Rhode Island College

Digital Commons @ RIC

Master's Theses, Dissertations and Graduate
Research Overview

Master's Theses, Dissertations and Graduate

Research

Spring 4-2012

Describing Comprehension: Teachers'

Observations of Students' Reading
Comprehension
Susan Vander Does
Rhode Island College, svanderdoes@[Link]

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Elementary Education
and Teaching Commons, and the Other Teacher Education and Professional Development
Commons
Recommended Citation
Vander Does, Susan, "Describing Comprehension: Teachers' Observations of Students' Reading Comprehension" (2012). Master's
Theses, Dissertations and Graduate Research Overview. Paper 56.

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses, Dissertations and Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ RIC.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses, Dissertations and Graduate Research Overview by an authorized administrator of Digital
Commons @ RIC. For more information, please contact kayton@[Link], adavis@[Link].

DESCRIBING COMPREHENSION: TEACHERS OBSERVATIONS OF

STUDENTS READING COMPREHENSION
BY
SUSAN LUBOW VANDER DOES

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

AND
RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE

2012

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DISSERTATION

OF
SUSAN LUBOW VANDERDOES

APPROVED:
Dissertation Committee
Major Professor

Dr. James Barton

Dr. Jennifer Cook
Dr. Diane Kern
Dr. George Willis
Alexander Sidorkin
Dean, Feinstein School of Education - RIC
Nassar H. Zawia
Dean, The Graduate School - URI

UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

AND
RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE

2012

ABSTRACT
Teachers' observations of student performance in reading are abundant and
insightful but often remain internal and unarticulated. As a result, such observations
are an underutilized and undervalued source of data. Given the gaps in knowledge
about students reading comprehension that exist in formal assessments, the frequent
calls for teachers observational data to fill these gaps, and the paucity of research on
teachers as assessment instruments, this study sought to learn more about the
knowledge teachers gain about students comprehension through embedded
observation.
This research was framed by a transactional conception of reading and
informed by cognitive and sociocultural studies of reading comprehension. It was
guided by two questions: 1). What do teachers notice about students reading
comprehension? 2). How do they articulate what they observe and interpret?
Data were derived from a three-phased set of semi-structured interviews
conducted with ten study participants, teachers employing a transactional strategic
instructional approach in grades two through five. Quantitative and qualitative
analyses resulted in a comprehension framework that organizes teachers observations
into three categories: stance, technique, and interpretation. The three categories are
comprised of nine observed states and twenty-seven ranges with definitions and
exemplars derived from the data. Teachers observational methods are characterized
as a real-time data processing system in which dimensions of comprehension are
articulated as moments, patterns, and trends.

Implications for teachers, professional development and public policy are

discussed. First, a comprehension framework, drawn from participants observations
of student comprehension, is offered to teachers as a tool for reflecting on and
organizing knowledge of students gained through embedded observation. Multiple
forms of collaborative inquiry are suggested to support teachers interpretation and use
of observational data to inform instruction. Finally, active support for teachers local
and continuous knowledge construction and a greater appreciation of the complexity
and value of the data teachers generate through embedded observation are considered
essential to the implementation of data-based instruction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people supported me through this project.

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Jim Barton for his generous and insightful
guidance. Through the many years it took to shape and gently land this project, he
offered the just-right question, the enduring metaphor, the perfect balance of faith,
urgency, and kindness. I am grateful for every conversation, every minute we shared
in pursuit of this dissertation.
Thank you to my committee members Dr. Jennifer Cook, Dr. Diane Kern, and
Dr. George Willis. Their unique perspectives sparked fresh thinking at critical times
throughout this long journey.
Thank you to Dr. Marjorie Roemer, committee chair, mentor, and friend. As
director of the Rhode Island Writing Project, she welcomed me and countless others
into the world of teacher-research and built a home where inquiry and collaboration
thrive.
Thank you to my writing project friends and colleagues for being the
community I wish for every teacher to have.
Thank you to the school community of educators who inspired this research.
Their intelligent, confident, and compassionate practice made it possible to carry on
this investigation in their midst. I am forever grateful to the teachers who opened their
hearts and minds for the benefit of this work. Without the insight they shared about
their students, without their gift of time, without their trust, this study would not exist.

iv

Thank you to my mother and father, Dorothy and Sidney Lubow, and to my
mother and father-in-law, Lola and Bill Vander Does, for their love and for teaching
me to question the world and persevere. Thank you to my sister Nanette for being my
sister.
Thank you to the Lubow, Kalmus, and Vander Does extended families for the
love, laughter, and song that ground and inspire me.
Thank you to my children Emily and Jesse for putting up with way too much
teacher talk throughout their lives. They and Dan and Henry and Maayan bring joy
beyond measure.
Finally, I am deeply indebted to my husband Todd for his unwavering support.
How do I thank him for enduring an eight-year tug of war during which I
simultaneously begged for attention and solitude? There is no limit to my gratitude
and love.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 1
Justification for the Study ...................................................................................................................... 5
Defining Comprehension .................................................................................................................................. 5
Comprehension Instruction ............................................................................................................................. 7
Assessing Comprehension ................................................................................................................................ 8

Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................................................... 13

Reading Comprehension .................................................................................................................... 13

Historical Perspective ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Prior Knowledge ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Metacognition ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Teacher Knowledge .............................................................................................................................. 24

Teachers' Conceptions of Comprehension ............................................................................................. 24
Teachers' Knowledge of Students' Comprehension ........................................................................... 25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 31

The Researchers Perspective .......................................................................................................... 31

School Context ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Participants .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Pre-Study Professional Development ....................................................................................................... 37

Procedure .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 40

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 43

Parameters of the Data ................................................................................................................................... 43
Unit of Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 44
Method of Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Introduction. .................................................................................................................................................. 44
Question one. ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Question two. ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Inter-rater Reliability ...................................................................................................................................... 47

vi

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 49

Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 49
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Overview of results for question one. ................................................................................................. 50
Overview of results for question two. ................................................................................................ 52
Overview of combined results. .............................................................................................................. 53
Combined Results ............................................................................................................................................. 54
Stance. .............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Technique. ...................................................................................................................................................... 69
Interpretation. .............................................................................................................................................. 81

Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 90

Consolidation of Data ...................................................................................................................................... 90
Indicators of Separability .............................................................................................................................. 94
Closing Remarks ................................................................................................................................................ 96

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 98

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 98
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 100
Overview of the Comprehension Framework: What Do Teachers See? ................................. 101
Stance: What is Missing? ............................................................................................................................. 106
Technique: What is Everywhere But Hard to See? .......................................................................... 111
Interpretation: What is Most Important? ............................................................................................ 117
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 121

Implications ............................................................................................................................................ 122

Future Research ................................................................................................................................... 127
Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 128
Further Remarks .................................................................................................................................. 130
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................... 133
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................... 135
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................................... 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 138

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.0
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 4.0
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Table 4.18
Table 4.19
Table 4.20
Table 4.21
Table 4.22
Table 4.23
Table 4.24
Table 4.25
Table 4.26

Reflective Framework and Data Collection Timeline .............................. 42

Definition of an Observation .................................................................... 44
Research Questions and Data Sources ...................................................... 44
Overview of Organizational Framework .................................................. 51
Distribution of Comprehension Categories .............................................. 52
Definitions of Articulation Codes ............................................................. 52
Distribution of Articulation Codes............................................................ 53
Ranges Within Observed States of Stance ................................................ 54
Definitions and Examples of Stance / Expectation for Meaning .............. 55
Definitions and Examples of Stance / Engagement .................................. 58
Definitions and Examples of Stance / Analytic ........................................ 61
Definitions and Examples of Stance / Critical .......................................... 65
Distribution of Observed States: Stance .................................................. 67
Distribution of Articulation: Stance by Observed State .......................... 69
Ranges Within Observed States of Technique.......................................... 70
Definitions and Examples of Technique / Access Prior Knowledge ........ 71
Definitions and Examples of Technique / Monitor................................... 75
Definitions and Examples of Technique / Synthesis ................................ 77
Distribution of Observed States: Technique ............................................ 79
Distribution of Articulation: Technique by Observed State .................... 81
Ranges Within Observed States of Interpretation ..................................... 82
Definitions and Examples of Interpretation / Literal ................................ 82
Definitions and Examples of Interpretation / Abstract ............................. 85
Distribution of Observed States: Interpretation ....................................... 88
Distribution of Articulation: Interpretation by Observed State ............... 89
Organizational Framework of Comprehension Categories ....................... 91
Distribution of Comprehension Category by Observed State................... 92
Distribution of Comprehension Category Across Data Set ...................... 92
Distribution of Articulation Code by Observed State ............................... 93
Distribution of Articulation Code Across Data Set .................................. 93

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:

Conception of Reading Comprehension ........................................................ 6

Observed States Within Stance ................................................................... 68
Articulation Codes Within Stance ............................................................... 68
Observed States Within Technique ............................................................. 80
Articulation Codes Within Technique ......................................................... 80
Observed States Within Interpretation ........................................................ 88
Articulation Codes Within Interpretation .................................................... 89

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
This study examines teachers' observations of students' reading
comprehension. Its purpose is to shed light on the processes of observation and
interpretation teachers employ while interacting with students as they read.
Observation is defined as a naturalistic method of inquiry in which the human being is
the research instrument (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). It subsumes three methods of data
collection: participant observation, informant interviewing, and enumerations and
samples (McCall & Simmons, 1969, as cited in Guba & Lincoln, 1981). This study is
based on the belief that the teacher is the "primary agent of assessment" in a child's
education (International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of
English Joint Task Force on Assessment, 1994) and that a great majority of the data
teachers collect, especially regarding reading comprehension, are observational
(Meisels & Piker, 2001).
Teachers' observations of students' reading comprehension are abundant
(Meisels & Piker, 2001; Hall & Webber, 1997; Paris, Paris & Carpenter, 2001;
Stiggins and Bridgeford, 1985) and insightful (Johnston, Weiss, & Afflerbach, 1990),
but often remain internal and unarticulated (Hall & Webber, 1997). As a result, such
observations are an underutilized and undervalued source of data (Johnston &
Costello, 2005; Stiggins, 2002). However, when teachers are given a framework for
reflection, the resulting articulated observations constitute a body of data that
effectively describe students' thinking and inform instruction (Afflerbach, 1992).

