MD. 96 54p. - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 400 523 CS 012 633 AUTHOR Guthrie, John T.; And Others...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 400 523 CS 012 633

AUTHOR Guthrie, John T.; And OthersTITLE Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase

Motivation, Strategies, and Conceptual Learning?Reading Research Report No. 66.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 96CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 54p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Elementary Education; Grade 3; Grade 5;

*Instructional Effectiveness; *Language Arts;*Reading Instruction; *Reading Motivation; ReadingResearch; *Reading Strategies; *ScienceInstruction

IDENTIFIERS *Concept Oriented Reading Instruction

ABSTRACTThe aims of concept-oriented reading instruction

(CORI) are to increase motivation, strategies, and conceptuallearning. To attain these aims, CORI classrooms are: conceptuallyoriented, observational, collaborative, and personalized, emphasizingstrategies of searching, comprehendingintegriting, and composingfor audiences of peers. Two quasi-experimental studies compared CORIin language arts dnd science in grades 3 and 5 to traditionalinstruction on two performance assessments. In study 1, CORI studentsfrom three schools were higher in literacy engagement, conceptuallearning, and conceptual transfer than traditional students,controlling three background variables. In multiple regressions, thevariables of instruction, literacy engagement, and student backgroundaccounted for approximately 50% of the variance in conceptuallearning. In study 2, CORI students were higher than traditionalstudents in measures of literacy (reading and writing combined),language use, science, and social studies, but not in math, which wasnot taught in CORI. These experimental findings suggest that theprinciples of integrated teaching in CORI are responsible forincreased literacy engagement and conceptual understanding inlanguage arts and science. (Contains 49 references, and 7 tables and5 figures of data.) (Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

AAA------;cAAAAi.:rAAAAAAAkAAAAAAAAi.Ai.AAAAAA:cAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Does Concept-Oriented ReadingInstruction Increase Motivation,Strategies, and Conceptual Learning?

John T. GuthriePeggy Van MeterAnn McCannEmily AndersonSolomon AlaoUniversity of Maryland College Park

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 66

Summer 1996

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction IncreaseMotivation, Strategies, and Conceptual Learning?

John T. GuthriePeggy Van Meter

Ann McCannEmily AndersonSolomon Alao

University of Maryland College Park

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 66Fall 1996

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgia

and University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research and

Development Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Office

of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and

opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the National

Reading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.

Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty Shockley-BisplinghoffClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Barbara McCombsMid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MCREL)

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Peter WinogradUniversity of Kentucky

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. RichUniversity of Georgia

Text FormatterAngela R. WilsonUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) is

funded by the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.

The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-

sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland College

Park in collaboration with researchers at several institu-

tions nationwide.The NRRC's mission is to discover and document

those conditions in homes, schools, and communities

that encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,

lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed to

advancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-

tional factors that affect children's success in reading.

NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conduct

studies with teachers and students from widely diverse

cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-

garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projects

deal with the influence of family and family-school

interactions on the development of literacy; the interac-

tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; the

impact of literature-based reading programs on reading

achievement; the effects of reading strategies instruction

on comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; the

potential of computer technology to enhance literacy;

and the development of methods and standards for

alternative literacy assessments.The NRRC is further committed to the participation

of teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development of

literacy, how they use knowledge from research, and

how they approach change in the classroom is crucial to

improving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-

cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears in

several formats. Research Reports communicate the

results of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily for

researchers studying various areas of reading and

reading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research and

commentary on research and practice to first-person

accounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designed

primarily for teachers.For more information about the NRRC's research

projects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AMerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AhnasiUniversity of Buffalo -SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Marta BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeAmherst College

John BorkowskiNoire Dame University

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mark DressmanNew Mexico State University

Ann DuffyUniversity of Georgia

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, Georgia

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College-CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartUniversity of Wyoming

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allan WigfleldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hattie YoppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

John T. Guthrie is a Professor of HumanDevelopment at the University of MarylandCollege Park, and Co-Director of the NationalReading Research Center (NRRC). The Centerconducts studies of reading, writing, science andhistory learning, assessment and professionaldevelopment. Prior to this position, Dr. Guthrieheaded the University of Maryland's Center forEducational Research and Development. Dr.Guthrie headed the University of Maryland'sCenter for Educational Research and Develop-ment. Dr. Guthrie was formerly the Director ofResearch for the International Reading Association1974-1984. He received his Ph.D. from theUniversity of Illinois in Educational Psychology.In 1992, the National Reading Conferenceawarded him the Oscar Causey Award foroutstanding contributions to reading research. Heis a Fellow in the American PsychologicalAssociation, American Psychological Society, theNational Council of Research in English, and waselected to the Reading Hall of Fame in 1994. Dr.Guthrie's interests are literacy development andenvironments for learning.

Peggy Van Meter is an educational psychologyinstructor in the Department. of Educational andSchool Psychology and Special Education atPennsylvania State University where she teachescourses in educational psychology and reading.Her research interests are in cognition andlearning, including text comprehension andlearning in classroom settings. At the time of thisresearch, she was a research assistant in thenational Reading Research Center at the Universityof Maryland. She can be contacted at theDepartment of Educational and School Psychologyand Special Education, Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, University Park, PA 16802.

Ann Dacey McCann is a graduate assistant at theNational Reading Research Center. She is cur-rently pursuing an M.Ed. and elementary teachingcertificate in the Department of Curriculum andInstruction at the University of Maryland. Herresearch interests include designing and evaluatinglearning contexts that foster literacy engagementthrough interdisciplinary teaching. She may becontacted at National Reading Research Center,3216 J. M. Patterson Building, University ofMaryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Emily Anderson is a doctoral student in thedepartment of Human Development at the Univer-sity of Maryland College Park, where she is spe-cializing in Educational Psychology. She is aformer elementary school teacher, and for the pasteight years has been a private reading tutor tostudents of all ages. She received her M.Ed. fromthe University of Utah. She works as a graduateresearch assistant at the National Reading Re-search Center and continues to tutor childrenprivately. Emily's research interests are literacydevelopment, environments for learning, andmotivation.

Solomon Alao is a graduate assistant at the Na-tional Reading Research Center. He is currentlypursuing a doctorate in Human Development,specializing in Educational Psychology. His re-search interests included self-determination theory,conceptualizations of knowledge, and effects ofinterest on learning and task performance. He maybe contacted at the National Reading ResearchCenter, 3216 J. M. Patterson Building, Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 66

Fall 1996

Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction IncreaseMotivation, Strategies, and Conceptual Learning?

John T. GuthriePeggy Van Meter

Ann McCannEmily AndersonSolomon Alao

University of Maryland College Park

Abstract. The aims of concept-oriented readinginstruction (CORI) are to increase motivation,strategies, and conceptual learning. To attain theseaims, CORI classrooms are: conceptually oriented,

observational, collaborative, and personalized,emphasizing strategies of searching, comprehending,integrating, and composing for audiences of peers.

We conducted two quasi-experimental studies com-paring CORI in language arts and science in grades

3 and 5 to traditional instruction on two perfor-mance assessments. In Study I, CORI students from

three schools were higher in literacy engagement,conceptual learning, and conceptual transfer thantraditional students, controlling three backgroundvariables. In multiple regressions, the variables ofinstruction, literacy engagement, and student back-ground accounted for approximately 50% of thevariance in conceptual learning. In Study II, CORIstudents were higher than traditional students inmeasures of literacy (reading and writing com-

bined), language use, science, and social studies,but not in math, which was not taught in CORI.These experimental findings suggest that the princi-

ples of integrated teaching in CORI are responsible

for increased literacy engagement and conceptualunderstanding in language arts and science.

1

9

STUDY IIntroduction

It has been emphasized from a variety oftheoretical perspectives that reading is inher-ently a meaning-making process (Barr, Kamil,Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991). However, thenature of meaning constructed from text mayvary dramatically from lower-order, rote,verbatim meanings to higher-order, interpre-tive, and conceptual meanings. As studentsread, they gain important facts and bits ofinformation. At the same time, motivatedreaders construct explanations and attempt toaccount for the particular elements they havecomprehended. In this paper, we suggest thatwhen students are gaining conceptual knowl-edge from text they are forming higher-orderprinciples that explain and account for particu-lar features of text they have understood.Forming these principles is effortful, requiring

2 Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, Anderson, & Alao

a broad repertoire of cognitive strategies thatcan be flexibly applied.

These complex constructions of meaningdepend on motivations for understanding (Paris& Turner, 1994). Acknowledging the impor-tance of cognitive capabilities, such as usingprior knowledge (Anderson & Pearson, 1984),activating cognitive strategies (Collins-Block,1992), and following metacognitive directives(Baker & Brown, 1984), we believe that in-cluding the role of motivational variables isvaluable (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Wig-field & Eccles, 1992) in accounting for expertisein reading and writing. Not only is motivationexpected to influence the amount and breadthof students' reading activities (Wigfield &Guthrie, 1995), but also motivation is likely toenhance the construction of higher-ordermeanings from text.

Positive motivational dispositions towardusing strategies and developing explanations, incontrast to merely finishing tasks and recordingelemental bits of information, are necessary tothe acquisition of explanatory understanding.Consequently, we agree with Bereiter andScardamalia (1989) that these motivations anddispositions should become goals of instruc-tion. In this paper, we examine the relation-ships of strategies, motivations, and conceptuallearning, and we ask whether instructionalcontexts influence the development of literacyengagement (i.e., motivated strategy-use) andconceptual learning (see Figure 1).

Perspectives on Conceptual Learning

At least three perspectives on conceptuallearning can be identified in the current litera-

ture. The first perspective emphasizes theenrichment of mental structures from a con-structivist perspective (Glynn, Yeaney, &Britton, 1991). For example, Chi, DeLeeuw,Chiu, and Lavancher (1994) reported thathigher levels of conceptual knowledge aboutthe biology of the human heart were associatedwith enriched mental models. These modelscontained a relatively large number of features,and a systemic, dynamic sense of how the heartoperates. Conceptual learning was associatedwith an increased number of features, com-pleteness of the system, and intersection amongthe heart's functions. In addition to showingthat individual differences between learnerscould be described in terms of different levelsof mental models, Chi et al. (1994) showedthat asking students to explain individual factsand propositions as they read a text enhancedconceptual learning. Consistent with this view,Mayer (1992) stated that conceptual knowledgecan be described as a runable mental model..His studies illustrated that conceptual under-standing of a system such as a bicycle pumpconsists of knowing the parts, the action of theparts, and the principles that govern thoseactions including friction, resistance, andmotion. Students who learned these principleswere able to answer high-level questions andsolve problems better than students who didnot possess such a dynamic mental model.

The enrichment view of conceptual learningfrom text is also espoused by diSessa (1993)who argued that learning the principles ofphysics entails the development of a sense ofhow systems work. He stated that "understand-ing evolves toward compactness involving afew principles that are as general as possible"

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 66

10

Does

Concept-O

riented

Reading

Instruction

Increase

Learning?

