001)

Text Structures Examples of Signal Words

ListingThis text structure involves a list of

descriptions, attributes, steps, orother important informationrelated to a specific topic, event, orperson in a text.

First, second, third. . .

The most important. . .the leastimportant. . .

Afterwards, later, finallyNamely, characteristics are, such as,

for exampleComparisonThis text structure refers to the

similarities and differences indescriptions, events, and attributesrelated to a specific topic, event, orperson in a text

Compared to, in contrast, however, onthe other hand, unlike, the same as,different from

Problem—SolutionThis text structure involves two parts,

a problem part and a solution partthat responds to the problem

Problem: problem, question, query,issue, trouble, puzzle Solution:solution, answer, response, reply

Cause and EffectThis text structure presents causal or

cause-and-effect-like relationsbetween ideas, events, and actions

As a result, because, since,consequence, thus, in order to, thereason, therefore

groups (see Table 1). The lesson materials for teaching top-levelstructuring were fully integrated into the existing English curricu-lum. Appendix 4 shows a sample of an integrated lesson.

Professional training on text structure and top-level struc-turing was given to the teachers responsible for the experimen-tal groups. Two training sessions conducted by an experiencedtrainer on top-level structuring were held in the school with theteachers responsible for the experimental groups. The first ses-sion introduced teachers to text structure and top-level structur-ing and included a discussion on various ways that top-level struc-turing can be incorporated into the school curriculum. The sec-ond session explained the integrated lessons, including lessonplans, classroom activities, and assigned readings designed for in-tegrating the teaching of top-level structuring to the school cur-riculum (see Appendix 4). A thorough discussion was held to en-sure that teachers in the experimental groups developed a clear

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


understanding of the requirements of the teaching of top-levelstructuring in these integrated lessons.

To ensure a high level of consistency, both experimentalgroups used identical lesson materials, activities, and reading ma-terials designed by the research team. Each integrated lessonran for about 60 minutes. Students in the control group hadtheir normal 60-minute lessons from the school curriculum andstudied identical reading materials used in the experimentalgroups, without the opportunities of learning top-level structur-ing and completing related learning activities.

The treatment difference between the TLS-e-mail group andTLS-only group was that the former group received e-mail sup-port from older adults. Three male older adults with a mean ageof 54 years provided motivational support to students in the TLS-e-mail group. These older adults had formal teacher training andwere working as university lecturers at the time of the interven-tion. Professional training was provided in forms of (a) studyingpublished research (Meyer et al., 2002) on top-level structuring,and (b) discussion on how to provide social support and to rein-force learning and use of top-level structuring in real social situ-ations. Aligned with an achievement goal perspective (cf. Ames,1992), the 1-hour discussion focused older adults on construct-ing a motivational dialogue that promotes mastery, encourages ef-fort expenditure, reinforces understanding, extends knowledge,and offers praise for achievement. In particular, older adults wereintroduced to several real-world situations that could be used intheir e-mail communication with the students to discuss how top-level structuring can be applied to common daily issues.

Each of the older adults was responsible for 9 or 10 stu-dents in the TLS-e-mail group. E-Mail messages were sent to acentrally managed e-mail account held within the university com-puter system. In this way, the e-mail communications were mon-itored. More importantly, this arrangement avoided direct con-tact between students and older adults using their personal e-mailaccounts. Students identified themselves using their first namesonly, and older adults used pseudonames to disguise their identi-ties and gender.

Older adults sent the first e-mail introducing themselves andexpressing their interest in learning about students’ classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


literacy activities. The turn-around time was an issue in the firstweek of the intervention, as students did not have access to com-puters in their classroom and were rostered in using the school’scomputer laboratory. The situation improved substantially whenthe roster was changed to provide 30-minute access in two schooldays for students in the TLS-e-mail group to the computing facili-ties in the school computing laboratory.

The e-mail interaction period lasted for 6 weeks. In total, 362messages were exchanged. To ensure an explicit linkage betweenthe teaching of top-level structuring strategies in the class and theprovision of social support, older adults sent messages to studentsin the TLS group once the teaching of a specific structure (e.g.,listing) was completed. In this way, older adults showed constantinterest in students’ progressive learning of the strategy and initi-ated discussion of its application in common everyday routines toconvey a sense of usefulness and relevance.

At the conclusion of the intervention period, the prein-tervention survey and reading comprehension test were re-administered. For the experimental groups, additional items re-questing responses on the learning of top-level structuring wereincluded in the second survey. In addition, students in the TLS-e-mail group were asked to respond to questions seeking their viewsabout the support they received from e-mail communication withthe older adults. Four weeks after the completion of the interven-tion, the NAPLAN reading test was re-administered to examine ifthe benefits from the intervention could be maintained.

Research Questions

Using a pre- and post-test design, this study explored the possibleimpact of the intervention on students’ reading achievement andmotivation. Four questions were addressed.

1. What effect will the intervention design have on students’ read-ing achievement?

2. What effect will the intervention design have on students’ read-ing goals, reading enjoyment, and reading efficacy?

3. What will students think of top-level structuring?4. What will students think of e-mail support from older adults?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Results

The data were screened for outliers and variable normalitychecked. Participants whose scores on reading tests were higherthan +/–3 standard deviations from the overall means were con-sidered as outliers. In total, five cases were deleted, leaving 76 stu-dents in the final sample. The follow-up normality tests indicatedthat the normality assumptions were not violated after removingthe outliers. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of major con-structs in this study at both pre- and postintervention stage.

Did the Intervention Improve Reading Achievement?