The conceptual framework of teachers' knowledge that undergirds this study

incorporates notions of teaching and assessment as a reflective practice: as science, as
art, and as craft (Broadfoot and Black, 2004; Eisner, 2003; Schwab, 1983; Shulman,
1986; Schon, 1992). Shulman (1986) says that teachers' knowledge comes in the form
of propositions and statements or theories to be demonstrated which are the result of
formal research and "wisdom in practice." His notion of "wisdom in practice" is
similar to ideas put forth by Schon's (1992) "knowing-in-action," Dewey's
(1910/1997) "reflective thought," and Cochran-Smith and Lytle's (1999) "knowledgein-practice." Though there are differences among these terms, in general, they are
used to represent knowledge that teachers construct as a result of experience and
reflection: the interplay between internal and external, explicit and implicit theoretical
knowledge and theory of action. They each attempt to explain the epistemological and
phenomenological aspects of "on the job" knowledge construction through "reflective
practice" (Greene, 2000).
In Clark and Peterson's (1986) review of the research on teachers' thought
processes, planning, decision-making, judgment, implicit theories, expectations, and
attributions are identified as aspects of the construct. Studies in this field seek to
understand how teachers make sense of and act in the complex situations that are
characteristic of their everyday practice. They are motivated by findings regarding the
positive relationship between teacher knowledge (Goodman and Watson, 1977) and
teacher decision-making (Borko, Shavelson, and Stern, 1981) on student learning.
Teachers content knowledge, categorized by Shulman (1986) as subject matter,
pedagogical, and curricular knowledge, is implicit in all aspects of teachers' thought

processes. Teachers' knowledge of individual students what they know and how
they learn (Hiebert, Gallimore, and Stigler, 2002) is subsumed by each of the content
categories in Shulman's framework. Teachers' observations, in general, are
emblematic of the complex and dynamic relationship between teachers' content
knowledge and knowledge of students.
In the field of assessment, teachers' observations may be categorized as
formative. That is, observation is a formative assessment tool when it provides
teachers with information that serves to modify instruction and promote learning
(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Rea-Dickens, 2001). Even though formative assessment is
considered one of the most important instruments for improving teaching and learning
(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Rea-Dickens & Gardner, 2000), little is known about the vast
amount of observational data collected and processed by teachers (Duke, 2005). In the
realm of reading research and policy, where disagreement about assessment seems to
be the rule, there is consensus about the limitations of current formal instruments of
reading (Sweet, 2005; Pearson & Hamm, 2005; Murphy, 1998). Three of a larger list
of problems cited by the Rand Reading Study Group (Sweet, 2005) of available
assessment instruments are: (1) their inadequate representation of the complexities of
reading comprehension; (2) their bias toward underlying assumptions of the dominant
language and culture group (Johnston, 1984); and (3) the uselessness of the data they
generate for teachers. In ten years of research on exceptional and not so exceptional
elementary literacy teachers, Pressley (2005) reports, "we have not found one instance
where a classroom teacher used standardized test data to make instructional decisions
about a student" (p. 311).

Meisels & Piker (2001) conducted a survey to find out what assessment tools
teachers used to assess early reading. They found observation to be the most common
methodology, but guidelines for observing, sparse. They suggest, "more detailed
instructions to provide teachers with an understanding of why certain types of
information should be observed rather than others" (p. 32). In a study of teachers'
assessment of literacy learning, Johnston, Weiss, and Afflerbach (1990) found that the
primary source of knowledge about students for all teachers, regardless of their
teaching context or knowledge about literature, was observation of student behavior
and student talk.
Even though research verifies their abundance and importance, little is known
about the quality, process, and content of teachers' observations of students' reading
comprehension. If teachers are the primary assessors of students, and if instructional
decisions about reading are based on teachers' understanding of and response to the
idiosyncrasies of students' ways with text, then it is important to know more about the
nature of teachers' daily observations and interpretations of students' reading
comprehension. This inquiry is framed by two questions: What do teachers notice
about students' reading comprehension? How do they articulate what they observe
and interpret?

Justification for the Study

Defining Comprehension
Reading is a uniquely human experience that allows us to communicate with
distant others. To read and comprehend a text is to commence an intellectual,
emotional, aesthetic, and social process. Drawn from the constructivist paradigm,
Eleanor Duckworth's (1987) exuberant phrase "the having of wonderful ideas," speaks
to a view of learning as a process marked by particular moments of discovery when
what was previously unknown or unclear takes on new meaning or relevance. In this
sense, discovery does not refer to a finding or invention that is new for the community
at-large, but rather to that which is novel for an individual learner. Reading
comprehension too, is a process of discovery, different for all readers by virtue of their
experience, social relations, habits of mind, and emotional fabric. By reading and
comprehending, people create intellectual, emotional, and cultural products to enrich
their personal, professional, and civic lives. Readers clarify, revise, and extend what
they already know. They savor the beauty of language and marvel at its power. They
think. They feel. They question. They change.
My conception of comprehension is conveyed by the image of a harmonica
(see Figure 1). Tones are produced when a harmonica player inhales or exhales
through the openings that lead to reeds inside the instrument. The quality of sound
created is dependent upon the construction and quality of the harmonica and upon the
experience of the player. In much the same way, a reader inhales and exhales as they
engage with text. Meaning is shaped by the content and quality of the text and by the

readers experience. Reader and text mingle and merge to construct meaning. This
dynamic exchange of "air" represents the transactional nature of the reading process
(Rosenblatt, 1936). As tonality, emotion, and style yield musical variety, three
dimensions of human engagement, the cognitive, socio-cultural, and
affective/aesthetic account for diversity in creation and interpretation of a text. Like
the harmonica, whose tones are often played in unison to great effect, aspects of
reading within and among these dimensions are orchestrated and intertwined. Thus,
reading comprehension is the harmonic rendering of thinking, feeling, experience, and
social interaction.
Figure 1: Conception of Reading Comprehension

Comprehension Instruction
Comprehension instruction informed by a socio-cognitive conception has been
termed transactional strategies instruction (Pressley & El-Dinary, 1992). This
approach acknowledges the transaction between reader and text and the harmonic
interplay between cognitive, social, and affective aspects of reading for meaning.
Instruction guided by this conception implies a shift from the traditional I/R/E
(initiate, respond, evaluate), (Cazden, 1988) pattern of classroom discourse where
teachers' questions prompt discussions and teacher talk accounts for most language
produced in the classroom. In a transactional strategic approach, students' thinking is
at the center of the curriculum. Teachers think-aloud as they read to demonstrate
cognitive, affective, and critical response to text. Instruction includes direct
explanation and reflections about what, how, and why a particular strategy is used in
order to promote students' metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. Teaching
follows a release of responsibility framework (Vygotsky, 1978) by scaffolding
students' engagement (Bruner, 1956) and offering opportunities for guided practice.
Instruction is responsive and flexible (Pressley & El-Dinary, 1992). Speaking,
writing, and listening are important tools for the development of thinking and response
to text. Time for student talk is frequent with opportunities before, during, and after
reading to think-aloud or engage in open-ended literate conversations with members of
the class. Written responses are also evident in jottings (a written form of think-aloud)
and in more developed pieces.
Judith Langer's (1995) work on envisioning literature, an elaboration of
Rosenblatt's transaction theories regarding the dynamic relationship between a reader

and a text, offers teachers a framework for thinking about a reader's interpretive
journey within this instructional context. She identifies four stances readers take in
the process of "envisionment building." The first stance, "being out and stepping into
an envisionment," is what a reader does when they form initial impressions using prior
knowledge and surface features of the text. Stance 2, "being in and moving through
an envisionment," describes the way a reader becomes more immersed in the "textworld" created by the author using knowledge of the self, the text, and of others.
Stance 3, "stepping out and rethinking what one knows," is when a reader uses what
they have learned from the text to expand their knowledge. It represents a shift from
the use of prior knowledge to understand the text-world, to thoughts about how the
text impacts or changes a reader's thinking. The fourth stance, "stepping out and
objectifying the experience," is when the reader reflects or analyzes the reading
experience or the literary text. The complex conception of comprehension and process
based methods of instruction presented here demand the use of assessments reaching
beyond traditional content-based literature exams.