3

Figure

1.Prom

oting

conceptual

learning

through

literacy

engagement

and

integrated

instruction.

NA

TIO

NA

L

RE

AD

ING

RE

SEA

RC

H

CE

NT

ER

,

RE

AD

ING

RE

SEA

RC

H

RE

POR

T

NO

.

66


(p. 190). He concluded that "cultivating thesense of mechanism (how systems work) canhelp students to develop adequate scientificmodels of situations" (p. 206). Understandingbiology can also be construed as conceptuallearning. In a review of research on knowledgerepresentation, Alexander, Schallert, and Hare(1991) concluded that as students become moreknowledgeable in a subject, their understandingis increasingly organized around fundamentalprinciples. These principles are associated withrules of evidence and procedures for gatheringand testing evidence. Both diSessa (1993) andAlexander et al. (1991) underscore the viewthat conceptual learning consists of generaliza-tions that embrace particular features, struc-tures, and functions.

Researchers who examine children's concep-tual development concur with this perspective.For example, Keil (1989) documents that acharacteristic-to-defining shift describes thedevelopment of concepts of everyday life.Young children shift from evenly weighingseveral features of an object such as an island,to placing heavy emphasis on one or twoprimary features and fundamental organizingdimensions. For instance, an island has trees,land, animals, and water; but the definingfeature of an island is that it is surrounded bywater. This shift is confirmed by Metz (1995)who argues that biological concepts depend onclassification based on defining features, buthigher-order principles such as photosynthesisrely on principled organization of structures,functions, relations, and their change acrosstime. As Reif (1990) says, the concept is a setof principles or rules that enable the person tounderstand specific properties, the values of

those properties, and how factors influencethem and their interrelationships. A variety oftechniques now exist to represent those en-riched knowledge structures (Jonassen, Beiss-ner, and Yacci, 1993).

A second perspective on conceptual learningemphasizes restructuring of existing information.Vosniadou (1994) presents a vivid illustrationof the restructuring process. She documentsthat across grades 1-6, children restructuretheir knowledge of the earth's shape. Mostyounger students believe a dual earth theory inwhich the earth is round but you can fall off ofit if you walk far enough. By age 8, one-thirdof the students believe the earth is a sphere; byage 10, two-thirds believe the earth is a spherethat peoples on all sides can occupy. Concep-tual learning, in this perspective, entails therevision of one form of explanatory under-standing into a different form of understanding.The particular facts and features of the conceptchange little, but the principle of explanationchanges substantially.

Strike and Posner (1985) describe the pro-cess of restructuring. They state that the pro-cess consists of "dissatisfaction within anexisting conception, followed by finding a newconception understandable, leading to an initialbelief in its plausibility, and concluding withthe belief that the new conception is ultimatelyfruitful" (p. 221). Extensive research on per-spective was reported in a review by Chinn andBrewer (1993). As Smith (1991) noted, theproblem of conceptual change is that "studentshave to change an idea they had initially" (p.49). The restructuring perspective underscoresthe need to challenge old knowledge and ac-commodate it to fit new data.


13

Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Learning? 5

The third perspective defines conceptuallearning as the cumulative increase of informa-tion. In studies of knowledge acquisition fromtext (Carroll & Freed le, 1972), free-recall tasks

are used to measure students' recollection oftext-based propositions, irrespective of thehigher-order or lower-order nature of thatmeaning. In these studies, conceptual learningwas represented on a continuum from low tohigh information levels. In science education,too, this cumulative perspective is found. Forexample, Novak and Musonda (1991) reportedthat concept maps (graphic organizers) candocument learning by showing an increase inthe number of nodes and the number of linksbetween the nodes. These increases are char-acterized as conceptual, or meaningful, learn-ing. Spoehr (1994) reported that the knowledgeof science concepts can be represented as aconcept map of nodes and links and that thenumber of these elements can be shown toincrease with appropriate instruction. Con-firming this perspective, Krajcik (1991) arguedthat learning concepts of chemistry can berepresented in the form of increasingly elabo-rated concept maps.

The distinction between the cumulativeperspective and the enrichment view is that thecumulative orientation does not underscorehigher-order principles. In the cumulativeperspective, the nodes and links are given equalweight. Qualitative shifts in types of knowledge

are not recognized. The cumulative perspectivediffers from the restructuring perspective byemphasizing the accretion of information ratherthan revision of existing knowledge formations.

In this report, we adopt the enrichmentperspective in which knowledge increases in

several respects. As students enhance theirconceptual understanding, they gain commandof more elements, features, and functions in aparticular domain. Learners form principles toorganize these particulars into relationships. Atthe highest levels of conceptual understanding,students possess interrelated, explanatoryprinciples for phenomena and events. Theygain the ability to coordinate theory and evi-dence, and they can express the interplaybetween them. See Figure 1 for a schematic ofthe variables in this study.

Relations of Strategies and Motivations toConceptual Learning

Learning concepts from text is stronglyfacilitated by complex cognitive strategies. Asmany investigators have shown, gaining knowl-

edge from text depends on problem finding(Collins-Block, 1992), applying prior knowl-edge (Anderson & Pearson, 1984), searchingfor information (Armbruster & Armstrong,1993), comprehension strategies (Dole, Duffy,Roehler, & Pearson, 1991), self-monitoring(Baker & Brown, 1984), and strategies suitablefor different genre (Graesser, Golding, &Long, 1991).

Although these cognitive strategies are

helpful in learning concepts from text, suchstrategies depend heavily on intrinsic motiva-tion. In a review of motivation literature,Pintrich and Schrauben (1992) documented thehigh correlations between intrinsic motivationsand strategy use. Including interest in the

content, wanting to learn for its own sake, andfeeling immersed in the literacy task (Reed &

Schallert, 1993), various intrinsic motivations


14


are associated with more frequent and appro-priate use of higher-order cognitive strategies.These findings were confirmed experimentallyby Graham and Golan (1991) who showed thatmore meaningful tasks produced higher intrin-sic motivations and the use of more complexlearning strategies than less meaningful tasks.Unfortunately, none of these investigationsexamined whether the more motivated studentswho were using relatively higher numbers ofstrategies were, in fact, gaining higher levels ofconceptual knowledge. We do not know fromthese studies whether conceptual learning wasenhanced by motivation. This literature doesconfirm, however, that strategies that aretraditionally associated with conceptual learn-ing are strongly associated with intrinsic moti-vation.

One motivational variable (text-based,situational interest) has been related to concep-tual learning. As defined by Schraw, Bruning,and Svoboda (1995), situational interest is"common across individuals, short-lived andelicited within a particular context" (p. 1).Situational interest contrasts with personalinterest that is "unique to the individual, topicspecific, long-lasting, and exits before encoun-tering a particular text" (p. 1). Hidi and Ander-son (1992), and Shraw et al. (1995) havedocumented that students who display highsituational interest in a particular text will showrelatively elaborated understanding of conceptswithin the text. Unfortunately, neither of thesestudies controlled for amount of prior knowledgeabout the topic, which is arguably associatedwith situational interest. However, Schiefele(1992) succeeded in controlling the amount ofprior knowledge and documented the effect

of situational interest on conceptual knowledgegain from text. Although these studies docu-ment that situational interest is a factor inconceptual learning, they do not relate personalinterest and more permanent intrinsic motiva-tions to conceptual learning. There is a need,therefore, to relate conceptual learning, strat-egy use, and intrinsic motivations to each other.

Effects of Educational Context on LiteracyEngagement and Conceptual Learning

In a valuable review of integrated instruc-tion, Lipson, Valencia, Wixson, and Peters(1993) reported that integrated curricula areusually claimed to make learning meaningful,and this meaningfulness is thought to increaseconceptual knowledge. Integrations of differentdisciplines (e.g., reading with writing, orlanguage-arts with social studies) are claimed,furthermore, to accelerate the development ofmetacognitive awareness and to foster positiveattitudes toward literacy. Similar claims aremade by other investigators who have designedand implemented integrated instruction inscience and language arts (Blumenfeld, 1992;Brown, 1992). However, relatively few inves-tigators have attempted to collect informationregarding children's learning and developmentin integrated instructional environments. Whe-ther or not students learn is a significant issue,according to Brophy and Alleman (1991) whocaution that integrated instruction may not dojustice to the separate disciplines combined.We concur that trivial forms of thematic teach-ing may undermine rather than embellish thelearning of conceptual themes and fundamentalliteracy processes.


15


Characteristics of the classroom context andmotivation for literacy have been reported byTurner (1995) in a study of first graders andHooper (1994) in an investigation of third,fourth, and sixth graders. After observingprimary classrooms intensively, Turner (1995)reported that motivation for literacy was affect-ed by two types of classroom tasks. Opentasks, in which students experienced relativelyhigh levels of choice, challenge, control overlearning, and collaboration with other students,were associated with high reports of intrinsic

motivation. In relatively closed tasks, the

teacher determined the learning activities (low

choice), tasks were simplified and rote (lowchallenge), the program defined the tasks(low control), and students worked individually(low collaboration). In closed tasks, students

reported less intrinsic motivation, less effort,and lower persistence.

Confirming the importance of challenge,Hooper (1994) reported that when literacytasks contained an expectation for higher-orderactivity, such as analyzing books, studentswere more likely to be intrinsically motivatedthan when tasks were simpler, at the word and

sentence level. Intrinsic motivation, whichreferred to involvement and enjoyment, wasapparent on 72% of complex tasks; whereas

extrinsic motivation, which referred orientationto task completion, occurred for 72 % of the

simple tasks. These findings generalized acrossgrades 3-6 and included learning disabled aswell as mainstreamed students. These twoinvestigations reported' a prominent associationbetween task structure and intrinsic motivation

in extant classroom contexts.

In addition to the suggestion that challeng-ing, personalized, collaborative classroomsenhance motivation for learning, there is agrowing consensus that these contexts enhanceconceptual understanding. For example, Blum-enfeld (1992) and Perkins (1992) contend thatintegrated curricula can enable students to gaindeep understanding of content. Unfortunately,there is very little evidence to support thisclaim. Blumenfeld and Meece (1988) andBrown (1992) show that when conceptualthemes are emphasized, rather than activities,tasks, or procedures, students gain higher-order knowledge relatively well. We concurand extend the proposition to literacy engage-ment and conceptual learning. We propose thatenhancing literacy engagement through con-cept-oriented reading instruction (CORI) canenhance students' literacy engagement whichwill increase their ability to learn high-levelconcepts. To examine this proposition, weconducted two studies in which we comparedCORI students to control groups. The follow-ing questions guided the study.1. Does literacy engagement increase concep-

tual learning when "background" factors ofscience background, literacy level, and topicknowledge are controlled?