Significant paired T-test results showed that students in the TLS-e-mail group had substantial improvement in their NAPLAN read-ing test, t(21) = -4.69, p < .0001, r = .51 and the reading com-prehension test, t(26) = –6.62, p < .0001, r = .65. Students in theTLS-only group also showed significant improvement in their NA-PLAN reading test, t(22) = –5.94, p < .0001, r = .61 and readingcomprehension test, t(21) = –3.71, p < .0001, r = .37. A non-significant paired T-test result for the control group indicated nosignificant change in scores on these tests.

Further analyses were conducted to compare readingachievement across groups. While the experimental and controlgroups did not differ in the NAPLAN reading test conducted priorto the intervention (F [2,67] = 2.47, p > .09), between-groupscores on its second administration were significantly different(F [2,64] = 10.03, p < .0001). In particular, students in the TLS-e-mail group (X = 24.54) and TLS-only group (X = 21.65) hadhigher scores than did those in the control group (X = 17.80)on the second NAPLAN. Figure 1 shows significant interactionbetween the three groups in their NAPLAN reading tests.

An ANCOVA test on the postintervention reading compre-hension test, taking students’ preintervention comprehensionscores as a covariate, found significant differences between thethree groups (F [2,78] = 5.48, p < .005). Two findings were no-table. First, after control for preintervention differences in read-ing comprehension, students in the TLS-e-mail group had signif-icantly higher reading comprehension scores (X = 66.23) afterthe intervention than did those in the other two groups. Second,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

TA

BL

E2

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

cs

TL

S-E

-Mai

lGro

upT

LS-

On

lyG

roup

Con

trol

Gro

upW

hol

eSa

mpl

e

Tim

e1

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e2

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e1

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e2

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e1

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e2

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e1

Mea

n(S

D)

Tim

e2

Mea

n(S

D)

NA

PLA

NR

eadi

ng

test

21.0

0(3

.35)

24.5

4(2

.98)

17.1

3(7

.93)

21.6

5(6

.14)

18.0

5(4

.94)

17.8

0(4

.93)

18.7

2(5

.94)

21.4

4(5

.52)

Rea

din

gco

mpr

ehen

sion

test

34.6

7(2

4.15

)66

.63

(30.

28)

13.8

4(1

3.17

)30

.32

(22.

26)

30.8

1(2

8.05

)45

.08

(35.

48)

26.7

1(2

4.25

)47

.81

(33.

14)

Rea

din

gef

fica

cy3.

43(1

.02)

3.37

(1.0

9)3.

86(.

92)

3.84

(.73

)3.

38(.

87)

3.03

(.88

)3.

52(.

95)

3.39

(.98

)R

eadi

ng

enjo

ymen

t3.

57(1

.36)

3.67

(.99

)3.

57(1

.27)

3.69

(1.2

2)3.

92(1

.14)

3.64

(1.1

1)3.

67(1

.26)

3.67

(1.0

7)

Mas

tery

goal

s3.

77(1

.21)

3.72

(.86

)3.

58(1

.02)

3.83

(.72

)3.

30(.

84)

3.32

(.85

)3.

58(1

.07)

3.63

(.84

)Pe

rfor

man

ce-

appr

oach

goal

s

3.70

(.98

)3.

43(.

90)

3.49

(1.0

3)3.

07(.

90)

3.31

(.97

)2.

82(.

47)

3.53

(.99

)3.

15(.

83)

Perf

orm

ance

-av

oida

nce

goal

s

3.87

(1.2

7)3.

81(1

.10)

3.84

(1.0

7)3.

94(.

96)

3.48

(1.3

8)3.

11(1

.16)

3.74

(1.2

5)3.

64(1

.12)

Wor

kav

oida

nce

goal

s2.

81(1

.23)

2.86

(1.0

3)3.

07(.

95)

2.75

(.91

)2.

72(.

76)

2.83

(.93

)2.

86(1

.03)

2.82

(.96

)

Soci

alap

prov

algo

als

4.81

(.59

)4.

74(.

42)

4.41

(.83

)4.

06(1

.30)

4.08

(.73

)4.

15(.

73)

4.49

(.76

)4.

35(.

88)

Not

e.T

ime

1=

Prei

nte

rven

tion

;Tim

e2

=Po

stin

terv

enti

on.

272

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


FIGURE 1 Change in NAPLAN Reading Test Scores (Color figure available on-line).

while the TLS-only group had the lowest scores in the prein-tervention reading comprehension (X = 13.84), their postinter-vention comprehension scores showed substantial improvement(X = 30.32). No significant interaction was found between thethree groups on reading comprehension scores.

Taken together, these results confirmed that the interven-tion had positive effects on the reading performance of the twoexperimental groups. The control group recorded no significantimprovement in reading scores on both reading tests.

Did the Intervention Improve Reading Motivation?

A repeated measure MANOVA on students’ achievement goalsover the intervention period was significant, Wilks λ = .79,F [5,50] = 2.65, p < .05, η2 = .21. The significant result was dueto a drop in performance-approach goals in the TLS-only group(t(16) = 2.44, p < .001, r = .27) and the control group (t(17) =2.28, p < .001, r = .23). However, this result should be interpreted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


with caution, as the reliability scores of performance-approachgoals did not reach .70 (cf. Nunnally, 1978). Other main and in-teraction effects were nonsignificant.

Separate repeated measures ANOVA tests on reading enjoy-ment and efficacy found that these three classes of students didnot show significant change in their perceived levels of enjoyment(F [1, 59] = .03, p = .87.) and efficacy (F [1, 59] = .15, p = .22).These results revealed that the intervention had limited effects onstudents’ reading motivation measured in terms of reading goals,enjoyment, and efficacy.