Assessing Comprehension
Teacher observation is frequently identified in the literature as a way to assess
students' reading comprehension (Clay, 1991; Fountas & Pinnell, 2001; Johnston,
1997; Goodman, 1996; Valencia, 2007; Hilden & Pressley, 2007). This emphasis is
justifiable given teachers' close relationships and proximity to the many aspects of
students' lives. In this view, assessment is "less a technical matter of developing
accurate measuring instruments" and more a social process (Johnston & Costello,

2005, p. 258). Much like reading, assessment may be understood as a multidimensional interpretive process where dimensions of comprehension mirror
dimensions of assessment.
Because instruction focuses on comprehension processes that students can
carry forward to other texts, correct answers to teachers' questions about a particular
text are no longer a sufficient measure of comprehension. Assessment requires
teachers' attention to students' activation of prior knowledge, self-questioning,
metacognition (Sweet, 2005), predicting, determining importance, visualizing, and
inferring (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), a few among many other reading strategies.
So much about students' comprehension is made evident during complex languagerich classroom interactions. This places great demands on teachers who are highly
engaged participants in the very processes they seek to observe and interpret.
Checklists and anecdotal notes suggested as tools for observational data
collection (Clay, 1991; Fountas & Pinnell, 2001; Valencia, 2007; Miller-Powers,
1996) imply a relationship between observation and the creation of a cumulative
written record. As important as a written record is, most of what a teacher observes is
not recorded (Valencia & Place, 1994; Carini,1986). Instead, observations are
processed for immediate response, stored in a teacher's memory for reflection and
future action, disregarded, or forgotten. Observations are so embedded in the
processes of teaching and learning that teachers find their form and substance difficult
to describe (Hall & Webber, 1997).
The limited "technology" available to teachers for assessing reading
comprehension may be due in part to the paucity of research looking closely at

teachers themselves as legitimate assessment instruments. In the literature, teachers'

observational assessments are referred to as "informal" because they are not
generalizable. Johnston and Costello (2005) suggest the lack of authority associated
with observational data is due to the absence of a textual record, and because "they are
the purview of teachers, mostly women, and they are not normally in the language of
mathematics" (p. 263).
Duke (2005) says the gaps in knowledge about students' comprehension that
exist in formal assessments of reading, about engagement, attitude, prior knowledge,
and metacognition are the very gaps teachers try to fill every day. She asserts that
even if a comprehensive system of assessments could be developed to capture all the
dimensions of reading, it would not be practical to administer them. Duke reminds us,
"The burden will fall on teachers to use informal means and everyday observation to
supplement our measures in the many types of text, domains, and situations that our
assessments fail to tap," and calls for "an active program of research and development
on teachers as assessors" (2005, p. 103).

Purpose of the Study

Despite this call, state and federal education policy legislates accountability
testing, progress monitoring, and data-driven instruction, mandates that divert
attention and resources away from research and development of teachers as
assessment instruments. Steeped in the discourses of behaviorist learning theory and
database management, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RTTT)
Response to Intervention (RTI), teacher evaluation systems employing value-added
formulas, and special education regulations require teachers to set narrow learning
10

goals and measure outcomes quantitatively. In this paradigm, monitoring reading

progress is reduced to graphing accuracy and fluency rates or tracking movement
through text levels. Comprehension, deemed difficult to measure, is inferred from the
predictive value of a student's calculated fluency rate, represented by a narrow
assessment of comprehension, such as retelling, or signified by performance on a
benchmarked text. Rather than develop and promote teachers' observational data as a
way to capture and understand the most complex aspects of comprehension, current
public policy forces teachers to operate under such a constrained notion of what
constitutes data that it effectively removes their knowledge from official
consideration. This impoverished view of inquiry marginalizes teachers'
understandings of students, of curriculum, of teaching and learning, and diminishes
the power of observational data to function formatively. Pressley and Hilden (2005)
remind us, "science that informs and transforms the education of teachers is going to
be concrete, in the form of images, or at least imaginable from verbal descriptions" (p.
310). This is also true for the data teachers use to inform instruction and transform
student learning. To be of use, data must provide teachers with descriptions of
students at work in relation to specific challenges. Tests whose results are reduced to
a raw score or percentile rank do not provide the concrete images and descriptions of
student performance teachers need most to make informed decisions about instruction.
Given the complex conception of reading that informs current comprehension
instruction and the frequency with which teacher observation is identified as a method
for assessing the most test-resistant aspects of reading, it is surprising so little research
focuses on teachers as assessment instruments. The purpose of this study is to learn

11

more about assessment of reading comprehension from a teacher's perspective in the

realm of practice where "design and intention collide with chance" (Shulman, 1998, p.
519). How do teachers use their "human judgment to create bridges between the
universal terms of theory and the gritty particularities of situated practice" (Shulman,
1998, p. 519)? How do teachers make sense of the complexity and unpredictability of
their students' processes of reading for meaning? What do they notice about students'
reading comprehension? How do they articulate what they observe and interpret? By
studying teachers' observations, I hope to give form, voice, and authority to the
knowledge they construct about students' reading comprehension.

12

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reading Comprehension
Historical Perspective
Current conceptions of comprehension are informed by diverse disciplines of
study: cognitive science, psychology, sociology, linguistics, cultural studies, literary
criticism, and composition (Gee, 2000; Alexander & Jetton, 2000; Wilkinson &
Silliman, 2000; Marhsall, 2000; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Pressley, 2000; Snow,
2002). A convergence of perspectives among thinkers in these disciplines has
contributed to an expanded view of what it means to read and comprehend. In the
1950s however, driven by behavioral psychology, reading was explained in narrow
terms of stimulus/response theory. Based on task analyses of reading (Rosenshine,
1980), instruction was designed to provide opportunities to practice identified subskills. It was believed that if, for example, students practiced and could successfully
identify the main idea or sequence a series of events, they could apply these skills to
their reading of continuous text. Based upon this theory, publishers produced basal
readers complete with scripted teachers' manuals, workbooks, teaching charts, and
assessments. In 1977, the Educational Product Information Exchange Institute
reported, "95% of what is done in classrooms can be attributed to commercially
prepared materials" (as cited in Durkin, 1978-1979, p. 523.) Publishers justified the
technical control their programs exerted by claiming that teachers did not have the
knowledge necessary for teaching reading. This pejorative assumption has contributed
to the "deskilling of teachers" (Shannon, 1989) and loss of professional authority.

13

In preparation for an observational study of comprehension instruction, Durkin

(1978-1979) searched the literature for a working definition of comprehension.
Representative of thinking at the time, she cites Bormuth's (1969) definition - "a set of
generalized knowledge and acquisition of skills which permit people to acquire and
exhibit information gained as a consequence of reading printed language" (p. 50) - as
one of the better ones. Without much else to build upon, Durkin defined
comprehension instruction and comprehension application for her study respectively
as, "Teacher does/says something to help children understand or work out the meaning
of more than a single, isolated word," and "Teacher does/says something in order to
learn whether previous instruction enables children to understand the meaning of
connected text not used in that instruction" (p. 488). Even with such an open
definition to guide her analysis of what qualified as comprehension instruction, she
observed almost none. Rather, she found teachers mentioning texts, giving
assignments, checking, or interrogating students for assessment purposes.
In the 1970s, cognitive psychologists began looking at ways people solve
problems. Olshavsky (1976-77) was among the first to apply this idea to reading.
Thus began a wave of studies focusing on reading as a cognitive problem-solving
process. Pressley & Afflerbach (1995) conducted a meta-review of cognitiveprocessing studies of reading comprehension that employed think-aloud and verbal
protocol methodology. These investigations focused on proficient readers and yielded
categories of strategies used before, during, and after reading such as constructing a
goal, predicting, activating prior knowledge, determining importance, self-monitoring,
self-questioning, visualizing, hypothesizing, making inferences, and drawing

14

conclusions. This body of work provided the field with a vision for teaching
comprehension.
Studies testing the efficacy of training in the use of strategies such as
summarization (Palincsar and Brown, 1984), inference (Dewitz, Carr, & Patberg,
1986), and self-questioning (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996; Wong, 1985)
followed. In a review of strategies proven to produce memory and comprehension
gains, Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita (1989), cite summarization,
mental imagery, story-grammar, question-generation, question-answering, and
inference strategies as most effective and instructionally efficient. Reciprocal
teaching, a mode of instruction based upon Vygotskian notions of scaffolding and
teaching in advance of competence was used as a method for teaching bundled
strategies such as summarizing, self-questioning, clarifying, and predicting in the
context of an actual reading task. In a review of research on reciprocal teaching,
Rosenshine & Meister (1994) report effect sizes on comprehension of .32 when a
standardized test was the outcome measure and .88 when a researcher-developed tool
was used. This discrepancy demonstrates what happens when assessments are
conceptually incompatible with instruction. Standardized tests do not capture
dimensions of development embodied by Vygotskian principles of learning.

