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).