2. Does CORI increase literacy engagementwhen background factors are controlled?

3. Does CORI increase conceptual learningwhen literacy engagement and backgroundfactors are controlled?

4. How do students in grades 3 and 5, whoreceive CORI, compare to other students in

literacy engagement?5. How do students in grades 3 and 5, who

receive CORI, compare to other students inconceptual learning?



6. How does conceptual transfer relate to con-ceptual learning and literacy engagement ingrade 5 and grade 3 when backgroundfactors are controlled?

7. What effect does CORI have on compre-hension of informational and narrative text?

8. What instructional principles distinguishCORI and traditional instruction?

Method

Participants

Teachers and schools. Three schools on theborder of a large metropolis in the mid-Atlanticstates participated in this study. Each schoolhad multicultural populations consisting ofapproximately 50% African-American, 25 %Caucasian, 15 % Hispanic, and 10 % Asian.Two of the schools were designated as Chapter1 and one school had a mainstream programfor orthopedically disabled students. Theschools were nominated by the district supervi-sor of reading as likely to benefit from anintegrated curriculum for low achieving stu-dents, and the principals were pleased to par-ticipate after being asked by the project direc-tor. The teachers were volunteers from theschools, and were approved by the principaland the project director. They were not nomi-nated as exemplary instructors, but were selectedas typical, experienced elementary teachers.

Classrooms and students. Third-grade class-rooms in all schools were self-contained, withapproximately 30 students in each. Due tothe transitory population, a total of approxi-mately 20 fifth-grade students in each of twoclassrooms completed the year of CORI. A

total of 20 fifth-grade students from each oftwo basal classrooms was used as comparisonstudents. Approximately 25 third-grade stu-dents in each of three classrooms completed the

year of CORI; approximately 75 students inthird-grade basal classrooms were used forcomparison. The students consisted of approxi-mately equal number of boys and girls with5-6 special education students mainstreamedinto each classroom. Learning disabled, ortho-pedically disabled, and emotionally disturbedlearners were included in the instruction andassessments. Low achievers from transitoryhome backgrounds were also included.

Design

This quasi-experiment consisted of twoinstructional conditions, CORI and traditionallyorganized basal and science instruction. CORIwas implemented in five classrooms, 3 third-grade and 2 fifth-grade classrooms. Comparison

classrooms within each school were selectedfor comparison to the CORI classrooms. Theseclassrooms were selected on the basis of com-parable students, teachers, and school settings.The measures of literacy and engagementincluding the performance assessment, ques-tionnaires, and teachers' ratings were adminis-tered to all 10 classrooms. The design was apost-measure only in which the performanceassessment and questionnaires were adminis-tered in the first half of April to all students.Teachers' observational ratings of students'levels of English/language arts and sciencebackgrounds were obtained in the fall of 1994as statistical controls.



Instructional goals. The CORI and tradition-al programs were both directed toward similargoals for English/language arts and science.These goals were approved by the district,school, and project participants. In Eng-lish/language arts, the objectives consisted ofinterpreting stories, comprehending expositorytexts, locating and integrating information frommultiple texts, summarizing, self-monitoring,writing personal narratives, composing infor-mational reports, and writing poetry. Inscience, the common goals included under-standing the life cycles of plants and animals,describing important adaptations of animal spe-cies, understanding cycles of weather andseasons, collecting data, interpreting graphsand tables, and interpreting data from class-wide projects. More complex higher-ordergoals were adopted for fifth-grade than forthird-grade students; and instruction was ad-justed to meet the needs of all learners, includ-ing approximately five students in each grade3 CORI classroom who entered the year read-ing at a 1.5 grade level. These goals and theinstruction are presented more fully in Guthrie,McCann, Hynd, and Stahl (in press).

Concept-oriented reading instruction. Theframework for CORI included four phases:observe and personalize, search and retrieve,comprehend and integrate, communicate toothers. To implement this framework, teachersfirst identified a conceptual theme for instruc-tional units to be taught for 16-18 weeks in thefall and spring. The themes selected by third-grade teachers consisted of the adaptations andhabitats of birds and insects. The third-gradeunits in the spring consisted of weather, sea-sons, and earth formations. Fifth-grade units in

the fall related to life cycles of plants andanimals, and the spring units emphasized earthscience, including the solar system and geolog-ical cycles.

At the beginning of each unit studentsengaged in observation and hands-on activitiesboth outside and inside the classroom. Third-and fifth-graders participated in such activitiesas collecting and observing crickets, construct-ing spider webs, dissecting owl pellets, andbuilding weather stations. Within each activity,students personalized their learning by compos-ing their own questions as the basis for observ-ing, reading, and writing. Student questionsincluded a structural focus, such as, "Howmany types of feathers does a bird have?"Then conceptual questions, such as "Why doesthat bird have such a long beak?" evolved asstudents attempted to explain the phenomenathey had observed. These questions generatedopportunities for self-directed learning. Stu-dents chose their own subtopics, found particu-lar books, selected peers for interest-basedactivities, and constructed their goals forcommunicating to others.

The second phase of the CORI frameworkconsisted of searching and retrieving informa-tion related to the student's questions. Studentswere taught how to use the library, find infor-mation books, locate information within expos-itory texts, and utilize a diversity of communityresources. In addition, direct strategy in-struction was provided to help students inte-grate across information sources including

texts, illustrations, references, and humanexperts. In addition to informational texts,literature including stories, folklore, novels,and poetry were woven through the instruction.


18


Most of the teachers began the units with anarrative related to the theme that students readat the same time they were conducting scienceobservations. Following observing and formingconceptual questions, teachers moved to infor-mational texts. As students concluded their in-depth study of multiple informational texts,teachers introduced novels, chapter books, andpoetry related to the conceptual theme of theunit.

The last phase of the CORI framework iscommunicating to others. Having gained exper-tise in a particular topic, students were moti-vated to speak, write, discuss, and display theirunderstanding to other students and adults. Inboth third- and fifth-grade classrooms, studentsmade posters, wrote classroom books, andcomposed extended displays of their knowl-edge. One class made a videotape of its weatherunit, providing a lesson on weather predictionand explanation for the rest of the school. Amore thorough description of the CORIinstructional framework is provided elsewhere(Guthrie, Mc Gough, Bennett, & Rice, 1996).

The teachers in the traditional classroomsfollowed their usual pattern of using the teach-ers' guide and the sequence of content andactivities in the basal program. Students an-swered the end of unit questions, and wereprovided materials that matched their readinglevels. Science content in the third- and fifth-grade basal-reading classrooms was directed tosimilar objectives as the CORI classrooms.Topics of adaptation, life cycles, weather andseasons, and solar systems were taught. Thebasal teachers in all of the schools were fre-quent visitors to the CORI classrooms andadopted some texts and teaching approaches

used in the CORI classrooms. This sharingmay have lead to an underestimate of thedistinctiveness of the CORI program, and to aconservative quasi-experimental comparison.

Performance Assessment ofReading/Language Arts

The performance assessment was designedto measure seven aspects of literacy engage-ment. More information is available in Guthrieet al. (1996). The assessment was administeredduring a 1-week period in each basal and CORIclassroom by the teachers. All students tookthe assessment in the same 3-week period atthe beginning of April 1995. Students workedapproximately 1 hr daily for 5 days. Theassessment consisted of a learning context withseven tasks. The tasks will be described here,and rubrics for coding performance are pre-sented in the Appendix. The assessment wasintroduced with an observational activity.Students were given a colored picture of apond with fish, insects, birds, and trees. Witha partner, students discussed all the things theyobserved in the picture for 5 min.

Prior knowledge. After viewing the picture,students worked independently to write theirknowledge of the topic before* entering thesearch phase. Students were asked to "explainhow ponds are different from deserts" andwere aided in the task by being asked, "Whatis a pond like? What is a desert like? How arethey different?" All students were given suffi-cient time to finish their writing.

Search. Students were next given an oppor-tunity to search for ideas and information aboutponds and deserts. Their task was to "explain


19


the differences between ponds and deserts."Students were given a 46-page booklet contain-ing 14 sections with 1-5 pages of information.A table of contents, index, and glossary wereprovided. Four of the sections were not directlyrelevant to the question and 10 were directlyuseful. Of the 10 relevant sections, 5 wereappropriate for third-grade students, and 5were more likely to be appropriate for fifth-

grade students.Students were given a log to fill out during

the search activity. In the log, they were askedto present which section they selected, theirreasons for choosing this information, and their

notes on what they learned from the section.Students were given an unlimited amount ofspace to fill out their log. The search tookplace during a 1-hour period on 2 differentdays, allowing students as much time as theythought they needed to complete the activity.Students who finished early were permitted torest or read a book of their choice.

Drawing. Students were first asked to"Draw a picture to show how ponds are differ-ent from deserts." Students were asked to labelthe important parts and given ample time forthe activity.

Writing. After completing the drawing,students were given a writing task with thefollowing instructions, "Write an explanationof how ponds are different from deserts."Asked to write about the important parts ofponds and deserts and use science ideas in theirexplanations, students were given unlimitedtime for this activity. Following the writingtask, students were given six specific questionsto probe their knowledge of these biomes more

deeply. The questions addressed particular

animals, their habitats, and their adaptations tothe habitat.

Conceptual transfer. Students were asked toperform a task that required them to transfertheir knowledge from the previous learningactivities. The instructions were as follows,"Suppose some people drink all of the waterfrom a pond one day, would the pond now belike a desert? Please explain your answer."Students were not permitted to refer to theirprevious drawings, writings, or texts. Theywere given ample time to complete the activityand encouraged to think extensively as theyperformed the activity.

Informational text comprehension. Studentswere given an expository text containing prose,a diagram, and an illustration. They weregiven instructions to read this material andanswer four questions. The first questionrequired the students to integrate informationacross all three forms of information in thetask. The next three questions asked students toaddress the illustration, the text, and the dia-gram in that order. Space was given for each

answer separately.Narrative interpretation. In this stage,

students were provided a narrative of approxi-mately 1,000 words. An age-appropriate,authentic short story was given for each gradelevel. Students answered three questions, thefirst addressing recall of a particular event, thesecond addressing the author(s) perspective onone character, and the third addressing thetheme of the literary selection.

Performance Assessment Coding Rubrics

Coding rubrics were constructed to classifythe students' responses on each task of the


20


performance assessment. To build the rubrics,we started with the writing task. We sorted theresponses of 25 students holistically into sixrelatively higher and lower categories. We thenidentified the critical qualities of each level. Anindependent graduate student rated 25 re-sponses according to these categories to examinethe interrater agreement. Having established arubric for the writing task, the rubric was usedfor prior knowledge, drawing, and transfer.The search rubric was constructed in a similarmanner. Twenty-five responses were sortedinto six categories to measure reliability. Theinterrater agreements for adjacent and exactcoding into these categories, respectively,were: prior knowledge (96% , 84 %), search(92 % , 84%), drawing (96%, 88%), writing(96%, 80%), conceptual transfer (92% , 80 %),informational text comprehension (100% ,

85%), and narrative interpretation (95%,90% third grade; 100%, 85 % fifth grade).