Prior Knowledge
In this section I review literature that describes the cognitive, sociocultural, and
affective dimensions of prior knowledge as it relates to reading comprehension. Prior
knowledge in the cognitive domain of reading comprehension research is described in

15

terms of schema theory. Schemata are networks of mental structures that incorporate
and organize one's general knowledge of the world (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). The
concept of schema is attributed to Bartlett (1932) who studied subjects' recall of
culturally unfamiliar text. With repeated readings, he found their retellings contained
less information, more intrusions and disambiguations (a reader's attempt to make a
match between the text and their existing schema to construct meaning). Bartlett
concluded that memory is not a process of simple retrieval, but rather an active
process of construction involving an individual's entire knowledge system. While
Bartlett's ideas were rebutted for decades, they were revisited in the 1970s termed as
frames (Minsky, 1975), scripts (Schank & Abelson, 1977) and schemata (Anderson
and Pearson, 1984) and have become central to modern elaborations of schema theory
and consequent constructivist conceptions of knowledge acquisition. Schemata are
characterized as networks of connections between high-level summary concepts
within which exemplars or other ideas fit, an umbrella under which related ideas are
gathered. These networks are dynamic. That is they are subject to reorganization
through processes of assimilation and accommodation (Piaget, 1977).
In reading comprehension, prior knowledge relates to domain specific
knowledge what is known about the particular content in a text; knowledge of text
structure and genre what is known about form and conventions; socio-cultural
knowledge beliefs and cultural experiences that shape one's habits of mind; and
knowledge of discourse expected linguistic and communicative patterns (Dole,
Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991). In general, research reveals a direct relationship
between levels of prior knowledge and comprehension at literal and inferential levels

16

for children and adults (Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989;
Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, & Lawton, 1977) and characterizes activation of
prior knowledge as mostly automatic, in contrast to the other reading strategies that
can be consciously controlled (Pressley, 2000).
Afflerbach (1990) studied the effect of prior knowledge on expert readers'
strategies for construction of main idea statements. His experiment confirmed
Johnston & Afflerbach's (1985) finding that readers are more likely to make initial
hypotheses or automatically construct main idea statements when reading a text with
familiar content, but employ strategies of draft and revise, topic/comment, and list,
with unfamiliar text. Other studies investigated the relationship of prior knowledge to
inferential thinking. Given the notion that a text is never fully explicit, Anderson,
Reynolds, Shallert, & Goetz (1977) examined the effect of experience on readers'
interpretation of text. Physical education and music students were asked to read two
intentionally ambiguous passages. One could be interpreted as a prison break or
wrestling match, the other about card playing or music rehearsal. The authors
conclude that prior knowledge plays a role in inferential elaboration as when readers
"read between the lines" about characters' motives or mental states and predict
outcomes or events. They claim dominant high-level schema, a reader's predominant
orientation or perspective, can "cause a person to give one interpretation to a passage
without even considering other possible interpretations" (Anderson et al., 1977, p.
371).
Anderson, Reynolds, Shallert, & Goetz (1977) draw three conclusions from
this study relevant to instruction. First, a breakdown in comprehension may be

17

attributed to deficits in knowledge rather than in "linguistic skill narrowly conceived."

Second, a reader may have difficulty activating relevant schema or lack the flexibility
needed to adjust to a different knowledge structure when the first proves inadequate.
Third, nearly one-third of the recall protocols (the retellings of study participants) did
not reveal readers' underlying interpretations. Although "slots" were appropriately
filled and enough elements of the text were accounted for in retellings to suggest a
literal understanding, retelling did not reveal whether a reader thought the passage was
about a prison break or wrestling match. The finding that content schemata matching
(as measured by retelling) does not provide sufficient insight into a readers
comprehension is interpreted by the researchers as having important implications
regarding prior knowledge and assessment when "gaps" in knowledge that may be
viewed as "blemishes" may actually be indicative of a very "different point of view."
Their data also suggest instruction focusing on literal recall may cause students to
believe it is wrong to bring their prior knowledge to bear on a text, and best to, "play it
safe, to read word by word and line by line" (Anderson et al., 1977, p. 378). This
speculation was given credence by a student participant of an inference and question
answering training study (Hansen & Pearson, 1982) who said, "I didn't know it was
okay to use my head to answer questions" (p. 21). These studies found that struggling
readers benefited more from explicit strategic training than did more proficient readers
and call attention to the metacognitive dimension of comprehension which I will
address later in this review.
A study by Steffensen, Joag-Dev, & Anderson (1979) attempted to isolate
cultural schemata as a variable in text comprehension by asking American and Indian

18

(natives of Asia) participants to read passages about American and Indian marriage
customs. Reading rate, recall of text elements, and text modifications were assessed in
relation to culturally familiar concepts. All variables were positively correlated.
Studies of culture in the cognitive domain, like this one, attempt to quantify the effect
of cultural schemata on reading comprehension by treating culture as an independent
variable (Cole, 1985). Cognitive psychologists consider culture an aspect of prior
knowledge and view it as a network of domain specific knowledge structures
associated with comprehension in a cause and effect relationship. Cole warns that
such an approach "precludes analysis of change . . . of the intimate mechanisms that
transform culture into cognition" (p. 147). He suggests that without an integrative
view of cognition, cross-cultural psychology, and anthropology, each field is "trapped
in its own set of phenomena, sealed off methodologically from the other" (p.148).
Cole goes on to say that Vygotsky's work creates the necessary bridge between the
study of culture, cognition, and cognitive development.
Vygotsky's socio-cultural or socio-historical work attributes psychological
development to the mediating effect of culture and social interaction. He says,
"human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children
grow into the intellectual life of those around them" (1978, p. 83). He explains that
higher psychological functions move from an interpsychological plane when
intellectual functions are supported externally by a more experienced learner, to an
intrapsychological plane when an individual internalizes the processes. Vygotsky
coined the phrase "zone of proximal development" which he describes as, "the
distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent

19

problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through

problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p.
86). He asserts, "the only good learning is that which is in advance of development"
(p. 89). Bruner uses the term "scaffold" (1985, p. 25) to conceptualize the dynamic
support given to a learner by a mentor or teacher that allows an individual to function
in advance of their development.
How do these theories inform our understanding of the socio-cultural
dimensions of prior knowledge in relation to reading comprehension? They tell us
that the cultural dimension of prior knowledge in reading comprises much more than a
one for one match between "cultural" concepts located in a text to "cultural" concepts
in a reader's schema. Vygotksy's theories expand the notion of schema from
conceptual knowledge about culture to abstract psychological processes associated
with a culture or community of practice: ways of seeing the world, ways of feeling the
world, ways of thinking about the world, and in turn, ways of reading and interpreting
a text. If learners grow into the intellectual life of those around them, every aspect of
their social and cultural life has implications for the way they read and interpret text.
For example, in an in-depth ethnographic study of the literacy practices of an
Amish community, Fishman (1988) found six identifiable abilities that count as
reading: to choose and discriminate among texts; to read written directions; to recall
what is read; to memorize what is read; to synthesize within or across texts to draw
conclusions that are in accordance with community beliefs; and to empathize with
characters for the purpose of "explicitly or implicitly drawing morals to one's own
life" (p. 134). She also found two skills that do not count as reading: literary

20

appreciation and literary criticism. That is, the Amish do not read to notice literary
technique or analyze its components. Rather than objectify the text, they appreciate its
instructive and empathic power and "find the connection between what is written,
what is felt or believed, and what should be done" (Fishman, 1988, p. 137). In this
community of practice, (Fish, 1980) interpretations are made by consensus and are
talked about as how "we" would read a particular text. Fishman (1988) says, "minds
exist not in social or cultural vacuums but in interpretive communities" (p. 167).
To explain the aesthetic/affective dimension of prior knowledge, I draw on the
reader response theories of Louise Rosenblatt (1995). Rosenblatt proposes that
readers engage with text on a continuum of purpose, from efferent reading to
abstract or analyze information or ideas in a text, to aesthetic - "to live through" a text
to experience it artistically and emotionally. Rosenblatt says, "An intense response to
a work will have its roots in the capacities and experiences already present in the
personality and mind of the reader" (1995, p. 41). Thus, an individual's emotional
experience can be understood as prior knowledge in the affective domain.
Additionally, reading can broaden one's emotional experience, expanding emotional
schema, by giving form to a reader's "nebulous emotions."