What Did Students Think About Top-Level Structuring?

The mean score for the construct on perceived usefulness of top-level structuring was 3.53 with a standard deviation of .84. Over75% of students (N = 35) in both TLS-e-mail and TLS-only groupsconsidered that top-level structuring was useful, important, andfacilitating in relation to their understanding and recall of read-ing content. These views were shared among students in the TLS-e-mail and TLS-only groups, and no significant difference wasfound between them (ANOVA, F [1, 44] = 3.74, p > .05).

In the final message to the students in TLS-e-mail group, theolder adults asked students to summarize what they had learnedabout top-level structuring. The messages that students sent backindicate they had a good grasp of top-level structuring. An exam-ple is shown below:

Dear Ms Heather

We have learnt about 4 main things to do with top level struture. Theywere called cause and affect, problem solving, lists and compering. I havelearnt that lists are every where. lists can be a christmas list or a shoppinglist. you put the most important at the top and the least imporant at thebottom. cause and affect is when you have consechences for things. youneed to think before you do things and see what the affect might be. it canbe good or bad. problem solving is when you fix a problem for someone.you think up lots of solotions and you compere them to come up with thebest one. we did compering at the start. you look at things the smae anddiffarent. you make lists of the things and this helps you make a choice.miss k says we will keep learing about top level strucuter. i relaly like it.she is having a party with us tomorow for her birthday. you can come if

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


you want. From Hannah (Sent on 23 June 2009; Hannah’s final messageto Mrs Heather)

What Did Students Think About E-mail Support?

In total, 362 messages were exchanged during the intervention.1

These focused overtly on students’ learning and application oftop-level structuring. Older adults praised students’ work, encour-aged them to keep up with the learning, and shared with themtheir own experiences in using top-level structuring. To reinforcestudents’ learning, older adults initiated discussion on how thestrategy could be used to deal with common everyday routines.Over 88% (N = 24) of students in the TLS-e-mail group consid-ered that they felt supported by the e-mail communication theyhad with the older adults (mean = 3.98, SD = .94).

Students’ comments on what they liked about the e-mailcommunication corroborated the quantitative evidence. Twenty-seven comments were provided, from which 41 unique descrip-tions were identified. These descriptions focus on both socialand learning aspects of e-mail communication that studentsvalued:

1. Friendship (e.g., “I liked my e-mail buddy”; 9 entries; 21.95%).2. Being nice and friendly (e.g., “She was really nice to me”; 14 en-

tries; 34.15%).3. Social interaction (e.g., “He listened and replied every time”; 8 en-

tries; 19.51%).4. Supporting learning (e.g., “I liked that I learnt more”; 4 entries;

9.76%).5. Using the computer (e.g., “I could have fun on the computer”; 5

entries; 12.20%).

While students’ comments focused mainly on the social as-pects of the e-mail communication, a content analysis showedthat 58.85% (N = 123) and 99.34% (N = 152) of the messagessent by older adults and students, respectively, had focused on ex-plaining and discussing the use of top-level structuring with itsvarious structural forms (lists, comparison, problem-solution, andcause-effect). In other words, students’ favorable comments onvarious social aspects of communicating with the older adults were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


underpinned by a strong focus on the learning and deliberate useof top-level structuring as a strategy. Taken together, these resultsindicate that e-mail communication had successfully served its twoplanned functions—providing motivational support and reinforc-ing the learning of the top-level strategies.

Discussion

The most important finding of the current study was that theexperimental groups had significant improvement in their read-ing achievement, as both NAPLAN and reading comprehensiontests indicated. The effect size was rather large (r > .50, except inthe case of the postintervention comprehension test for the TLS-only group; cf. Guthrie et al., 2007), indicating that the effect ofthe intervention was quite significant in practical terms (cf. Field,2009, p. 332). These findings, consistent with previous interven-tion studies (e.g., Bartlett, 2010; Meyer et al., 2002; Meyer et al.,2010), confirmed the importance of learning top-level structur-ing in promoting reading and extends these findings to includeperformances of SES-disadvantaged students.

Moreover, this intervention study was significant because theimproved reading performances were achieved in a short-term(6-week) intervention among low-SES students. The effects weremaintained 1 month after the intervention and were evident inthe second administration of the NAPLAN reading test examin-ing not just content recall but also students’ general reading skillsand understanding. This particular finding is that the acquisitionof top-level structuring promotes students’ general reading per-formance. It adds to much of the extant research (e.g., Meyer &Poon, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002) that has focused exclusively on thefacilitating effect of the strategy on recall. Our result suggests thatstudents are capable of transferring top-level structuring and ap-plying it successfully in understanding other reading comprehen-sion tasks. Therefore, providing SES-disadvantaged students withinstruction on top-level structuring and conditional knowledgeof its application hold promise for improving reading achieve-ment for disadvantaged students and narrowing the existingachievement gap between disadvantaged and nondisadvantagedstudents.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


In this study, the TLS-e-mail group made more progress overthe intervention period and had the highest scores in postinter-vention reading tests. These results were consistent with Souvi-gnier and Mokhlesgerami (2006) and suggest that motivationalsupport derived from e-mail communication with older adults en-hances the positive effect of top-level structuring on reading per-formance (Anmarkrud & Braten, 2009).