Motivational and Strategy Questionnaire

Following the search activity, students weregiven a 35-item questionnaire about theirmotivations and strategies for performing thesearch activity. One set of questions addressedintrinsic motivations for the task (e.g., "Afterreading one packet about ponds and deserts, Iwanted to read more"). The second set ofquestions elicited the students' use of strategies(e.g., "After I took some notes, I went back tothe packet to make sure I didn't miss any-thing"). The response mode was: (1) not likeme at all, (2) a little like me, (3) sort of likeme, (4) a lot like me. Students were instructedthat they should think about how they felt whilethey were searching and answer accordingly.

Teacher Observational Rating

To construct a measure of students' generallevel of literacy and science background at thebeginning of the year, teachers conductedobservational ratings. For each child in thebasal and CORI classrooms, the teacher ratedeach child according to her quintiles in literacyand science, using the grade-level students inthe school as the reference group. These rat-ings were used as a covariate in some of thesestatistical analyses to adjust the traditional andCORI classrooms.

Instructional Questionnaire andIntervention Check

To determine the extent to which the princi-ples of CORI were being implemented, wedeveloped an instructional questionnaire. Basedon analyses of videotaped sessions of the CORIand focal groups with teachers in the previousyear, we identified seven dimensions of theCORI learning context including: (a) observa-tional experiences related to science phenom-ena, (b) an orientation towards conceptualknowledge, (c) student-direction, (d) a collabo-rative atmosphere among the learners, (e)explicit teaching of cognitive strategies toimprove reading and writing, (1) opportunitiesfor different modes of personal expression ofknowledge, and (g) the integration of sciencetopics with language arts processes.

The research team wrote 99 items which ad-dressed each of the seven dimensions. Theresponse format was a liken scale ranging from1 to 4. Sometimes the response choices wereworded as "very true of my class" to "not at


21_


Table 1Teacher Questionnaire on CORI and Traditional Teaching

Instructional Dimension No. of Items Reliability

Correlation withInstructionalProgram

Real-World Experience 9 .90 .97

(Observational vs. Abstract)

Knowledge 12 .89 .97

(Conceptual vs. Factual)

Direction of Control 15 .91 .95

(Student vs. Teacher)

Social 13 .66 .86

(Collaborative vs. Individual)

Strategies Taught 9 .75 .61

(Explicitly vs. Implicitly)

Written Expression 9 .47 .20

(Personal vs. Conventional)

Integration of Language Arts & 8 .71 .90

Science(Integrated vs. Departmentalized)

*p < .001

all true of my class." Other items asked theteachers to estimate the time invested in aninstructional practice with choices ranging from"almost every day" to "once a month or less."A trial version of the questionnaire was givento the 5 CORI and 5 comparison teachers for

review. They were asked to identify items thatthey felt reflected their own teaching practicesmost effectively. The participants were also

invited to give written feedback about items onthe questionnaire. As a result of the teachers'comments, some items were changed, reor-

dered, or reverse-coded. The resultant ques-tionnaire was administered to the participantsin the spring of the academic year. Fourteenitems were excluded from analyses because ofmissing data. Six additional items were with-held because they showed low variability.

This instructional questionnaire containedseven bipolar scales. For example, the scale ondirection of instructional control ranged fromstudent-directed (more CORI-like) or teacher/program-directed (more traditional). Items inthis scale were coded to reflect either an


22


emphasis on student direction or an emphasison teacher direction. Questionnaire data aredisplayed in Table 1. Re liabilities are generallyadequate, except written expression. Correla-tions with instructional type were all signifi-cant, except written expression. A positivecorrelation indicated that CORI teachers em-phasized the left side of the bipolar dimension;whereas traditional teachers emphasized theright side of the dimension. The CORI versustraditional emphasis is shown parenthetically inTable 1.

Procedures

Students in the CORI classrooms received afull academic year of this teaching, and thecontrol students received traditional instructionthroughout the year. Teachers had full respon-sibility for all instruction, and participated inan inquiry workshop monthly, led by theUniversity researcher, to share progress andproblems. The performance assessment wasgiven by the teachers in the first half of April.Traditional students performed comfortably onthe performance assessment, finding it to be anenjoyable activity. Coding of the performanceassessment was completed by the graduatestudents and the first author.

Results

The data were analyzed to explore the modelin Figure 1 and to address each question at theend of the introduction. Measures from theperformance assessment and teachers' ratingswere used as indicators of the constructs inFigure 1. Conceptual learning was measured

with the combined writing and drawing scorebecause students often referred to their draw-ings in their written work. The indicator ofliteracy engagement was the score on thesearch task, which consisted of extended read-ing and notetaking from multiple, illustratedtexts. On the search task, strategies of search-ing, comprehending, integrating, and summa-rizing were needed. Motivational dispositionsof interest, effort, persistence, and self-efficacywere expected to be beneficial in this task assuggested in previous studies (Guthrie, et al.,1996).

To measure conceptual learning with maxi-mally sensitive procedures, we asked studentsfollow-up questions after their writing anddrawing activity. We constructed a promptedscore by placing students on the writing rubricafter accounting for the follow-up questions.Analysis of the prompted scores showed thatstudents attained significantly higher rubriclevels on prompted than on writing-only tasks,t(221) = 7.94, p < .0001. To examine whetherthe advantage varied by grade or instructionalprogram, we conducted a 2 (grades) X 2 (typesof instruction) analysis of variance (ANOVA)on the difference of writing and promptedscores. No significant effects were observed.Therefore, we used the writing scores in subse-quent analyses.

Students' literacy levels and general scienceknowledge in the fall of 1994 were rated by theteachers and reading specialists. These tworatings were combined to obtain a generalliteracy-science background measure. Priorknowledge on the topic of the assessment wasdrawn from the prior knowledge task in theperformance assessment.


23

Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Learning? .15

Question 1

Does literacy engagement increase concep-tual learning when science background, literacylevel, and topic knowledge are controlled? Thisquestion addresses the strength of link A inFigure 1. We used the data for both grades andboth instructional programs. To analyze thedata, a hierarchial multiple regression wasconducted in which the dependent variable wasthe combined score of writing and drawingrepresenting conceptual learning. Independentvariables were entered in the order of a com-bined background score of literacy level andscience knowledge, prior knowledge of thetopic in the performance assessment task, andthe search score, which was the indicator ofliteracy engagement.

Multiple regression analysis showed thatsearch (literacy engagement) significantlypredicted writing and drawing (conceptuallearning) when the background variables weretaken into account. The multiple regression wasR = .62, (p < .0001); search (literacy engage-ment) accounted for 10% of the unique variancein writing and drawing (conceptual learning),which was significant at p < .0001, asindicated in Table 2.

We also addressed Question 1 for the grade-5 and grade-3 students separately. A hierarchialmultiple regression for combined writing anddrawing as the dependent variable, with liter-acy and science background, prior knowledge,search, and instruction as independent vari-ables. In grade 5, search contributed 18% ofthe unique variance (p < .0002) in writing anddrawing and had a multiple regresion of .63.For grade 3, the multiple regression was .60,

and search contributed 4 % of the unique vari-ance (p < .05) in writing and drawing. Refer-ring to Figure 1, these data showed that link Awas significant, when links 1 and 2 were con-trolled. The relationship held for grade 5 andgrade 3 separately, as well as for the totalgroup.

Question 2

Does CORI increase literacy engagementwhen background factors are controlled? Thisquestion refers to link B of Figure 1. Havingshown that our indicator of literacy engage-ment (search) predicted conceptual learning(writing and drawing), we attempted to deter-mine whether CORI increased literacy engage-ment. To examine this question, we conducteda hierarchial multiple regression analysis inwhich the total search score was the dependentvariable and the independent variables were thecombined background literacy-science score,the prior knowledge score,,and the integratedinstruction score. Instruction was entered as acontrast between the CORI and the traditionalprograms. A multiple regression of .50 wasobserved. Instruction accounted for 17% of thevariance in search after background factorswere controlled, which was highly significant(p < .0001). As Table 3 shows, these findingswere also observed for grades 5 and 3 sepa-rately. For grade 5, instruction accounted for20% of the unique variance (p < .0002); andfor grade 3, instruction accounted for 17% ofthe unique variance (p < .0002). These find-ings show that CORI enhanced literacy engage-ment, as indicated by search, in both grade 5and grade 3. Referring to Figure 1, link B wasconfirmed to be important by this analysis.


24


Table 2

Multiple Regression Analyses for Questions 1 & 3

Group Dependent Independent ieCha SigCha

Total Write & Draw Literacy/Science .35 .12 .12 .0001Group Prior Knowledge .53 .28 .15 .0001

Search .62 .38 .10 .0001Instruction .67 .45 .07 .0003

Grade 5 Write & Draw Literacy/Science .27 .07 .07 .04Prior Knowledge .47 .22 .14 .002Search .63 .40 .18 .0002Instruction .72 .52 .12 .0007

Grade 3 Write & Draw Literacy/Science .39 .15 .15 .001Prior Knowledge .56 .32 .16 .0003Search .60 .36 .04 .05Instruction .64 .41 .05 .03

Total Write & Draw Literacy/Science .34 .12 .12 .0001Group Prior Knowledge .52 .27 .15 .0001

Search Total .60 .36 .09 .0001

Total I Write & Draw Literacy/Science .34 .12 .12 .0001Prior Knowledge .52 .27 .15 .0001Search-Packets .60 .36 .09 .0001

Total I Write & Draw Literacy/Science .34 .12 .12 .0001Prior Knowledge .52 .27 .15 .0001Search-Reasons .56 .31 .04 .007

Total I Write & Draw Literacy/Science .34 .12 .12 .0001Prior Knowledge .52 .27 .15 .0001Search-Notes .60 .36 .09 .0001

Question 3

Does CORI increase conceptual learningwhen literacy engagement and backgroundfactors are controlled? The previous analyses

have suggested that literacy engagement (indicated by the score on search) increased concep-tual learning (indicated by combined writingand drawing) and that integrated instruction(CORI) increased literacy engagement in corn


25


Table 3Multiple Regression Analyses for Question 2

Group Dependent Independent R le R2Cha SigCha

Total Search Total Literacy/Science .26 .07 .07 .0003

Group Prior Knowledge .29 .09 .02 .11

Instruction .50 .25 .17 .0001

Grade 5 Search Total Literacy/Science .22 .05 .05 .08

Prior Knowledge .24 .06 .01 .49

Instruction .50 .25 .20 .0002

Grade 3 Search Total Literacy/Science .27 .07 .07 .03


Instruction .53 .29 .17 .0002

parison to traditional teaching. We next askedwhether instruction enhanced conceptual learn-ing beyond its influence on literacy engage-ment. To examine this question, we conducteda hierarchial multiple regression analysis withthe dependent variable of combined writing anddrawing. The independent variables wereliteracy and science background, prior knowl-edge of the topic, search, and instruction. Toperform this analysis, we added instruction asa final independent variable to the regressionanalysis conducted for question 1. The resultsare shown in Table 2.