Metacognition
Flavell (1976) defines metacognition as "one's knowledge concerning one's
own cognitive processes and products" including, "the active monitoring and
consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes" (p. 232). Brown (1980)
associates this reflective state of mind with Vygtosky's ideas about the development of

21

thought from automatic and unconscious to active conscious control. In the fields of
cognitive and developmental psychology, interest in metacognition marked a research
shift from training studies to promote learning to those focused on instructing
participants to extend their own learning (Brown, Campione, and Day, 1981), or
learning how to learn.
In reading comprehension, metacognition refers to: (1) what one knows about
one's cognition; (2) one's awareness of understanding or break down - or as Brown
says, "knowing when you know and when you don't know," and (3) the repertoire of
strategies one employs to repair comprehension when a gap in understanding is
noticed. Paris and Jacobs (1984) describe the reasoning associated with children's
reading awareness of comprehension in three skill categories: evaluation appraisal
of the task and of one's cognitive ability; planning selection of actions to reach
goals; and regulation monitoring and redirecting one's efforts. Additionally, Paris
and Jacobs say this kind of reasoning is informed by declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is knowledge about a domain or
"knowing that." Procedural knowledge is "knowing how," (Bruner, 1972).
Conditional knowledge is knowing when and why to apply strategies. Metacognitive
readers are described as planful and flexible, as opposed to mechanical, though Baker
and Brown (1984) point out that strategic or planful behavior is required when a text
presents moderate challenge, or a "triggering event." If it is too easy, processing is
not conscious; if it is too difficult, the reader gives up.
Reading strategies associated with comprehension monitoring are setting
purposes or goals for reading, self-questioning, paraphrasing and summarizing,

22

integrating prior knowledge with content, and evaluative actions such as making,
confirming or revising predictions or assumptions. Compensatory strategies for
regulating or repairing comprehension are rereading, backward and forward searching,
slowing of reading rate, self-questioning, connecting text with prior knowledge, and
comparing main ideas with details (Haller, Child, and Walberg, 1988). In a
quantitative synthesis of metacognitive intervention studies, Haller, Child, and
Walberg (1988) report an effect size of .71, one of the largest in educational research.
This body of work strongly supports the claim that reading comprehension can be
taught.
In the early stages of metacognitive research, Brown (1980) acknowledged the
challenge of studying the phenomena in children who are less conscious of their
mental processing, less able to be introspective, and less able to exert conscious
control over their cognitive activity. The field faced the methodological challenge of
externalizing the mental events of metacognition through various procedures:
interviewing readers retrospectively, inserting questions in text to document readers'
strategic behavior, training participants to think-aloud using "on-line" verbal
protocols, presenting subjects with ambiguous or incomplete text to observe their "fixup" strategies, and asking readers to assume a teaching role in order to externalize the
strategies they are able to employ (Garner, Wagoner, and Smith,1983). It is
interesting to note that, although the same methodological challenges (compounded by
the demands of the busy classroom) exist for teachers, informal observation is
frequently recommended as a way to assess students' cognitive and metacognitive
processes, (Pintrich, 2002) though little attention has been paid to how they do it.

23

Teacher Knowledge
Teachers' Conceptions of Comprehension
Ironically, studies of teachers' conceptions of reading comprehension and
decision-making conducted in the 1970s and 1980s reveal more about systemic
constraints on teachers' thoughts and decision-making processes than on the thoughts
and decisions themselves. Since the 1940s, test makers, curriculum developers
(mostly in the form of basal text book authors and publishers) and administrators
enforcing the use and pacing of specific programs have exerted technical control of
reading curricula and instruction in the United States (Duffy, Roehler, & Putnam,
1987; Shannon, 1983; 2007; Paris, Wixson, Palincsar, 1986; Richardson, Anders,
Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991). Master developers provided teachers with scope and
sequence charts, scripted teachers' manuals, grade level readings, workbooks for skills
practice, and unit tests to monitor progress for the purpose of controlling teacher
behavior and improving instructional quality.
The reification of comprehension, (Shannon, 2007) the belief that the reading
program is reading effectively usurped teachers' authority over instruction and
assessment in their classrooms, short-circuiting processes of knowledge construction
(Darling-Hammond, 1994) and instructional decision-making. This is evidenced by
findings contained in the final report of a four-year research project designed to
determine the relationship between teachers' conceptions of reading and their
instructional practice. Duffy and Anderson (1982) found that, "teachers' content of
instruction was more a result of the directives of the materials than the judgments of
the teacher" (p. 41). In a similar study of teachers' concepts of reading and

24

instructional decision-making, Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd (1991)

conclude, "although they used the basals somewhat flexibly, these materials still
governed the teachers' thinking about the teaching of reading" (p. 579). Additionally,
in an article analyzing the relationship between instructional decision-making and
basal reading textbooks, Duffy, Roehler, and Putnam (1987) state, "although effective
reading instruction demands independent decision-making, many elementary teachers
do not feel free to make decisions. Expectations for how the basal textbook is to be
used are a major factor in contributing to this situation" (p. 364). Constraints placed
on teachers instructional decisions through curricular control have parallel effects on
teachers knowledge of students.

Teachers' Knowledge of Students' Comprehension

Programmed instruction exerts similar constraints on teachers' knowledge
about students' comprehension because of the control it places on student behavior and
engagement. Johnston, Weiss, and Afflerbach (1990) studied teachers' descriptions of
students' literacy development in more or less controlled instructional settings to learn
about the knowledge teachers bring to bear on their evaluations of students. Though
all teachers mentioned classroom observation as a method of assessment, they found
that teachers who had more knowledge of literature and taught with fewer external
restraints such as those imposed by basal readers and extensive high-profile testing
systems, relied more heavily on observations of student behavior and talk about books,
and offered more detailed descriptions of students.

25

Of particular relevance to a study of teachers' observations and interpretations

of students' development is what Pat Carini (1979; 1986; 2000; 2001) refers to as the
visibility of the child. She describes the child as "maker" whose natural inclination is
to create and interact with his or her environment and reminds us of a fundamental
relationship between the range of possibility for engagement afforded to a child in a
given environment and the degree to which a child's development is observable.
Therefore, to study teachers' observations of reading comprehension, it is important to
ask, to what extent is a child's thinking made visible in a particular teaching context?
Teachers' conceptions or theoretical frameworks also affect what they notice
and how they interpret what they observe. Conducted in the field of mathematics
instruction, the Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) research project (Carpenter,
Fennema, Peterson, & Loef, 1989) sheds light on how teachers' knowledge of
descriptive research on children's thinking (cognitive strategies for solving addition
and subtraction problems) impacted their instructional decisions and knowledge of
students. In a four-year classroom-based case study of one teacher who participated in
the CGI professional development (Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, & Carey, 1993),
researchers observed her listening closely to students and questioning them about their
thinking as they constructed, reflected upon, and explained solutions to problems.
The researchers discovered rather than use the cognitive framework hierarchically to
design progressively challenging problems for students to solve (as a guide for a scope
and sequence) as expected, the teacher used it as a tool for analyzing and
understanding the complexity of children's thinking.

26

In the field of reading, Duffy (1993) studied the effect of an on-going sitebased professional development project on teachers' conceptions of comprehension
and instruction. Participants received new information about human cognition,
knowledge construction, strategic thinking, and in-class support from the researchers
but were not given a set of instructional materials to follow. Instead, they were
expected to create their own instructional program. Duffy analyzed change in
teachers' conceptions of strategies instruction and devised a nine-point continuum
describing the recursive process of growth he observed.
The nine points are summarized as follows: Point 1: Confusion and
Rejection; teachers insisted that they needed the basal program. Point 2: Teacher
Controlled the Strategies; the teachers, not the students, did the generative thinking.
Point 3: Trying Out: Teachers introduced and named strategies, explained why they
were important, but did not relate one strategy to another or help students apply
strategies in context in a flexible, adaptable manner. Point 4: Modeling Process into
Content: Teachers employed think-aloud, related strategy use to a text, but students
were not aware of why or when to use strategies other than during instructional time.
Point 5: The Wall: Teachers reached a level of frustration when they realized that
demonstrating strategies was not enough, they had to provision and support
meaningful application of reading strategies. They "resisted embracing the
complexity of strategy instruction" (p. 115) and searched for commercial programs
that would simplify implementation. Point 6: Over the Hump: Teachers understood a
larger purpose for strategies. They contextualized work in authentic goals, problem
solving, or production of a real product and focused on students' overall sense-making

27

strategies. Point 7: I Don't Quite Get it Yet: Still believing there was "a right way to
do" strategies, teachers resisted taking authority for decision-making. Point 8:
Creative-Inventive: Teachers took authority for making instructional decisions based
upon their knowledge of students' needs and understood the importance of authentic
applications of strategies. They tolerated ambiguity and accepted complexity. A
Point 8 teacher is quoted as saying, "Nobody, nobody can make a better decision than
me for these kids right now at this point." Point 9: No teachers were observed at
point 9 and no name was given. It was intentionally left open to represent the
emerging and dynamic nature of the process of becoming an expert strategies teacher.
Duffy's findings point to the cognitive, social, and affective demands a strategic
approach places on teachers and to the increase in knowledge they construct about
students.
Afflerbach (1993) devised a framework called STAIR (System for Teaching
and Assessing Interactively and Reflectively) to assist teachers in using what they
observe and know about students' reading. The framework elicits a teacher's
hypothesis, sources of information supporting their hypothesis (observations), and
ideas for instruction to address the problem. After instruction, the teacher is asked to
reflect on his or her original hypothesis and new sources of information, thus the
framework guides them through a recursive process of observation, theory-building,
action, and reflection. While the framework seems like a useful tool for intentionally
linking assessment with instruction, no information beyond a basic description of its
use is available in the literature.