One may argue that it was the additional time that studentsin the TLS-e-mail group spent on discussing top-level structuringwith older adults that may have contributed to their improvedachievement. To evaluate this argument, it should be noted that27 students in the TLS-e-mail group, in total, wrote 153 e-mailsto the older adults and received 209 e-mails over 6 weeks. Onthe average, each student in the TLS-e-mail group received oneto two e-mails from the older adults and sent one e-mail messageto older adults in a week. Even though students were given twosessions of 30-minute computer access for e-mailing, they did notspend this period totally on e-mailing. The teacher confirmed thisobservation. In other words, students did not spend a significantamount of time on communicating with older adults on top-levelstructuring. It is important to point out that this intervention didnot conceptualize time-on-task as a critical variable for promotingreading achievement. Rather, it was the opportunity for studentsto engage in a motivational dialogue that created for students amastery-focused environment to discuss the learning and using oftop-level structuring that has been taken as a motivational compo-nent for promoting reading achievement. The time spent on com-municating with older adults was brief. Nevertheless, the learning-focused messages, positive comments, and encouraging remarksfrom the older adults stayed with them and motivated them tolearn.

Nevertheless, while students in the TLS-e-mail group im-proved their reading achievement, their reading motivation, asmeasured by achievement goals, did not show significant changeover the intervention period. This result suggests that while thee-mail support improved students’ understanding and use of top-level structuring strategies, it was not strong enough to trigger ashift in students’ achievement goals. In addition to the low relia-bility scores in some of the motivational constructs, the short-term

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


nature of the current study (6 weeks) may be another reason forthe nonsignificant change in reading motivation. Past studies onreading motivation that recorded significant change usually in-volved longer terms. For example, Meece and Miller (1999) stud-ied students’ achievement goals in a reading intervention studythat lasted over 2 years. A further reason may be due to the factthat the items assessing reading motivation were quite generaland did not refer to specific reading tasks. Using task-specificmeasurement of reading motivation would be a tangible way toinvestigate this possibility in a follow-up study.

While the motivational change was statistically nonsignifi-cant, students’ comments on the e-mail interaction focus us onthe effectiveness of motivational support that the older adults hadcommunicated through their e-mails. Though the adults were un-known to the students at the beginning, the students consideredthem as their “buddies” and commented favorably on the friend-ships, learning, and social supports they received through the e-mails. These results highlight the importance of the provision ofquality feedback and support for low-SES students, and volunteergroups that many schools arrange to help support teachers andstudents in the pursuit of learning present opportunities to dothis. Given the ease with which the older adults as “support vol-unteers” in this study worked with students and the key constructsof strategy and motivation, we agree with McKenna’s (1994) con-tention that it does not matter who the (helping) person is aslong as a supportive relationship and genuine interest in students’learning are established.

The current intervention study was limited by its small scale.However, the large effect size warrants that such a design be ex-tended to include other disadvantaged students over a longerterm. In such an extension study, it is desirable to explore howan innovative reading intervention can benefit both older adultsand other types of disadvantaged students (cf. Meyer et al., 2002).

In addition, some of the reading motivation constructs didnot reach an acceptable level of reliability of .70 (Nunnally, 1978).The results should be interpreted taking this limitation into con-sideration. The re-administration of the reading comprehensiontest using an identical passage did not show how the interven-tion may affect reading of other curriculum texts. Future studies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


should consider using passages from other curriculum areas inorder to examine the possibility of effect transfer. In addition, thelarge standard deviations associated with students’ reading com-prehension scores in the current study, as well as those in a pre-vious study (Meyer et al., 2002), suggest that the reading compre-hension test might not be effective in assessing students’ readingachievement as compared to a standardized reading test. In thecurrent study, both forms of testing were included and the resultscomplemented each other. It therefore seems important to assessreading achievement using alternative testing arrangements.

When concluding the lessons learned from the first interna-tional literacy test, PISA 2000, the OECD argued that the promo-tion of reading engagement can help overcome home disadvan-tages (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment (OECD), 2004). This paper provides empirical findingssupporting this argument. The current intervention yielded com-pelling evidence attesting to its effectiveness in developing low-SES students’ reading skills, and the potential enhancement ef-fect of motivational support through e-mail communication witholder adults. The overall results suggest that the current interven-tion design is capable of helping SES-disadvantaged students toread expository texts and to improve their reading performance.To maintain the reading gain, it is important for teachers of SES-disadvantaged students to continue teaching top-level structuringand to help students apply this learning as procedural techniqueregardless of the content domain of their curriculum texts. Pro-viding motivational support will promote persistence in pursuingdeep understanding and effective use of this important readingstrategy. While this study was designed with economically disad-vantaged students in mind, top-level structuring and motivationfor reading are equally important for other student groups. Inthis sense, the current intervention can be applied to other stu-dent groups to promote reading achievement.

Note

1. Content analysis procedure involved reading and rereading of 362 e-mail mes-sages from both adults and students. One of the foci of the content analysiswas on the content focus of e-mail messages. To do this, a coding system wasdeveloped based on four top-level strategies and integrated discussion of two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


or more strategies. These messages were classified as learning focus when itwas found while focusing on one of these strategies. One of the researchersclassified these e-mail messages according to this scheme. To verify the codingscheme, a research assistant who did not have knowledge about the researchclassified the messages according to this scheme. The inter-coder reliabilitywas .99.

References

Absalom, M., & Marden, M. P. (2004). E-Mail communication and languagelearning at university—An Australian case study. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 17(3/4), 403–440.

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olsen, L. S. (2001). Schools, achievement,and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Anal-ysis, 23, 171–191.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journalof Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 80(3), 260–267.

Andreassen, R., & Braten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction of reading com-prehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading,33(3), 263–283.

Anmarkrud, O., & Braten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension.Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 252–256.