The findings for instruction as the indepen-dent variable were that a multiple regression of.67 was obtained for the total group. Instruc-tion contributed 7% of the unique variance inconceptual learning, which was significant (p< .0003). When the same hierarchial multipleregression was conducted for grade 5, a multi-ple regression of .72 was obtained, and instruc-tion accounted for 12% of the unique variance(p < .0007). For grade 3, the same regression

analysis produced a multiple regression of .64,with instruction accounting for 5 % of theunique variance that was significant (p < .03).With reference to Figure 1, these results con-firm the importance of link C. The results canbe interpreted as showing that CORI increasedconceptual learning, in comparison to tradi-tional instruction. The findings suggest thatCORI had a direct effect on conceptual learn-ing (link "C") as well as indirect effect throughliteracy engagement (links B and A).

Question 4

How do students in grades 3 and 5, whoreceive CORI, compare to other students inlevel of literacy engagement? This questionwas addressed with a 2 (grade levels) X 2(instructional types) analysis of covariance(ANCOVA). Covariates were literacy andscience background and prior knowledge, andthe dependent variable was literacy engagementas indicated by the search score. A significant


26


effect occurred for instructional type withCORI students higher than students in tradi-tional instruction. A significant effect occurredfor the grade, and the interaction effect was notsignificant. The findings are plotted in Figure 2.

The ANCOVA showed that CORI washigher than traditional instruction in literacyengagement at grade 3 and grade 5. To com-pare the four individual means of the twoinstructional groups at the two grade levels, weconducted post hoc contrasts. The procedureconsisted of coding the four groups into fourlevels of one dummy variable. One-wayANCOVA with Newman-Keuls contrasts wereconducted on this variable. The result was thatCORI grade-5 was significantly higher than allother groups including traditional grade 5 (p <.05). Next, CORI grade-3 was higher thantraditional grade 3 (p < .05). In addition,CORI grade-3 was significantly higher thantraditional grade 5 (p < .05). Finally, tradi-tional grade 5 was not significantly higher thantraditional grade 3. It seems noteworthy thatCORI grade-3 exceeded traditional grade 5 inthis search-based measure of literacy engage-ment, and that students in grade 3 and grade 5traditional instruction were not different.

Question 5

How do students in grades 3 and 5 whoreceive CORI compare to traditional students inconceptual learning? This question was ad-dressed with a 2 (grade levels) X 2 (instruc-tional types) ANCOVA. Covariates were literacyand science background and prior knowledge,and the dependent variable was conceptual

learning as indicated by the combined writingand drawing. A significant effect occurred forinstructional type, F (1,119) = 32.61, p <.0001, showing that CORI students werehigher than traditional instruction students. Asignificant effect was found for grade, F (1,119)= 5.39, p < .02. The interaction of instruc-tion and grade was not significant. The find-ings are plotted in Figure 3.

To examine the means of the two instruc-tional groups at two grade levels, a one-wayANOVA on the four groups was conductedwith Newman-Keuls post hoc contrasts. Thesecomparisons showed that CORI grade-5 wassignificantly (p < .05) higher than all of theother groups, CORI grade-3 was significantlyhigher than traditional instruction grade 3 (p <.05). In this analysis, CORI grade-3 was notsignificantly different from traditional grade 5,and the two traditional groups at grade 3 andgrade 5 were not significantly different fromeach other.

As Figure 3 shows, CORI grade-3 washigher than traditional grade 3. This differencewas statistically significant using the Bonfer-roni-t statistic, assuming two comparisons(p < .025). Although the Newman-Keulscontrast did not show a significant difference,for this comparison, due to the exploratorynature of this study, we believe results of theBonferroni-t statistic should be consideredseriously.

Question 6

How does conceptual transfer relate to con-ceptual learning, literacy engagement, andintegrated instruction in grades 3 and 5, whenbackground factors are controlled? We ad-



6

5

4

as

3

> 2

1

CORI

0 TRADITIONAL

Third Third Fifth

Grade Levels

Fifth

Figure 2. Motivated strategy use of CORI and traditional students at third- and fifth-grade.


2 8 BEST COPYAVAILABLE


7

8 4C

8

3 3

2

0

E CORI

0 TRADITIONAL

Third-1-

Third Fifth

Grade Levels

Fifth

Figure 3. Conceptual learning at levels of CORI and traditional students at third- and fifth-grade.


2 9 BEST COPY AVAIABLE


Table 4Multiple Regression Analyses for Transfer in the Total Group (Question 6)

Group Dependent Independent R R2 R2Cha SigC ha

Total I Transfer Literacy/Science .31 .09 .09 .001


Search .45 .20 .05 .01

Instruction .45 .20 .00 ns

Grade 5 Transfer Literacy/Science .14 .02 .02 ns


Search .50 .25 .17 .0008

Instruction .60 .35 .10 .005

Grade 3 Transfer Literacy/Science .45 .20 .20 .001


Search .52 .27 .01 ns


Total I Transfer Literacy/Science .32 .10 .10 .001


Write & Draw .53 .28 .13 .0001


Grade 5 Transfer Literacy/Science .12 .01 .01 ns

Prior Knoweldge .24 .06 .05 ns

Write & Draw .65 .42 .36 .0001

Instruction .68 .46 .04 .05

Grade 3 Transfer Literacy/Science .46 .21 .21 .0009Prior Knowledge .52 .28 .07 .05

Write & Draw .53 .28 .00 ns

Instruction .59 .35 .07 .03

dressed this question with six multiple re-gressions using conceptual transfer as thedependent variable. In the first analysis, theindependent variables were the literacy andscience background, prior knowledge, search,and integrated instruction. As Table 4 shows,search accounted for 5% of the unique variance

(p < .01) in conceptual transfer. Instructiondid not contribute significantly to conceptualtransfer after search and background factorswere controlled.

This part of question 6 was examined sepa-rately for grades 3 and 5. The multiple regres-sion for grade 5 using conceptual transfer as


30


the dependent variable with literacy and sciencebackground, prior knowledge, search, andinstruction as independent variables produceda multiple regression of .60. The search vari-able accounted for 17% of the unique variance(p < .0008) and instruction accounted for 10%of the unique variance (p < .005). In grade 3,however, search and instruction did not con-tribute significantly to transfer, using the samemultiple regression procedure used for grade 5(see Table 4).

To address Question 6 further, a hierarchialmultiple regression was conducted with con-ceptual transfer as the dependent variable,using literacy and science background, priorknowledge, writing and drawing, and instruc-tion as the independent variables. For the totalgroup, writing and drawing contributed 13% ofthe unique variance in conceptual transfer,which was significant (p < .0001), but instruc-tion did not add significantly. When this hierar-chial multiple regression was conducted forgrade 5 and grade 3 separately, a differentpicture appeared. For grade 5, writing anddrawing contributed 36% of the unique vari-ance in conceptual transfer, which was signifi-cant (p < .0001); and instruction added 4% ofthe unique variance in conceptual transfer (p <.05). For grade 3, writing and drawing did notcontribute a significant amount of uniquevariance to conceptual transfer. However, forgrade 3, instruction added 7% of the uniquevariance in transfer (p < .03) after the factorsof conceptual learning and student backgroundwere taken into account (see Table 4).

These results of the multiple regressionanalyses on conceptual transfer are depicted inFigure 4. For the total group, links D and E

were significant when controlling for links 1and 2. For grade 5, links D and E were signifi-cant when controlling for 1 and 2. In addition,link F (CORI) was significant when controllingfor 1 and 2, and separately for D and E. Forgrade 3, path E (CORI) was significant whencontrolling for links 1, 2, and D.

Question 7

What effect does CORI have on comprehen-sion of informational and narrative text? Readingcomprehension of informational and narrativetexts were measured with different texts atgrade-appropriate levels for third- and fifth-graders. To examine the effects of CORI oncomprehension, separate analyses were con-ducted using a one-way ANCOVA with liter-acy level as the covariate. For grade 5 withinformational text, the CORI group was notsignificantly higher than the traditional instruc-tion group. For grade 5 with narrative text, theCORI group was significantly higher than thetraditional instruction group, F(1, 64) --15.31, p < .0001. For grade 3 with infor-mational text, the CORI group was not signifi-cantly different from the traditional group. Forgrade 3 with the narrative text, the traditionalgroup was higher than the CORI group,F(1,118) = 5.26, p < .02 (see Table 5).

Question 8

What instructional principles distinguishCORI and traditional instruction? This questionwas addressed in the Method section. Thedimensions (Scales) on the instructional ques-tionnaire were correlated with the dichotomous


31

32

Stu

dent

Inst

ruct

iona

lLi

tera

cyB

ackg

roun

dE

nviro

nmen

tE

ngag

emen

tF

Kno

wle

dge

and

Pro

blem

Sol

ving

Inte

grat

edIn

stru

ctio

n(C

OR

I)vs

Tra

ditio

nal

Inst

ruct

ion

Top

icK

now

ledg

e

Not

e -

Sig

nific

ant P

aths

Wer

e:F

or T

otal

Gro

up: D

(1,2

); E

(1,2

).F

or G

rade

5: D

(1,2

); E

(1,2

); F

(1,2

,E);

F(1

,2,D

).F

or G

rade

3: F

(1,2

,D).

33


Table 5Results on the Performance Assessment

Variable Condition N Mean SD

Third Graders

Literature Covariate. CORI 39 2.87 1.20Basal 39 3.23 1.49

Science Covariate CORI 39 2.90 1.55Basal 39 3.28 1.32

Prior Knowledge CORI 42 2.57 1.06Basal 36 2.03 .77

Writing CORI 44 3.23 1.22Basal 38 2.39 1.26

Drawing CORI 44 2.95 1.38Basal 38 2.53 1.16

Writing and Drawing CORI 44 6.18 2.19Basal 38 4.92 2.05

Search Relevant Packet CORI 48 5.46 1.50Basal 42 3.93 1.85

Search Notes CORI 48 4.75 1.00Basal 42 3.88 1.27

Search Reason CORI 48 4.71 .92Basal 42 4.10 1.27

Search Total CORI 48 4.69 .99Basal 42 3.64 1.39

Informational Text CORI 45 7.42 1.54Basal 42 7.02 1.87

Story Comprehension CORI 46 6.00 1.62Basal 39 6.46 1.41


34


Table 5 (continued)Results on the Performance Assessment

Variable Condition N Mean SD

Fifth Graders

Literature Covariate CORI 36 3.31 1.49

Basal 37 3.35 .89

Science Covariate CORI 36 3.75 1.27

Basal 37 3.30 1.18

Prior Knowledge CORI 36 2.53 .84

Basal 42 2.12 .77

Writing CORI 35 4.03 1.34

Basal 40 2.80 1.02

Drawing CORI 35 3.54 1.17

Basal 40 2.53 .99

Writing and Drawing CORI 35 7.57 2.08Basal 40 5.32 1.72

Search Relevant Packet CORI 40 5.48 1.52

Basal 42 4.31 1.44

Search Notes CORI 40 5.60 1.01

Basal 42 4.24 1.27

Search Reason CORI 40 4.65 1.10

Basal 42 4.38 .94

Search Total CORI 40 5.40 1.10Basal 42 4.00 1.29

Informational Text CORI 41 8.71 1.47

Basal 37 8.65 1.51

Story Comprehension CORI 40 5.90 1.61

Basal 39 4.67 1.44


35


variables of instructional type. As Table 1shows, correlations were: real-world experi-ence (.97), knowledge (.97), direction ofcontrol (.95), social (.86), strategies taught(.61), written expression (.20), and integrationof language arts and science (.90). This con-firmed the distinctions between CORI andtraditional instruction on six of the sevendimensions.