28

More recently, Hilden & Pressley (2007) studied the challenges teachers face
when learning to teach reading comprehension strategies. Among concerns about
professional development, instructional decision-making, choice and availability of
appropriate texts, challenges with particular students, classroom management, time for
the curriculum, and timing of the curriculum, were questions about informal
assessment. Though teachers felt they made improvements in instruction, they were
not as confident about their knowledge of students. As one teacher stated, " 'I'd be
hard pressed to give an accurate assessment of where they are' " (p. 65). The
researchers suggest in order to individualize instruction, teachers collect anecdotal
evidence of students' strategy use by observing them talking about texts or by listening
to them think-aloud. They call for further research into "accessible, quick, informal,
easy to interpret forms of assessment" (p. 65). Given the multiple dimensions
comprising current conceptions of reading comprehension and the range of
instructional approaches they demand, a call for quick and easy forms of
comprehension assessment may not fill the existing assessment gap. Instead of
developing new forms of assessment for teachers, it is time to look at forms of
assessment inherent to teaching used by teachers. It is time to lean into the complexity
of teachers observations of reading comprehension.

Conclusion
Reading comprehension is a complex human experience. So, too, is observing
and assessing reading comprehension. This belief is affirmed by the methodological
and measurement challenges described by researchers in almost every study of
comprehension I have reviewed. Considering the multidisciplinary research base that
29

informs the field of reading comprehension, the vast and unpredictable nature of
students' engagement and response to text, and the essential role teachers play in
making sense of this complexity, it is important to look closely at the data teachers
generate about students' reading comprehension through embedded observation.

30

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The Researchers Perspective
The focus of this study is teachers' observations of students' reading
comprehension. My interest in the phenomenon of how teachers come to know their
students as readers and describe their comprehension emerged from my work as a
reading/teacher consultant at the elementary school that was the setting of this study.
My teaching at this school followed an inclusion model. That is, rather than "pull"
students out for extra help in reading, my work with them took place in their regular
classrooms, typically during three fifty minute periods per week. Classroom teachers
and I planned and taught collaboratively. We shared responsibility for students in
need of extra support.
During the four years before commencing this study, I worked at various times
with almost all of the schools seventeen regular classroom and special education
teachers. These collaborations led to many informal assessment conversations during
which we shared observations about students reading comprehension. Noting the
exploratory nature of these conversations, I was intrigued by their process: recalling
and reflecting on interactions with students, finding words to express what was
noticed, and interpreting or drawing conclusions about the observations discussed. To
make sense of the "transactional heat and light," Bomer's (1998) apt term for the zone
between teachers' explicit instruction and student learning, we were doing the work of
epistemologists, cognitive psychologists, philosophers, linguists, literary theorists,
sociologists, and ethnographers, trying to describe students' thinking. The tentative

31

and hypothetical quality of the content of these conversations both unnerved and
interested me. While searching for words to express what I observed about students, I
questioned the usefulness of the language associated with cognitive strategies
instruction - distilled from the research and disseminated to teachers - (i.e., Seven Keys
to Comprehension; Strategies That Work) for describing the complex language and
thinking we were privy to during class.
At school, I often heard teachers dismiss their observations of students
comprehension as too subjective, their interpretations as too tentative or hypothetical.
I wondered, how, as highly engaged participant observers (of student talk, writing,
drawing, constructions, or performances), do teachers infer the underlying processes
of students' reading comprehension. I wanted to know more about this elusive and
challenging aspect of teachers' work. While pondering the dimensions and untapped
potential of observational data, I heard teachers and administrators at school routinely
lament the absence of tools for assessing reading comprehension. The relationship
between this locally stated need for better comprehension assessment, my interest in
teachers' observational processes, and my belief that teachers were best situated to
assess comprehension, led to the design of this study.
Beginning my 24th year of teaching in 2008-09, I continued to work full-time
while conducting my research. The value of access is inseparable from being a
teacher-researcher. My interest in and capacity for teacher-research has grown as a
result of a seventeen year (and still running) association with the Rhode Island Writing
Project (RIWP), a local affiliate of the National Writing Project (NWP). A core belief
of RIWP/NWP is that teacher-leaders who participate in research, development, and

32

implementation are our greatest resource for educational reform (NWP website).
When I set out to pursue my doctorate, I did so with the intent of researching an issue
that was meaningful to my teaching practice. I wanted to take full advantage of my
dual position. As a teacher in the school that served as the site of this study, I brought
an insider's view of work underway. As a researcher, I brought a systematic approach
to inquiry.
The questions that frame this study emerged from challenges articulated by the
faculty at my school as they were learning about and beginning to implement a
transactional strategic approach to teaching comprehension. It was my hope that the
research findings would have relevance to our practice. The questions guiding this
research are: What do teachers notice about students' reading comprehension? How
do they articulate what they observe and interpret?

School Context
The school, located in a suburban community in northern Rhode Island, serves
an economically and ethnically diverse student body in grades two through five. At
the time of this study, it was in year five of restructuring its approach to teaching
reading from a basal program to an individualized literature-based readers' workshop
model, a mandate for all elementary schools in the district. The principal, also a
Rhode Island Writing Project teacher-consultant, vigorously supported this mandate
by organizing multiple opportunities for on-site collaborative professional
development. Teachers were cautious about the curricular shift, but open-minded,
appreciative, and welcoming of the on-site support for implementation.

33

One of the first steps toward restructuring was to take stock of books and
supplies necessary for workshop teaching. Teachers relinquished sets of books
previously stored in classrooms and shared among grade level clusters. Existing
multiple copies and newly purchased titles of trade books were reorganized into a
centrally located leveled-library for guided reading and book clubs by the school's
previous reading teacher and parent volunteers. For two years, this collection was
housed in a small conference room. At the same time, classroom libraries were
expanded to provide for a broader range of reading levels and interests. The leveled
text collection was later moved to a classroom dedicated to instructional resources and
reorganized using the Fountas and Pinnell A to Z leveling system (Fountas & Pinnell,
2005). The new book room also housed professional texts and a collection of picture
books for strategies instruction. Additionally, it served as office space for the two
reading teachers, as a meeting place for professional development sessions, and
occasionally as a location for small group instruction.
Each year, through planned budgeting and fund-raising, the book room and
classroom libraries grew. The two reading teachers were responsible for ordering
multiple copies of new titles for the whole school collection. For example, during one
year money was dedicated for purchase of nonfiction resources. Book selection was
guided by topics studied in science. Classroom teachers were responsible for
ordering single copies for in-class independent reading libraries. Other instructional
materials provided by the school were blank notebooks for students' reading response
journals and sticky notes for jotting. Most classrooms had rugs marking a meeting
area, overhead projectors, and easels.

34

The Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) assessment, administered district-wide

at the elementary level in the fall, was used as a screening tool. All students scoring at
the fourth stanine or below were given the Developmental Reading Assessment
(DRA). Both tools were used to fulfill assessment obligations associated with the
state's required Personal Literacy Plan (PLP), a progress monitoring document for
students identified as reading "below grade level." The DRA served to inform
instruction through teachers' analysis of running records, responses to comprehension
questions, a metacognitive survey, and brief reading history. In 2007-08, the school
began administering the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (2007) to
all students in fall and spring to determine independent and instructional reading
levels. Analysis of running records and answers to comprehension questions served to
guide instruction. Students with PLPs were assessed more frequently with these tools.
Retellings, student response journals, teacher made tests, and teacher observation were
identified on PLPs and in general practice as classroom-based assessments of reading
comprehension.
All teachers of reading were expected to employ a transactional strategic
approach in a workshop format, a highly interactive instructional environment that
places student thinking at the center of the curriculum. Students regularly talked and
wrote about their reading, therefore, teachers in this setting had access to a large
amount of observational data. Their access to the dimensions of students' reading
comprehension, as previously conveyed in Figure 1, allowed me to study the process
and content knowledge they brought to bear on their observational assessments.

35

In general, the school culture promoted teachers' serious consideration of

students' individual modes of learning, strengths, and needs. When I began teaching at
this school, the faculty's interest in each student and collaborative attempts to describe
students' thinking processes were striking. This attribute was emblematic of the
observational and interpretive processes I wished to study.