Archambault, I., Eccles, J. S., & Vida, M. N. (2010). Ability self-concepts andsubjective value in literacy: Joint trajectories from grade 1 through 12. Journalof Educational Psychology, 102(4), 804–816.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text struc-ture/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Read-ing Research Quarterly, 22, 331–346.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Na-tional assessment program literacy and numeracy: Reading Year 5. Retrievedfrom http://www.naplan.edu.au/verve/ resources/nap09 reading Y5 file.pdf

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for read-ing and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 34(4), 452–477.

Bartlett, B. J. (1978). Top-level structure as an organisational strategy for recall ofclassroom text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University,1978.

Bartlett, B. J. (1979). Structured reading. Special Education Bulletin, 21(2),23–27.

Bartlett, B. J. (2010). Learning about written language, literacy and meaning:A metalinguistic gift. In M. Raich, P. Schober, & J. Zelger (Eds.), Linguisticstructures, theory and practice (pp. 47–64). Innsbruck, Austria: Studien Verlag.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehen-sion strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. Inter-national Journal of Educational Research, 39(4–5), 477–495.

Boxie, P. (2004). Making cyber literacy connection from the storage room to thecollege room. Reading Horizons, 45(2), 127–138.

Chan, L. K.S. (1994). Relationship of motivation, strategic learning, and readingachievement in grades 5, 7, and 9. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4),319–339.

Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’sreading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and theirrelationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,154–167.

Desjardines, R. (2004). Learning for well-being: Studies using international adult lit-eracy survey. Stockholm, Sweden: Institute of International Education, Stock-holm University.

DeWalt, P., & Pignone, M. (2005). Reading is fundamental: The relationshipbetween literacy and health. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165(17), 1943–1944.

Dickinson, D. K. (1991). Bridges to literacy: Children, families, and schools. New York,NY: Blackwell Press.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing readingcomprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has tosay about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publications.Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing

motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518–533.Greene, K., & Anyon, J. (2010). Urban school reform, family support, and stu-

dent achievement. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26, 223–236.Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L.W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Lit-

tles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth inthe later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–283.

Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Klauda, S. L., Wigfield, A., & Bar-bosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse out-comes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,195–214.

Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivationin reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading.In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mobenthal, P. D. Peasron & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (pp. 403–429). New York: Longman.

Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy, motivational e-mail, and achievement in anasynchronous math course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and ScienceTeaching, 27(3), 265–285.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal ori-entation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., & Kim, Y.-S. (2009). The role of reading self-conceptand home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Readingand Writing, 22, 261–276.

Kim, C., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional e-mail mes-sages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students’ motiva-tion, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology,39(1), 36–51.

Masters, G. N., & Forster, M. (1997). Mapping literacy achievement: Results of the1996 National School Literacy Survey. Canberra, Australia: Department of Edu-cation, Training and Youth Affairs.

The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and YouthAffairs, MCEECDYA. (2008). National report: Achievement in reading, writing, lan-guage conventions and numeracy 2008. Canberra, Australia: Ministerial Councilfor Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and YouthAffairs, MCEECDYA. (2009). National report: Achievement in reading, writing, lan-guage conventions and numeracy 2009. Canberra, Australia: Ministerial Councilfor Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

McKenna, M. C. (1994). Toward a model of reading attitude acquisition. In E.H. Cramer & M. Castle (Eds.), Fostering the love of reading: The affective do-main in reading education (pp. 20–40). Newark, NJ: International Reading–Association.

Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 582–590.

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’sachievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and anintervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 207–229.

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of elementary schoolstudents’ achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 26, 454–480.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). Identification of the structure of prose and its implicationsfor the study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, 7–47.

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure intext: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 16(1), 72–103.

Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., &Bartlett, B. (2002). Effects of structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the Internet with and without the aid of older adulttutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 486–519.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy train-ing and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),141–159.

Meyer, B. J. F., Talbot, A., Stubblefield, R. A., & Poon, L. W. (1998). Interests andstrategies of young and old readers differentially interact with characteristicsof texts. Educational Gerontology, 24, 741–771.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A web-based tutoring system for thestructure strategy: Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, andtechnologies (pp. 347–375). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P-W., Meier, C.,et al. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or withoutelaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92.

Meyer, B. J. F., Young, C. J., & Bartlett, B. J. (1989). Memory improved: Readingand memory enhancement across the lifespan. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence EarlbaumAssociates.

Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Developmentin social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 219–270.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

(2004). Message from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Author.Overbaugh, R. C. (2002). Undergraduate education majors’ discourse on an

electronic mailing list. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1),206–212.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1(2), 117–175.

Pan, B., Rowe, M., Singer, J., & Snow, C. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth intoddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development, 76,763–782.

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learn-ing: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J., &al, e. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of readingcomprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513–555.

Rothman, S., & McMillan, J. (2003). Influences on achievement in literacy and nu-meracy (LSAY Research Report No. 36). Melbourne, Australian Council of Educa-tional Research.

Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2005). Learning when school is not in session: A read-ing summer day-camp intervention to improve the achievement of exitingfirst-grade students who are economically disadvantaged. Journal of Research inReading, 28(2), 158–169.

Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-regulation as a frame-work for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension.Learning and Instruction, 16, 57–71.

Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of moti-vational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writ-ing, 22, 85–106.

Van der Meji, H., & Boersma, K. (2002). E-Mail use in elementary school: Ananalysis of exchange patterns and content. British Journal of Educational Tech-nology, 33(2), 189–200.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Visser, L., Plomp, T., Amirault, R., & Kuiper, W. (2002). Motivating students ata distance: The case of an international audience. Educational Technology Re-search and Development, 50(2), 94–110.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Motivation for reading: Individual, home,textual, and classroom perspective. Educational Psychologist, 32, 57–135.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for read-ing to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 89, 420–432.

Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & deCani,J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538–550.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Appendix 1. Major Constructs

Constructs and Sample items (all itemswere set in Likert scale 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Pre-test Post-test

Mastery goals (5 items) .80 .72“I want to learn something new every

time I read”

Performance-approach goals (3 items) .52 .64“I read because I want to show that I’m

a better reader than other students”

Performance-avoidance goals (3 items) .72 .65“I don’t want others to think that I can’t

read”

Work-avoidance goals (4 items) .49 .64“I usually try to finish the reading as

quickly as possible”

Social approval goals (2 items) .67 .59“My teacher will be happy if I can finish

the reading tasks”

Reading ability (4 items) .61 .72“I consider that I’m a capable reader”

Reading enjoyment (3 items) .83 .76“I find reading books fun”

Usefulness of top-level structuring(6 items)

N/A .72

“The Top-level structure strategies Ilearnt are useful and important”

Social support (8 items) N/A .90“I often felt supported after reading the

e-mail messages from the older adult”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Appendix 2. Reading Comprehension Test

MULTICULTURAL AUSTRALIA: EARLY SETTLERS

Information Sheet: The First Fleet—Why Did It Come?Over two hundred years ago in England, many people were sopoor they could not afford to feed their families. Some desper-ately hungry people stole food. Of course there were also otherpeople who broke the law for different reasons. Punishments wereharsh for all crimes and often people were hanged for simpletheft, as well as for murder.

English prisons were filthy, full of diseases and overcrowded.Many people died in them. The government, looking for extraplaces to put prisoners, decided to send them to Botany Bay onthe east coast of Australia. The first convicts were transported bythe First Fleet.

There were also other reasons the English Government sentconvicts to Australia. When Captain Cook had explored the eastcoast he’d seen tall straight trees on Norfolk Island, not far fromBotany Bay. England needed tall timber to build sailing ships, es-pecially their masts, so convict labour was used to cut timber andsend back to England.

Another reason England sent convicts to Australia was thatthe government was afraid that if the English didn’t claim Aus-tralia by starting settlements here, the French would. Sending con-victs to Australia solved this problem, too.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Free Recall TestIn your own words write everything you can remember about

the text you just read.

Appendix 3: Top-Level Structuring Analysis Template

Mega level 4. The First Fleet—Why Did It Come?

CODE:

Content units (words) – underlined 129 unitsRhetorical Predicates – bolded 28 unitsSpecified rhetoricals – bolded 52 unitsLexical Predicates – italicised and bolded 29 unitsRole relations – italicised 85 units(TOTAL) (329 units)

The units are spatially represented across ten columns. The closer to the left margin, themore interrelated the unit, i.e. the greater importance assigned to it.

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 2, 11)PROBLEM (QUESTION)lexical predicateDid come

agentitequivalentThe First Fleetsetting locationWhy

SOLUTION (ANSWER)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (# 13)LIST– (Its coming was a) solution for a collection of 3 sets ofproblems facing England 200 years ago)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#15, 26)(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION A (the First Fleet brought convicts tomuch-needed extra prison places)lexical predicatewere transported by

agent(the First) Fleet

specific

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


the Firstpatient(The first) convicts

specificthe first

PROBLEM-(SOLUTION) A (What to do with English convicts)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#28)SPECIFICRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 30, 467(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION A1 (looking for extra prison place

.. send them to Botany Bay)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 32)LIST (of two lexical predicates: decided to send and looking for

extra places)lexical predicatedecided to send

agentThe governmentpatientthem (the first convicts)

setting locationto Botany Bay

specific setting location(on the east coast of) Australia

specificcollectioncoasteast

PROBLEM- (SOLUTION) A1 (looking for a place to putEnglish convicts)

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 49, 62)(CAUSE)-EFFECT (the need arose from poor prison

conditions)lexical predicatelooking

rangefor (extra) places

specificextra

lexical predicate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


to putpatientprisoners

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (# 61)EXPLANATION (prison conditions and deaths

caused. . .)CAUSE-(EFFECT) (poor conditions were

causative. . .)lexical predicatewere (filthy, full of diseases and overcrowded)

agent(English) prisons

specificEnglish

rangeRHETORICAL PREDICATE (# 71)LIST (of prison conditions)filthy(full of) diseases

specificfull of

overcrowded(CAUSE)-EFFECT (.. as a result of these conditions)lexical predicatedied

agent(Many) people

specificMany

setting locationin them

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#86)(EXPLANATIONRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 87; 88,100;

89,)LIST (of causes and effects re prison

conditions)CAUSE-(EFFECT) (.people. being so poor

caused . . .)lexical predicate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


wereagent(many) people

specificmany

range(so) poor

specificso

setting time(Over 200) years ago

specificLISTOver200

setting locationin England

(CAUSE)-EFFECT (unable to feed their families)RHETORICAL PREDICATE(#S105,116)CAUSE-(EFFECT) (in turn, this caused..)