STUDY IIIntroduction

Purpose

The purpose of Study II was to compare theeffects of CORI with traditional instruction ona statewide assessment. The assessment is partof the Maryland School Performance Assess-ment Program (MSPAP) which is linked to asystemic reform effort in education. TheMSPAP contains measures of achievement inreading, writing, language use, science, math,and social studies. The goal of this investiga-tion was to compare CORI and traditionalinstruction in each of these measures for stu-dents at grades 3 and 5 in one elementaryschool.

Rationale

The MSPAP is a statewide design for educa-tional reform. The design includes: identifica-tion of learning outcomes, development ofperformance standards, administration of per-formance assessments, implementation of in-structional improvements, and publication ofassessment results. Standards in reading, writing,

and science were constructed for all students.The objectives of the MSPAP and the CORIwere highly similar. For example, standards inreading for both MSPAP and CORI included:summarize a story, play, or poem; identify atheme of a novel; infer traits and motives ofcharacters; restate information from an exposi-tory text; identify the organizational structureof a selection; evaluate the effectiveness of anauthor's argument; draw inferences frominformation in illustrations and text; identifysimilarities of tables and graphs; and comparedifferent forms of documents.

In view of the agreement in objectives be-tween the MSPAP and CORI, it is reasonablethat students receiving concept-oriented readinginstruction should show relatively high achiev-ement in the aspects of MSPAP taught withinCORI. As the CORI objectives are related toreading, writing, and science, it was reason-able to expect that these tests should reflect theeffectiveness of CORI. On the other hand,CORI did not include instruction in math orsocial studies and therefore, it was not expect-ed that these two areas would be influenced byparticipation in CORI. We expected that lan-guage use would be influenced favorably byCORI because expectations for writing inCORI were substantial.

Although the global objectives of MSPAPand CORI are similar, there are several reasonsto doubt whether the Maryland PerformanceAssessment would show an effect of an instruc-tional intervention such as CORI. First, theparticular reading competencies in the assess-ment were not specifically tied to the particularcompetencies in CORI. For example, althoughboth teach higher-order reading strategies,


36


CORI emphasizes search for information frommultiple texts, whereas the Maryland assess-ment emphasizes summary of informationaltext. Separate scores in the Maryland assess-ment are not obtained for such specific compe-tencies as searching and summarizing. In theabsence of this specificity, it is possible that themeasure is not sensitive to an intervention thattargets a few particular higher-order strategies.Second, the content of science in the Marylandassessment was not related to the content ofscience instruction in CORI. In CORI, lifesciences were emphasized with some attentionto earth science and physical science. How-ever, in the Maryland assessment physical sci-ence, earth science, and life science wereequally emphasized. Therefore, it is the scienceprocesses of hypothesizing, data collecting,predicting, inferring, and drawing conclusionstaught in CORI that may be observed in Mary-land assessment rather than gains in contentknowledge.

Third, student effort for participating in theMaryland assessment is not remarkably high.Many students fail to see the purpose of theseactivities and do not invest optimal effort inthem. Fourth, the Maryland assessment re-quires substantial levels of self-assessment.Students are expected to appraise their ownstrategies for learning, comment on alternativemethods of performing tasks and reflect ontheir reactions to text. The self-assessmentswere not emphasized in CORI as fully as theywere in the Maryland assessment. These differ-ences between MSPAP and CORI lead torealistic doubts about whether the Marylandassessment will be sensitive to benefits ofCORI in the form documented in Study I of

this investigation. Fifth, approximately 40% ofthe students who received the Maryland assess-ment in April 1994 were not present in theschool for the full 1993-94 academic year.Consequently, it is unlikely that the CORIprogram could have influenced their learningsubstantially.

Method

Students

In one elementary school, CORI was imple-mented in one grade-5 and one grade-3 class-room in the 1993-94 year. Students in theseclassrooms were assigned to the CORI projectbecause it was believed that they would benefitfrom special attention to their reading andwriting development. Both classes includedapproximately 4-6 learning disabled studentswho were maintained in the self-containedclassroom for reading, writing, and scienceinstruction. There were 31 grade-3 and 27grade-5 students for whom data were available.There were 48 grade-3 and 45 grade-5 studentsfrom traditional instruction classrooms forwhom data were available. Students wereheterogeneously grouped in classes and in-cluded approximately 65 % African-American,20% Hispanic, 10 % Caucasian, and 5 % Asian.These proportions were roughly representativeof the district.

Teachers and Program

One grade-3 and one grade-5 teacher taughtCORI in a yearlong integration of science,reading, and writing instruction. This was thefirst year of implementation for grade 3 and thesecond year for grade 5. Teachers were sup-


37


ported by a small team of one faculty memberand one student at the University of Maryland.The school was a Chapter One, K-6 schoolwith a high proportion of students reading andwriting in the lowest quartile.

The instructional framework was the sameas the framework described in Study I. Instruc-tions of the 16-week units contain four phasesconsisting of: (a) observe and personalize; (b)search and retrieve; (c) comprehend and inte-grate; and (d) communicate to others. In eachof these phases, teachers supported students ingenerating their learning goals; gaining strate-gies to understand the text; reading multiplegenre including informational texts, narratives,folktales, and poetry; and writing extensivelyto communicate their new learning to peers.Student portfolios were emphasized as a meansto exhibit class work for students, teachers,parents, and administrators.

Performance Assessment

The MSPAP was administered in April 1994by the teachers according to the guidelines.The students were placed in a room differentfrom their homeroom and were given direc-tions to perform a timed series of tasks inscience, social studies, and math during 1week. Scores for reading, writing, and lan-guage use were derived from the students workon content-based tasks. For example, studentsmay have performed a hands-on science activ-ity collecting and interpreting data. Immedi-ately following, they read an informational textrelated to the science concepts inherent in theactivity and summarized the connections be-tween the text and activity. The quality of the

summary of text was used as a portion of thereading score. The qualities of the writing andlanguage use in the summary were used tocontribute to the scores on those scales,respectively.

Results

To compare achievement of students receiv-ing CORI to students receiving traditional in-struction, analyses were conducted on eachmeasure on the Maryland assessment sepa-rately. The means are shown in Table 6 andFigure 5. A 2 (types of instruction) X 2(grades) ANOVA was performed on reading,writing, literacy #1 (sum of reading and writ-ing), language use, literacy #2 (sum of reading,writing, and language use), science, socialstudies, and math. Each two-wayANOVA wasfollowed by a one-way ANOVA on programeffects at grade 3 and grade 5 separately (seeTable 6).

The analysis of literacy #1 showed a signifi-cant advantage of CORI compared to tradi-tional instruction, F(1, 145) = 4.31,p < .04.The grade-level and interaction effects were notsignificant. The ANOVA for reading and theANOVA for writing did not show any signifi-cant effects of the type of instruction or anyinteraction effects. The ANOVA on the lan-guage use measure showed a significant benefitof CORI compared with traditional instruction,F(1, 142) = 3.86, p < .05. There was asignificant grade effect, F(1, 142) = 8.46,p < .0004, but no significant interaction. TheANOVA for literacy #2, which combinedreading, writing, and language use, showed asignificant benefit for CORI compared with


38


Table 6Means and Standard Deviations for CORI and TraditionalStudents on the Maryland School Performance Assessment

Students' Grade

Variable &Program

Third Fifth Third & Fifth

SD M SD SD

RD CORI 503.70 42.22 517.43 50.82 510.33 46.67Trad 486.71 58.72 504.19 45.75 495.18 53.29

WR CORI 508.30 43.42 504.15 51.71 506.43 46.96Trad 491.27 41.98 494.91 45.34 492.98 43.40

LU CORI 507.72 43.86 519.81 38.53 513.55 41.45Trad 484.09 40.68 512.89 57.03 498.17 51.17

MS CORI 518.69 28.93 510.96 25.64 514.96 28.93Trad 499.41 45.55 512.34 45.80 499.41 45.55

SS CORI 508.31 35.06 511.39 32.70 509.82 33.65Trad 490.34 43.60 502.24 45.00 495.98 44.44

SC CORI 515.29 25.42 521.81 30.60 518.33 27.89Trad 492.71 43.26 511.04 45.58 501.58 45.11

Litl CORI 1014.83 65.40 1024.15 82.40 1019.32 73.55Trad 984.62 83.03 999.63 77.83 999.04 80.42

Lit2 CORI 1522.55 95.90 1543.96 106.80 1532.88 100.95Trad 1465.85 111.51 1514.11 127.37 1489.44 121.30

Note. RD = Reading; WR = Writing; LU = Language Use; MS = Mathematics; SS = Social Studies;SC = Science; Litl = Literacy (RD =WR); Lit2 = RD +WR +LU.

traditional instruction, F(1, 142) = 5.17, p <.02. On literacy #2, a significant effect forgrade appeared, F(1, 142) = 4.12, p < .04,but the interaction was not significant.

On the science scores, the ANOVA showeda significant advantage for CORI compared

with traditional instruction, F(1, 147) = 6.80,p < .01. A significant grade effect appeared,F(1, 147) = 4.73, p < .03, but the interactionof instruction and grade was not significant. Asignificant advantage for CORI also appearedon the social studies measure, F(1, 148) = 4.03,


39


Figure 5. Comparison of CORI and traditional students on reading, writing, language use, math,social studies, and science in the Maryland Performance Assessment.



Table 7

Comparison of CORI and Traditional Instruction on the Maryland Performance Assessment

Measures Total (Grades 3 & 5)

Reading

Writing

Literacy #1 (R+W)

Language Use

Literacy #2 (R+W+LU)

Science

Social Studies

Math

ns

ns

*

*

*

*

*

ns

Note. ns = Not significant; * = Significant instructional effect at p < .05.

p < .05, but there were no grade or interactioneffects. On the math measure, there were nosignificant effects for instruction, or grade, onthe interaction of instruction and grade.

The interaction of instruction and grade wasnot statistically significant in any of the analy-ses, which signifies that the advantage forCORI in achievement was not significantlydifferent for grade 3 and grade 5. Therefore,separate grade-specific analyses are not war-ranted according to strict criteria.

These comparisons of CORI with traditionalinstruction were consistent with our expecta-tions (see Table 7). Students who receivedCORI were higher in literacy than studentsreceiving traditional instruction. The literacymeasure was a combination of the reading andwriting scores from the Maryland assessment.

Combining them is consistent with the philoso-

phy of CORI and with the goals of the systemic

change that include the integration of readingand writing for authentic school learning pur-poses.

Students receiving CORI showed higherachievement in science than students receiving

traditional instruction, this was expected be-cause CORI is an integration of language artsand science for elementary school learners. Inaddition to science, CORI students were higher

than traditional students in language use. This

was a measure of the skills and craft of writ-ing, including sentence structure, capitaliza-tion, and word use. The advantage for CORIshowed that CORI improved skills as well ashigher-order strategies in writing.


42


Math achievement of CORI students was nothigher than math achievement of traditionalstudents. This finding provides valuable con-verging evidence, because math was not in-cluded in the objectives of instruction. SinceCORI students were higher than traditionalstudents in literacy and science, but not higherin math, the program effects are specific. Thisfinding suggests that the advantage of CORIwas not a consequence of higher academicability, more motivation for schooling, Englishlanguage competencies, or the characteristics ofteachers that were uniquely associated with theCORI classrooms. From this pattern, we inferthat it was the CORI program rather thanexternal factors that may be the sources ofenhanced achievements.

It should be noted that CORI students sur-passed traditional students on the social studiesmeasure in the MSPAP. Although this findingwas unexpected, it is not mysterious. Readingand writing were necessary for high scores onthe social studies measures. CORI studentswere taught to handle large texts with multipleinterpretation and to compose extended, thought-ful reactions. These competencies were likelyto be valuable in the social studies tasks of theperformance assessment.

CORI is not a finished product. The natureof the teaching, required materials, profes-sional development activities, administrativesupports, and other curricula requirements areyet to be fully determined. Despite the needsfor continued improvement, it is plausible tosuggest that CORI is likely to enhance achieve-ment in grades 3-6 on broad, integrated perfor-mance assessment measures of achievement.

DISCUSSION

This paper was addressed to the broad ques-tion of "Does CORI increase motivation,strategies, and conceptual learning?" A varietyof researchers, administrators, and teachershave remarked that CORI appears to be anattractive framework for integrating teachingand motivating higher-order learning in literacyand science. In the same breath, these observ-ers often ask whether this CORI increasesachievement in comparison to more traditionalteaching. To explore this issue, we conductedtwo quasi-experiments comparing students whoreceived a year of CORI with students whoreceived a year of traditional teaching in liter-acy and science. In both Study I and II, anextended posttest in the form of a performanceassessment, administered in the spring of theacademic year, was used to compare achieve-ment of the experimental and comparisonstudents.

In Study I, we introduced statistical controlsof literacy level, science background, and topicknowledge on the content of the performanceassessment to increase the comparability of thepopulations. Comparisons showed advantagesfor CORI. As Figures 2 and 3 show, third-grade students in the CORI program had higherperformance on measures of engagement andconceptual learning than third-grade students inthe traditional classroom program. Likewise,fifth-grade CORI students had higher levels ofliteracy engagement and conceptual learningthan fifth-grade traditional students.

We observed an additional, unexpectedfinding. Students in third grade who receivedCORI showed higher achievement than stu-


4 3


dents in fifth grade who participated in a tradi-tional teaching program. This advantage forCORI appeared for literacy engagement, whichwe defined as the motivated use of cognitivestrategies for learning science concepts. InStudy I, the search score on the performanceassessment was used as the indicator of literacyengagement. High search scores indicated thatstudents located appropriate text, extractedrelevant information from these texts, andpersisted in elaborating their understanding ofthe conceptual topic.

The relatively high performance of CORIthird-grade in comparison to traditional fifth-grade students was also observed in conceptuallearning. Students were more able to marshalrelevant facts, provide cogent explanations, andlink concepts theoretically if they participatedin CORI. It should be noted that these infer-ences are possible only if the students at grades3 and 5 are placed on the same scale with thesame performance assessment. In this study,the performance assessment with texts, tasks,writing expectations, and prompts provided alearning and testing environment that wasequitable for students in both programs at bothgrade levels. Students in traditional teaching,as well as CORI, were being taught similarscience contents and science processes.

An alternative framework for showing thefindings of Study I is presented in Figure 1.Combining the results from all of the students,it shows that conceptual learning was substan-tially increased by motivated use of cognitivestrategies. Students who became more fullyengaged in learning science from studyingmultiple texts, attained higher levels of scienceknowledge than students who were less en-

gaged. In addition, Figure 1 depicts that stu-dents who received CORI increased in literacyengagement more than students who did notreceive CORI. The principles of CORI appearto enhance cognitive competence and motiva-tional dispositions for higher-order learning.These capabilities were transferred from thecurriculum of the school year to the perfor-mance assessment context. These findings, itshould be noted, were maintained when studentbackground variables of literacy levels, scienceknowledge, and topic knowledge were heldconstant statistically.

An intriguing finding was that CORI en-hanced conceptual learning above and beyondits influence on literacy engagement. CORIstudents were more successful than traditionalstudents in integrating their thinking, writingcogently, and providing full, theoretical expla-nations of the topic. Not only did they searchmore efficiently and display intrinsic motiva-tions for learning during the search activity,they were able to use the information gleanedin their search to write more integratively thantraditional students. Another way of stating thisfinding is to say that although a substantialproportion of the effects of CORI on concep-tual learning were mediated through literacyengagement, some benefits of CORI on con-ceptual learning were direct.

In Study II, we found that CORI studentswere higher than traditional students on theliteracy and science sections of the MarylandSchool Performance Assessment. This findingadds credence to the results of Study I. Be-cause CORI students did not achieve higherscores in areas that were not taught (e.g.,math), the achievement differences seem attrib-


44


utable to effects of the instructional programrather than student background or teachercharacteristics. Although Study II did notstatistically control background variables asStudy I did, the convergence of results in thetwo investigations tends to confirm the effec-tiveness of the instructional program for en-hancing literacy engagement and conceptuallearning.

How does CORI compare with other formsof integrated teaching designed to increaseconceptual learning? Integrated teaching is

increasingly popular in schools. A large pro-portion of language arts teachers are connectingthe reading, writing, speaking, listening, andcommunications in language arts instruction.Many teachers are also integrating disciplineswith each other. For example, language artsand history are often linked around topicalthemes; science and language arts are taught inconjunction by emphasizing reading and writ-ing in expository texts and trade books alongwith "hands-on" science activities (Saul et al.,1993). Full integrations of science, history,English/language arts, math, and geographyare occasionally attempted (Beane, 1995). Al-though a variety of instructional integrationsare being implemented (Stephenson & Carr,1993), relatively few attempts have been madeto describe them thoroughly and even fewerattempts have been made to examine the im-pacts of integrated teaching on student learning.

At least three distinct forms of integratedteaching can be compared with CORI. In theproject-based approach, teachers help studentsto form a thematic learning goal (Blumenfeld,Soloway, & Marx, 1991). Students engage in

high amounts of self-directed activity in smallgroups and individually to attain the goal. Aprominent aim within the project-based ap-proach is to construct an artifact that embodiesthe knowledge gained in the project. Theartifact may be a diorama, a model, or a depic-tion of relationships in the form of a poster orvideo. CORI is contrasted from project-basedteaching because the basic aim in CORI isconceptual. In CORI, the artifact in the form ofa poster or video is not considered a majorobjective, but is considered one of severalforms of documenting progress toward themore conceptual aim of the teaching unit.

Integrated teaching described by Brown(1992) is directed to in-depth learning aboutbroad concepts of environmental science (e.g.,ecological interdependencies). A major goal ofthe Brown (1992) program is transfer of con-ceptual knowledge from the particular topic ofinstruction to new allied topics. Teachersemphasize collaborative teams with distributedexpertise across different members of the team.Although CORI also contains an emphasis onconceptual learning through team-based in-quiry, CORI places a higher emphasis ondirect strategy instruction, of multiple genreincluding novels and folktales, and literacy aswell as science learning.

Duffy (1993) has designed instruction instrategies for learning substantive content. In-struction in comprehension, integration, andcomposition was relatively individualized, andcognitive-strategy-centered. In comparison,CORI places relatively more emphasis on con-ceptual understanding, collaborative interac-tion, self-expression, and interdisciplinarystructure of content.


45


In conclusion, CORI draws upon the proj-ect-based emphasis of Blumenfeld et al. (1991)to underscore the importance of self-directedlearning toward intrinsically interesting goals.CORI relates closely to Brown's (1992) empha-sis on in-depth conceptual learning as a basisfor transfer and problem solving. CORI incor-porates the direct coaching of strategies forunderstanding text and learning science con-cepts exemplified by Duffy (1993) and Collins-Block (1992). In addition, CORI places aprominence on real-world experience. Hands-on activities are linked to literacy and con-ceptual goals. Self-expression of conceptualknowledge through informational writing,narrative compositions, video portrayals,posters, and dioramas are explicitly intertwinedinto the learning experience of students. Fi-nally, the hallmark of CORI is coherence ofexperience. Students link hands-on experiencewith text-based knowledge, individual endeavorwith collective effort, science explanations withliterate tools for inquiry, and school-relevantcurricular objectives with personally significantinterests. Finding ways to enhance the coher-ence of the classroom is one of our main,continuing goals for instructional design.

References

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C.(1991). Coming to terms: How researchers inlearning and literacy talk about knowledge.Review of Educational Research, 61, 315-343.

Anderson R. C., & Pearson P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. InR. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291).New York: Longman.

Armbruster, B. B., & Armstrong, J. (1993). Lo-cating information in text: A focus on childrenin the elementary grades. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 18, 139-161.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitiveskills and reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, &P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading re-search (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., &Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook ofreading research: Volume II. New York: Long-man.

Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration andthe disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kap-pan, 76, 616-622.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Inten-tional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruc-tion: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp.361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning andmotivation: Clarifying and expanding goaltheory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,272-281.

Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. (1988). Task fac-tors, teacher behavior and students' involvementand use of learning strategies in science. Ele-mentary School Journal, 88, 235-250. .

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., & Marx, R. W.(1991). Motivating project-based learning. Spe-cial issues: Current issues and new directions inmotivational theory and research. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 369-398.

Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (1991). A caveat: Cur-riculum integration isn't always a good idea.Educational Leadership, 49(2), 66.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theo-retical and methodological challenges in creatingcomplex interventions in classroom settings.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.


46


Carroll, J. B., & Freedle, R. 0. (1972). Languagecomprehension and the acquisition ofknowledge .Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons.

Chi, M. T. H., DeLeeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavan-cher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations im-proves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18,439-477.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The roleof anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: Atheoretical framework and implications forscience instruction. Review of Educational Re-search, 63,1-49.