lexical predicatecould not afford

agenttheylexical predicateto feed

patient(their) families

specifictheir

(CAUSE)-EFFECT (to steal)lexical predicatestole

agentpeople

specific(some) hungry

specificsome

specif

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


desppatientfood

Of coursealso

CAUSE-(EFFECT) (punishments were harsh)lexical predicatewere

agentPunishmentsmannerso harsh

specificso

rangefor all crimes

specificall

(CAUSE)-EFFECTandoftenlexical predicatewere hanged

patientpeoplerangeLISTfor simple theft

specificsimple

as well asfor murder

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 87, 159)COMPARISONlexical predicateRHETORICAL PREDICATE (# 162)LIST (of two lexical predicates: were and broke the

law)were

agent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


therepatient(other people

specificother

lexical predicatebroke (the law)

agentwhorangefor different reasons

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 178, 228)(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION B (Convicts now can cut tall timbers

and send to England for ship-building)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 15 180)COMPARISON (Other reasons for sending convicts to Australia)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 182)LIST (of two lexical predicates: were and sent)RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 184, 193)CAUSE-(EFFECT) (other reasons for sending convicts.)lexical predicatewere (other reasons)

agenttherepatient(other) reasons

specificother

(CAUSE)-EFFECT (as a result, the convicts were sent)lexical predicatesent

agentthe (English) government

specificEnglish

patientconvictssetting locationto Australia

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 205)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


EXPLANATIONRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 207, 216)CAUSE- (EFFECT) (need for tall timbers)lexical predicateneeded

agentEnglandpatient(tall) timber

specifictall

(CAUSE)-EFFECT (in order to build ships)lexical predicateto build

patient(sailing) ships

specificsailing

specific(especially) their masts

specificespecially

so(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION B

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 230, 237)(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION B1

lexical predicatewas used

patient(convict) labour

specificconvictPROBLEM-(SOLUTION) B1RHETORICAL PREDICATE (# 239)LIST (of two lexical predicates: to cut and to send back)lexical predicateto cut

patienttimber

andlexical predicate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


send backsetting locationto England

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 250)EXPLANATIONRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 251)LIST (two lexical predicates: had explored and ‘d seen)

setting timeWhen

lexical predicatehad explored

agentCaptain Cooksetting locationthe (east) coast

specificeast

lexical predicate(he’d)seen

agenthe’dpatient(tall, strait) trees

specificLISTtallstrait

setting locationOn Norfolk Island

specific(not far from) Botany Bay

specificnot far from

RHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 281, 288)(PROBLEM)-SOLUTION C (The First Fleet’s arrival prevented

the French from claiming Australia)lexical predicatesending

patientconvictssetting location

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


to AustraliaPROBLEM-(SOLUTION) Clexical predicatesolved

patient(this) problem

specificthis

range {EQUIVALENT (Links Problem-Solution C with P-S Aand B)}

tooequivalentwas afraid

agentthe governmentspecificthatRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 303, 321)CAUSE- (EFFECT)IfRHETORICAL PREDICATE (#S 307)LIST (of two lexical predicates: didn’t claim and starting)lexical predicatedidn’t claim

agentthe EnglishpatientAustralia

Mannerlexical predicateby starting

patientsettlementssetting locationhere

(CAUSE)-EFFECTlexical predicatewould

agentthe French

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3


Appendix 4: A Sample of Integrated Lesson

Topic: List Lesson—1 Year:Five

Duration: 60 mins

General Objectives: Essential Learnings (Knowledge andUnderstanding):

– Students understandthe purpose of lists andthe role they play inour day-to-day lives.

Writing and Designing: The purposeof writing and designing includesreporting and conveying simplemessages and information.

– Students develop listlanguage including“first, then, and also.”

– Students create adinner list from aMcDonalds menu andshare it with the class(information-sharingand exploring ideas)

Speaking and Listening: The purposeof speaking and listening includesentertaining, supportingrelationships, giving opinions andgetting things done.

Essential Learnings (Ways ofWorking):

1. Recognize and select vocabulary todescribe subject matter

2. Identify main ideas and thesequence of events to make simple

3. Reflect on learning to identify newunderstandings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

Step

Spec

ific

Obj

ecti

ves

Teac

her

(T)

Stud

ents

(S)

Beh

avio

rM

anag

emen

tan

dA

ddit

ion

alN

eeds

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dR

esou

rces

Eva

luat

ion

Intr

oduc

tion

10m

ins

Sun

ders

tan

dth

ew

aylis

tsca

nh

elp

you

tore

mem

ber

thin

gs.

Tre

ads

Spa

rtof

the

book

,Wha

t’sfo

rD

inne

rM

rG

um?

Tin

itia

tes

free

disc

ussi

onon

the

book

.

Slis

ten

toth

ebo

okW

hat’s

for

Din

ner

Mr

Gum

?

Th

em

arbl

ebu

cket

isus

edif

the

wh

ole

clas

sis

usin

gth

eir

liste

nin

gsk

ills

onth

eca

rpet

duri

ng

the

stor

y.

O:S

sitt

ing

onth

eca

rpet

faci

ng

the

Tw

ho

isse

ated

nex

tto

the

wh

iteb

oard

.

Do

the

Sun

ders

tan

dth

atlis

tsh

ave

mul

tipl

epu

rpos

es?

Are

the

Sab

leto

verb

aliz

eth

eir

unde

rsta

ndi

ngs

oflis

ts?

Tus

esop

enqu

esti

ons

toge

ner

ate

disc

ussi

onin

clud

ing,

“Wh

ydi

dth

eow

ner

listh

isfo

odon

am

enu?

”an

d“W

hy

did

he

put

the

keba

bat

the

top

ofth

em

enu?

”

Spa

rtic

ipat

ein

free

disc

ussi

onab

outt

he

book

they

hav

eju

stre

ad.

R:W

hat’s

for

dinn

erM

rG

um?

book

.D

oS

unde

rsta

nd

that

lists

can

hel

pyo

uto

rem

embe

rth

ings

?