Collins-Block, C. (1992). Strategy instruction in aliterature-based reading program. The Elemen-tary School Journal, 94, 139-151.

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology ofphysics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.

Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pear-son, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to thenew: Research on reading comprehension in-struction. Review of Educational Research, 61,239-264.

Duffy, G. G. (1993). Teachers progress towardbecoming expert strategy teachers. Specialissue: Strategies instruction. Elementary SchoolJournal, 94, 109-120.

Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K.(1991). A constructive view of learning science.In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton(Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp.3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graesser, A., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L.(1991). Narrative representation and compre-hension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosen-thal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 2, pp. 171-205). NewYork: Longman.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivationalinfluences on cognition: Task involvement, egoinvolvement, and depth of information process-

ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,187-194.

Guthrie, J. T., McCann, A., Hynd, C., & Stahl, S.(in press). Classroom contexts promoting liter-acy engagement. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, & J.Squire (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators:Research on teaching the communications andvisual arts. New York: Macmillan.

Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice,M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruc-tion: An integrated curriculum to develop moti-vations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker,P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Develop-ing engaged readers in school and home commu-nities (pp. 165-190). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situationalinterest and its impact on reading and expositorywriting. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A.Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learningand development (pp. 215-238). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hooper, M. L. (1994). The effects of high and lowlevel cognitive and literacy language arts taskson motivation and learning in multiability,multicultural classrooms: Developmental stud-ies. Learning and Instruction, 4, 233-251.

Jonassen, D., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993).Structural knowledge: Techniques for represent-ing conveying, and acquiring structural knowl-edge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitivedevelopment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krajcik, J. S. (1991). Developmental patterns instudents' understanding of physics concepts. InS. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton(Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp.117-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lipson, M. Y., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., &Peters, C. W. (1993). Integration and thematic


.47


teaching: Integration to improve teaching andlearning. Language Arts, 70, 252-263.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Knowledge and thought:Mental models that support scientific reasoning.In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.),Philosophy ofscience, cognitive psychology, andeducational theory and practice (pp. 226-273).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of develop-mental constraints on children's science instruc-tion. Review of Educational Research, 65,93-128.

Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learn-ing. American Educational Research Journal,28, 117-153.

Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situatedmotivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, &C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation,cognition, and learning (pp. 213-237). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perkins, D. (Ed.). (1992). Smart schools: Betterthinking and learning for every child. New

York: Simon & Schuster.Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben B. (1992). Students'

motivational beliefs and their cognitive engage-ment in classroom academic tasks. In D. H.Schunk & J. L. Meese (Eds.), Student percep-tions in the classroom (pp. 149-184). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reed, J. H., & Schallert, D. L. (1993). The natureof involvement in academic discourse tasks.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 253-266.

Reif, F. (1990). Transcending prevailing ap-proaches to science education. In M. Gardner,J. Greeno, F. Reif, A. Schoenfeld, A. diSessa,& E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a scientific practiceof science education (pp. 91-139). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Saul, W., Reardon, J., Schmidt, A., Pearce, C.,Blackwood, D., & Baird, M. (Eds.). (1993).Science workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann.

Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels oftext comprehension. In K. A. Renninger, S.Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest inlearning and development (pp. 151-212). Hills-dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995).Source of situational interest. Journal of Read-ing Behavior, 27,1-17.

Smith, E. L. (1991). A conceptual change modelof learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H.Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychologyof learning science (pp. 43-63). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spoehr, K. T. (1994). Enhancing the acquisition ofconceptual structures through hypermedia. InK. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrat-ing cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp.75-101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stephenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.). (1993).Integrated studies in the middle grades. NewYork: College Press.

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A concep-tual change view of learning and understanding.In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cogni-tive structure and conceptual change (pp. 189-209). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroomcontexts on young children's motivation forliteracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,410-441.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling theprocess of conceptual change. Learning andInstruction, 4, 45-69.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The devel-opment of achievement task values: A theo-retical analysis. Developmental Review, 12,265-310.


48


Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensionsof children's motivations for reading: An initialstudy (Reading Research Report No. 34). Ath-ens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgia andMaryland College Park.


49


Appendix

Rubrics for Coding the Performance Assessment

Prior Knowledge

This rubric was the same as the writing rubric.

Writing

Level 1

At this level the students presented: (1) no information; or (2) scientifically inaccurateinformation; or (3) one appropriately identified feature or specie for each biome; or (4) twofeatures or species for only one of the biomes.

Level 2

Students presented a combination of 2-4 general or specific features of the biomes or speciesfor at least one biome. However, no relationships among them were demonstrated. At this level,students may also present scientifically inaccurate information.

Level 3

At this level, the student may have presented accurate and relevant information for a minimumof four specific features of one biome. An alternative was that students could present anyrelationships or connections between the species and the features of the biome, but the relationshipswere implicit through comparison or vague. No explanations for relationship of features arepresented.

Level 4

At this level, a student presented all of the necessary elements for a level 3, but the relationshipsor connections between species and the features of the biome were presented explicitly. However,these relations were stated for only one biome and the other remains implicit or vague. Studentsmay also present their answer in the form of a clear relationship in one biome that was not transferrable to the other. Explanations were explicitly included and were distinguishable fromparticular facts or statements of biome and species characteristics.


50


Level 5

At this level, students wrote an explicit relationship between species and features for bothbiomes. The comparison was often parallel, with one type of animal in one biome comparable toa type of animal in the other biome showing asymmetry. However, answers at this level lackconnections between the relationships between the species and features. An alternative means forobtaining a level 5 was to present a systemic (level 6) response for only one biome with verylimited information on a second biome.

Level 6

At this level, students clearly explicated the principles that link the features of biomes in termsof "systems." For example, life cycles or adaptation.s of certain species and the relationships ofthese species and features of their respective biomes were stated. The systems are governed byprinciples centered around the availability of water, temperature, formations, of the biome, sur-vival, or food chains.

Drawing


Search

The rubric for search consisted of six levels. Several aspects of the log were incorporated intothe final reading including the number of relevant packets chosen by the students, the quality ofthe notes evidenced in the log, and the characteristics of the reasons given for choosing thepackets. Students' motivational characteristics such as elaboration, persistence, and apparentinterest in task were recognized.

Level 1 was assigned to student work in which responses were nonexistent, incoherent, orcompletely irrelevant to the question. Reasons for choosing the packet were not presented.

Level 2 was assigned to responses in which students reported 1-3 relevant packets. The noteshowever, showed vague information related to one plant or animal. Reasons for choosing the noteswere excluded or were self-referenced (such as, "I liked it").

Level 3 was assigned to responses in which 3-5 relevant packets were selected and severalirrelevant packets (1-3) may have been included. Notes appeared in the form of "captions" or titlesand headings. Usually 3-6 features or species were listed and a number of these features may bescientifically trivial. One packet usually showed the notes that reflected a written reason forchoosing them. However, the links between notes and packets were otherwise missing, incoherent,or repetitive.


51


Level 4 consisted of 2-5 relevant packets. From these a substantial number of appropriatestructures (3-15) for each biome was identified including plants, animals, weather, and soil of eachbiome.

Level 5 was assigned to responses in which 4-7 relevant packets were selected. The keystructures of both biomes of pond and desert were included and a few simple relations betweenparticular animals or between specific plants and biome features were expressed.

Level 6 consisted of 4-7 relevant packets with an explicit reason for them. The notes illustratedthe principle of adaptation for both plants and animals. At this level, life cycles of plants andanimals are shown be related to the features of biomes. The sequence of packets selected duringthe search showed cumulative development of biome and adaptive information about plants andanimals. The notes may have possessed the quality of "argument" if information is combined withreasoning to present a cogent viewpoint. The notes consistently contain information that fulfills thegoal stated in the reason.

The reasons for choosing packets were coded separately and combined with the initial levelsassigned to packet selection and quality of the notes.

Reasons at Level 1 were not presented or were not distinct from notes.Reasons at Level 3 were distinct from notes but were not topical or conceptual (e.g., "it was

interesting"). Reasons were not associated or connected to the content of the notes.Reasons at Level 5 consisted of 4-7 reasons stated distinctly from the notes. However, the

reasons were too general or too specific although they were related to the content of the notes fora majority of the packets.

At Level 6,5-9 reasons were presented. These reasons consisted of a goal for reading that wasat least as specific as the title for a major heading of the text, but was not a verbatim repetition.Reasons were presented in a definable sequence and related to the notes.

These levels of supplying reasons for choosing information were related to the initial coding.Having identified the rubric level based on selections and notes the coder then adjusted the levelbased on the coding for reasons according to the following table:

Selection and Notes Reasons Final Code

7,6 5 or 7 no change

7,6 3 or 1 reduce 1


5,4 3 reduce 1

5,4 1 reduce 2


3,2 1 reduce 1

1 1,3 or 5 no change


52


Transfer


Information Text Comprehension

Each question in this section was scored on a three-point scale (1-3). The scores range from4-12. The general standards for each answer consisted of the following:1. Inaccurate or an incoherent answer; the answer did not demonstrate an understanding of the

question or the text.2. Accurate response demonstrating an understanding of either of the text or the question.3. Accurate and elaborated response demonstrating a complete understanding of both the text and

the question.These expectations were applied to both grade-3 and grade-5 responses. For grade 3, Level 1

responses were consistently incoherent or irrelevant to the question. For grade 5, Level 1responses were incoherent, inaccurate, or extremely vague and general with one or two remotely

relevant pieces of information.Level 2 responses for grade 3 included a few important bits of information from the text and

one relevant point that addressed the question. For grade 5, Level 2 responses included a portionbut not all of the text-based information needed in the question. Relations between information andexplanations were absent or weakly stated.

Level 3 responses for third-grade included essential concepts, accurate information, and acompleteness of description. For grade 5, Level 3 responses contained full descriptions withrelations among concepts clearly defined. Explanations were provided if requested in the question.The response contained critical details and elaborated statements of their relationships to eachother.

Narrative Interpretation

The three questions in the narrative assessment task were each coded on three levels. Thisprovided a score of 3-9 on the narrative task for each student.

At Level 1, the students provided an irrelevant answer, an incoherent brief statement, noanswer, or a self-reference but not a text-reference response.

Level 2 responses for grade-3 and grade-5 students included appropriate information that wasvague, limited in scope, and/or marginally appropriate to the question. Level 3 responses forgrade-3 and grade-5 students included elaborate descriptions that were question-relevant and text-based. These students supported a general point with specific examples from the text and repliedto all parts of the question.


53

N N)MCNational

Reading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71253216J. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park MD 20742

54

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources information Center (ERIC)

_NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

MD. 96 54p. - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 400 523 CS 012 633 AUTHOR Guthrie, John T.; And Others...

Documents

Transcript of MD. 96 54p. - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 400 523 CS 012 633 AUTHOR Guthrie, John T.; And Others...