(Con

tinue

don

next

page

)

297

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

Step

Spec

ific

Obj

ecti

ves

Teac

her

(T)

Stud

ents

(S)

Beh

avio

rM

anag

emen

tan

dA

ddit

ion

alN

eeds

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dR

esou

rces

Eva

luat

ion

Bod

y30

min

sS

con

tin

ueto

deve

lop

list

lan

guag

ein

clud

ing

“firs

t,”“t

hen

,”‘a

nd

“als

o.”

Tsh

ows

Sa

pict

ure

ofa

grou

pof

child

ren

tryi

ng

tode

cide

wh

atth

eyw

antt

oor

der

from

am

ixed

-up

McD

onal

dsm

enu.

Slo

okat

the

pict

ure

ofth

em

enu

the

Th

asin

fron

tofh

eran

dlis

ten

asth

eT

expl

ain

sth

efe

atur

esof

am

enu.

Th

eth

inki

ng

mat

isus

edfo

rS

wh

om

ayge

toff

task

duri

ng

the

less

on.

O:S

sitt

ing

onth

eca

rpet

faci

ng

the

Tw

ho

isse

ated

nex

tto

the

wh

iteb

oard

.

Do

Sus

elis

tlan

guag

edu

rin

gth

eac

tivi

ty?

Are

mor

eS

star

tin

gto

gras

pth

eco

nce

ptof

TL

S–L

ists

?

Sun

ders

tan

dh

avin

ga

hea

din

gat

the

top

ofth

elis

tis

impo

rtan

t.

Tus

esop

enqu

esti

ons

toge

ner

ate

disc

ussi

onon

the

pict

ure

incl

udin

g,“I

won

der

wh

yth

ech

ildre

nar

eh

avin

gtr

oubl

ech

oosi

ng?

”an

d“H

owco

uld

you

orga

niz

eth

em

enu

tom

ake

itea

syto

read

?”

Spa

rtic

ipat

ein

free

disc

ussi

onab

outt

he

pict

ure

and

men

usin

gen

eral

.

Rew

ard

char

tis

used

for

Sw

ho

con

trib

ute

con

stru

ctiv

ely

toth

ecl

ass

disc

ussi

on.

R:M

cDon

alds

men

upi

ctur

eD

oS

unde

rsta

nd

wh

yh

avin

ga

hea

din

gat

the

top

ofa

listi

sso

impo

rtan

t?

298

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

Tof

fers

Sth

ech

ance

toh

elp

McD

onal

dsan

dcr

eate

am

enu

that

isea

sier

for

the

child

ren

tore

ad.T

guid

esth

edi

scus

sion

,pr

ovid

ing

Sw

ith

the

oppo

rtun

ity

tove

rbal

ize

list

lan

guag

esu

chas

‘firs

t,la

st,m

ost

impo

rtan

t,th

en,

leas

tim

port

ant.’

Ssu

gges

tite

ms

that

shou

ldgo

onth

eM

cDon

alds

men

uan

dex

plai

nw

hy

they

hav

ech

osen

that

part

icul

arit

em.

But

cher

spa

per

Pen

Con

clus

ion

20m

ins

Sca

ndi

ffer

enti

ate

betw

een

the

mos

tim

port

ant

and

leas

tim

port

anti

tem

son

am

enu

list.

Tre

ads

the

men

uth

atth

eS

hav

eco

me

upw

ith

and

con

grat

ulat

esth

emon

doin

gsu

cha

good

job.

Slis

ten

and

follo

wal

ong

asT

read

sou

tsom

eof

the

men

us.

Th

em

arbl

ebu

cket

isus

edif

the

wh

ole

clas

sis

usin

gth

eir

liste

nin

gsk

ills

onth

eca

rpet

.

O:S

sitt

ing

onth

eca

rpet

faci

ng

the

Tw

ho

isse

ated

nex

tto

the

wh

iteb

oard

.

Are

Sab

leto

diff

eren

tiat

ebe

twee

nth

em

ost

impo

rtan

tan

dle

asti

mpo

rtan

tit

ems

ona

list?

(Con

tinue

don

next

page

)

299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

Step

Spec

ific

Obj

ecti

ves

Teac

her

(T)

Stud

ents

(S)

Beh

avio

rM

anag

emen

tan

dA

ddit

ion

alN

eeds

Org

aniz

atio

nan

dR

esou

rces

Eva

luat

ion

Sre

flec

ton

thei

rle

arn

ing

byju

stif

yin

gth

eir

deci

sion

s.

Tpr

ovid

esan

oppo

rtun

ity

for

Sto

refl

ecto

nw

hat

they

hav

ele

arn

edby

just

ifyi

ng

thei

rm

enu

plan

and

sele

ctio

nof

item

sto

the

clas

s.

Sst

and

upan

dlis

ten

asT

fin

ish

esof

fth

ebo

okW

hat’s

for

dinn

erM

rG

um?

R:W

hat’s

for

dinn

erM

rG

um?

book

.A

reS

able

tore

flec

ton

wh

atth

eyh

ave

lear

ned

duri

ng

the

less

on?

Spa

rtic

ipat

ein

are

flec

tive

disc

ussi

onab

out

wh

atth

eyh

ave

lear

ned

abou

tlis

ts.

Men

uL

ist

Tfi

nis

hes

off

read

ing

the

book

Wha

t’sfo

rdi

nner

Mr

Gum

?

Pen

s

But

cher

spa

per

300

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 1

0:13

27

Oct

ober

201

3

combining strategy instruction disadvantaged students...

Documents