Participants
Participants for this study were drawn on a voluntary basis from faculty who
taught reading at this school. Eleven teachers volunteered; two second, one third,
three fourth, one fifth, one reading, and three special educators. One participant
transferred to another school, leaving a sample size of ten. The sample size, though
small, is representative of a collegial, communicative environment of teachers within a
small elementary school that fosters attention to students' individual needs. At ten, it
is large enough to provide variety in teachers' age, professional training, and
experience. Although a larger more diverse sample might allow for more
generalizability of findings, this sample is representative of small elementary school
faculties.
I solicited participant involvement in June 2008. First, I presented an outline
of the proposed study to my principal and asked if I could present it to the Professional
Learning Community (PLC), the committee at school that discusses professional
learning opportunities and other school-wide initiatives. After presenting my research
question and purpose to the PLC (Appendix A), I had the opportunity to present the
same information to the staff during our last faculty meeting of the year. At this
meeting, the principal distributed a survey seeking teachers' interests in professional
36

development for the 2008-09 school year. Because of the principals belief in the
power of on-site professional development and the importance of teacher-research, she
included participation in my study as an option and indicated she would provide
release-time for some of the estimated four hours of data collection per teacher.

Pre-Study Professional Development

In 2004-05, five years before commencing the study, teachers at the school
received a copy of Guiding Readers and Writers Grades 3-6: Teaching
Comprehension, Genre and Content Literacy (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). They were
expected to read and process the book independently and refer to it as a guide for
setting up the different elements of reading workshop: focused mini-lessons,
independent reading, guided reading, and book clubs. Many teachers followed the
first twenty days of sample mini-lessons for launching independent reading, reading
response journals, and conferences. In 2005-06, the principal tapped into resources
offered by RIWP, and with a teacher consultant from within the school, co-facilitated
an Embedded Institute, an on-site teacher-centered study of reading and writing based
on the writing project Summer Invitational Institute model.
In subsequent years, further professional development regarding reading
comprehension strategies was discussed and planned by the PLC, then presented to the
faculty for approval. In 2006-07, two years prior to the proposed study, all teachers in
the school participated in a shared reading of Strategies That Work (Harvey &
Goudvis, 2000). Discussions of each chapter in section one took place during faculty
meetings throughout the year. This portion of the text describes the research base for

37

a strategic approach to comprehension instruction, a framework for teaching in a

workshop setting, instructional concepts and strategies such as release of responsibility
and think aloud, a discussion of degrees of metacognition, and suggestions for text
selection for explicit instruction and guided practice.
In 2007-08, a plan for study and application of the first three chapters in
section two (making connections/accessing prior knowledge, questioning, visualizing
and inferring) was devised by the PLC. Meetings devoted to planning for instruction
and looking at student work were organized for each strategy. The other reading
teacher and I were responsible for planning and facilitating these meetings attended by
all teachers in the school. A total of six half-day sessions per grade level were
scheduled during the school day about every six weeks from November through May.
At planning sessions, a framework for release of responsibility was used to support the
design of lessons that incorporated clear definitions of terms used, read-alouds and
think-alouds, guided, and independent practice. Teachers browsed the book room
collection of illustrated books for anchor texts to use for strategies instruction. The
other reading specialist modeled a think-aloud and written response to text. For
example, while studying questioning, she read Martin's Big Words to the group,
thinking aloud and inviting others to respond by jotting questions, much as she would
with students. Giving teachers time to experience this explicit and responsive
approach to strategies instruction was quite powerful. For example, one exclaimed,
"Doing this helps me really understand what my kids must feel like when I ask them to
do it!" Another said, "I didn't realize my students could ask the questions."

38

After each planning meeting, teachers engaged their students with lessons
about the strategy of focus. Some of this instruction was done with in-class support
from the reading specialists. In preparation for the next meeting, teachers selected
samples of student work to serve as the focus for a close study of comprehension.
Using a protocol based on the Descriptive Review developed by the Prospect Center
and the Collaborative Assessment Conference developed by Project Zero, we set out
to look at student work. Our goals were:

to learn more about individual student's reading comprehension by looking at

concrete evidence of their understanding.

to construct common language about teaching and learning of comprehension

strategies.

to gain insight into development of our students as readers across grade levels.

to reflect on what we notice and to generate ideas about how to use this
information to shape our daily practice (implications for teaching).
The other reading specialist and I facilitated this process. One of the first

challenges we faced as we attempted to look at comprehension through samples of

student work was deciding what to bring to the table. The dilemma of making
comprehension visible in a form that we could "look at" became evident at our first
meeting. Other questions followed. Does the work show what the student was
thinking or what they expected their teacher wanted them to think? Are the invitations
for response too narrow to allow for meaningful student engagement? With how
much independence was the work produced? What relationship does the release of
responsibility have to assessment? What are we missing by only looking at writing

39

and drawing? Student talk about books was so rich, but so difficult to capture. This
experience heightened my interest in teachers' observations and helped shape my
research question.

Procedure
Data Collection
This study is naturalistic in the sense that teachers worked with students in
their classrooms as they typically would. No instructional intervention took place.
Data collection was done through interview and observation. All actions except the
interviews would have taken place in the regular reading program at this school. The
data for analysis were drawn from the interviews.
Data collection took place in three phases (Table 3) between January 2009 and
May 2009. Before commencing the study, a meeting was held for all participants to
review the schedule, focus, purpose, and procedures of each phase, and to answer
questions. Phase-one interviews were conducted during two small group meetings.
Phase-two and three interviews were conducted with individual participants. Phaseone took place within a two week window in January; phase-two, within a two week
window in March. Classroom observations of lessons and follow-up interviews for
phase-three took place for all participants in May. Total time commitment for each
participant was about four hours. The principal arranged for two days of substitute
teacher coverage to release teachers from their classrooms for interviews of about an
hour each. Additional interview time was scheduled before and after school.

40

Using a semi-structured interview method, I collected teachers' retrospective

observations of students comprehension. All phases were voice recorded; phase-two
and three were transcribed. Procedures for eliciting teachers' observations about
students' comprehension were based upon the conceptual framework of
comprehension that undergirds this study. The reflective framework (Table 3.0)
organized interview questions into three categories: (1) within the text, (2) beyond the
text, and (3) about the text, based on categories of response in the Fountas & Pinnell
Assessment System (2007). The framework echoes the idea that assessment, like
reading, is an interpretive act.
In each phase, questions were asked from each level to obtain teachers
observational and interpretive data in the cognitive, affective, and socio-cultural
dimensions of comprehension. This structure was used to ensure that data collected in
each phase contributed to discovery regarding the research question. Though similar
in structure, the three phases were designed to capture distinct aspects of teachers' dayto-day assessment processes. Questions asked of two small groups of participants
during phrase-one (Appendix B) addressed conceptions and dimensions of
comprehension. Each group was asked the same set of questions, with follow-up
questions responsive to the direction of the conversation. By eliciting general
perceptions and experiences about teaching reading comprehension in a collegial
format, phase-one interviews clarified the dimensions of teaching this study sought to
investigate for participants and created a sense of comfort for subsequent interviews.

41

Table 3.0

Reflective Framework and Data Collection Timeline

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

January - 2 weeks
Focus groups

March - 2 weeks
Interviews

May - 2 weeks
Observations and
interviews

Within the Text

Conceptions of
Comprehension

Conceptions of
Comprehension

Conceptions of
Comprehension

Beyond the Text

Cognitive

Cognitive

Cognitive

Affective/Aesthetic

Affective/Aesthetic

Affective/Aesthetic

About the Text

Socio-cultural

Socio-cultural

Socio-cultural

Phase-two interviews with individual teachers (Appendix C) were based on

student work selected by participants from their classes. Its purpose was to elicit and
capture teachers' observations and interpretations of students' comprehension
processes that come to mind when looking at student work outside of instructional
time. Interviews were not limited by this work, and in fact, teachers talked freely
about other classroom experiences as thoughts came to mind. Phase-three interviews
with individual teachers (Appendix D) were framed by a classroom observation of a
lesson selected and conducted in normal fashion with their students. I observed, took
notes, and voice recorded (but did not transcribe) these lessons to contextualize the
observations about students comprehension teachers later shared with me during
follow-up interviews. Similar to phase-two, interviews were not limited to these
lessons. Because questions were posed to spark memories of and invite reflections

42

about students' reading comprehension, during all phases of the interview process, I
posed follow-up questions (Seidman, 2006) to probe for more information or
specificity, by asking, for example, Can you tell me more about . . . , or Can you be
more specific?

Data Analysis
In this section, I explain the parameters of the data, the unit of analysis, the
methods of analysis, and report the inter-rater reliability for the coding system.

Parameters of the Data

The open-ended conversational interview style generated data beyond the
scope of this investigation. In addition to sharing observations of student
comprehension, teachers freely expressed opinions about teaching and assessing
comprehension, discussed shifts over time in methods of instruction, puzzled through
problems with specific students, and talked in great detail about the literature their
students were reading. Therefore, after listening to the recordings three times to make
notes of first impressions, and again to transcribe each of the twenty phase-two and
three interviews, the following definition of observation was used to comb the
transcripts for excerpts to include in the data for analysis: an utterance that describes,
analyzes, or evaluates an aspect of individual or group reading comprehension (Table
3.1). Henceforth, all analysis and discussion of data are in reference to this subset of
the phase-two and three interview transcripts.

43

Table 3.1
Observation

Definition of an Observation
An utterance that describes, analyzes, or evaluates an aspect of
individual or group reading comprehension.

Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis for this study is the collective set of participants
observations. Two-hundred-fifty-nine observations drawn from phases-two and three
data collection comprise the data. The open-ended interview approach yielded data
sufficiently broad and multi-dimensional for analysis to shed light on the two research
questions: What do teachers observe about students' reading comprehension? How do
they articulate their observations and interpretations?

Table 3.2

Research Questions and Data Sources

Research Question

Data Source

What do teachers notice about students'

reading comprehension?

Data from phase 2 and 3 interviews.

How do they articulate what they observe

and interpret?

Data from phase 2 and 3 interviews.

Method of Analysis
Introduction.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. The
qualitative analysis was guided by the two questions that frame this study. Methods of
44

pattern and content analysis were used. These methods were appropriate for fulfilling
the aim of this study for three reasons. First, these analytic processes mirror the
epistemological stance assumed by teachers-in-action. Though the current analysis
was a slow and painstaking academic pursuit (its action-oriented classroom
counterpoint highlights the temporal challenges teachers face), it echoes the pattern
seeking nature of teachers interpretive work. Second, pattern and content analysis
yielded an organizational framework of teachers observations, providing a systematic
view of the data. Because one of the purposes of this study was to give form to
teachers disperse observational data, this analytic approach was appropriate. Third,
the analysis served to describe the data in depth and detail, holistically and in
context (Patton, 2002, p. 55). Findings were defined and linked closely with familiar
classroom images, rendering them more useful to practitioners (Pressley and Hilden,
2005).
Quantitative analysis of the data yielded frequency counts of observation
categories, observed states, and articulation codes. This served to consolidate the data
and to provide a view of distributions within the organizational framework.
Distributions indicated patterns of what teachers notice and how they process what
they notice across different dimensions of comprehension. Distributions also served
as a way to check the efficacy with which the coding system sorted the data into
distinct and separable categories.

Question one.
To carry out the qualitative analysis in relation to question one, I began by
identifying core indigenous concepts (Patton, 2002), terms familiar to teachers in the
45

setting reflecting the content contained in the data. Next, I employed recursive
analytic processes of convergence, to see what content fit together, and divergence, to
flesh out categories with details that serve to describe them (Guba, 1981). Multiple
readings of the 259 observations yielded initial impressions and tentative codes. Many
were initially given multiple codes such as questions/infers, claims/significance, and
visualizes/connects. This overlap reflects the multidimensional nature of
comprehension and the difficulty of analyzing it atomistically (Afflerbach & Cho,
2009). Subsequent readings of the data yielded another layer of code: observations of
students strengths, gaps, and construction of knowledge. These dimensions were
ultimately useful for analyzing nuance within other coded categories, but because of
their relevance to all learning, they did not sufficiently differentiate teachers
observations of comprehension. Coding, recoding, consolidating, and refining the
categories continued until seventeen codes capturing clearly identifiable qualities
remained. To establish the separability of the categories, I evaluated them for their
internal and external homogeneity. Patton (2002) describes these criteria respectively
as the extent to which the data that belong in a certain category hold together or
dovetail in a meaningful way, and the extent to which differences among
categories are bold and clear (p. 465).
The overall structure for the organizational scheme was inspired by observable
qualities of a musical performance: stance, the position a player assumes in relation to
the music, to their instrument, and to the audience; technique, the skill and dexterity
with which a player handles their instrument; and interpretation, the depth of
understanding and emotion a player conveys. Thus, three dimensions serve to

46

organize teachers observations of students reading comprehension in reference to

question one: stance, technique, and interpretation. These terms will be defined more
specifically in relation to the data in chapter four.

Question two.
To carry out the qualitative analysis for question two, the same set (259) of
teachers observations of students comprehension were analyzed. A method similar
to the one employed for question one was used: reading and rereading the data,
coding and refining codes, searching for patterns or themes in relation to the way
teachers process and articulate their observations. In this analysis, observations were
viewed more broadly to identify patterns in the way teachers capture, retain, and
communicate data about students reading comprehension. Three articulation
categories were drawn from the data: moment, pattern, and trend.

Inter-rater Reliability
To establish inter-rater reliability, three people were trained in the coding
system. Participants were two certified reading/teacher consultants with more than
twenty years of teaching experience (one of whom was a study participant), and a
former teacher with a Masters Degree in Bilingual Education. To train the coders, I
presented an overview of the comprehension framework and a review of the charts for
each observed state containing descriptors, ranges, and examples. Six observations
were analyzed together to provide guided practice. Charts remained in view for
reference as the remaining fourty-four data points were coded independently. Using a

47

percent agreement formula of number correct/number coded, the inter-rater reliability

was 87 percent.

48

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This study examined teachers' observations of middle elementary school
students' reading comprehension. Its intent was to construct a conception of
comprehension assessment grounded in the realities of classroom life by analyzing
what teachers notice about comprehension as they interact with students. An
underlying purpose was to develop a tool for reflection that teachers might use to
develop self-awareness of the data implicit in their teaching of reading
comprehension. It was framed by two questions: What do teachers notice about
students' reading comprehension? How do they articulate what they observe and
interpret?
In this chapter I will introduce the findings for questions one and two
separately, then present them together in greater detail within the organizational
framework that resulted from the data analysis for question one. I will end with a
summary of findings and closing remarks.

Results
Introduction
Interpretations of the data in relation to questions one and two speak to the
central purpose of this study: to construct a conception of comprehension assessment
grounded in the realities of classroom life. These analyses shed light on what teachers
notice about students comprehension and the way in which they, as assessment
instruments, internalize and process data generated each day in their classrooms,

49

across weeks, months, and finally a full school year. Because the resulting
organizational scheme offers promise as a heuristic for teachers' observational practice
and reflection, it became apparent as the most relevant reading of the data. In the
following section, to clarify definitions and overall frequencies of the results for
questions one and two, brief overviews of each set of findings are presented separately
first. These overviews are followed by an integrated and detailed presentation of
results for questions one and two. The integration serves both practical and
conceptual purposes. Because all 259 data points were analyzed for both questions, it
makes sense to consider one in light of the other, both to spare redundancy and to
present multiple dimensions of the observations in the fullest possible context.
Within the text to follow, study participant quotes drawn from the transcript are
identified with tags, such as (Z2.4.2). This tag, for example, references the
participant by initial of pseudonym assigned (Z), interview phase (2), page of the
transcript (4), and sequence of the data point on that page (2). Each interview
transcript was paginated separately and numbering for data points began anew for
each page.

Overview of results for question one.

The organizational framework resulting from this analysis is comprised of
three comprehension categories, nine observed states, and twenty-seven ranges. The
first category, stance, is defined as the affective, socio-cultural, or cognitive position a
reader takes in relation to a text. The second category, technique, is defined as
strategies a reader applies to construct, monitor, or synthesize information or ideas.
The third category, interpretation, is defined as information, ideas, or emotions a
50

reader takes away from a text. Table 4.0 contains an overview of the comprehension
categories and observed states resulting from the analysis of data for question one. It
can serve as a text map for the combined results section that follows.
Table 4.0

Overview of Organizational Framework

Category

Definition of Category

Stance

The affective, socio-cultural, and/or Expectation for meaning

cognitive position a reader takes in Engagement
relation to a text.
Analytical

Technique

Strategies applied to construct,

monitor, and synthesize
information or ideas.

Observed State

Critical
Access prior knowledge
Monitor
Synthesize

Interpretation

Information, ideas, or emotions

Literal
taken away from a text by a reader.
Abstract

Quantitative analyses were carried out to yield frequency counts of

observations. Distribution of comprehension categories across the data are shown in
Table 4.1.

51

Table 4.1

Distribution of Comprehension Categories

Category

Total

Proportion

Stance

97

.37

Technique

95

.37

Interpretation

67

.26

259

1.00

Total

Overview of results for question two.

Observations of moment describe dimensions of comprehension revealed at a
particular point in time in the reading of a particular text. They convey a specific
interaction during which an aspect of comprehension is made visible to the teacher.
Observations of pattern indicate an aspect of comprehension noticed repeatedly.
Patterns may be noted within one reading interaction, over the reading of an extended
text, or across multiple texts. Observations of trend indicate a change or difference in
a particular aspect of student comprehension. These categories convey the temporal
(chronological) and dynamic quality of teachers observations. Definitions of
articulation codes are presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2

Definitions of Articulation Codes

Articulation Code
Moment

Definition
An observation of an aspect of comprehension referencing a
specific interaction with one or a group of students with a
particular text at a particular moment in time.

Pattern

An observation of an aspect of comprehension that references

its repeated occurrence.

Trend

An observation referencing a change in an aspect of student

comprehension.
Quantitative analyses were carried out to yield frequency counts of articulation

codes. Distribution of articulation codes across the data are shown in Table 4.3.

52

Table 4.3 Distribution of Articulation Codes

Articulation
Total
Proportion
Moment
114
.44
Pattern
118
.46
Trend
27
.10
Total
259
1.00
Overview of combined results.
In the results section that follows, findings from question one are integrated
with those from question two. For reasons previously explained, both coding systems
will be employed in the context of the organizational framework that resulted from the
first analysis. In separate sections for each of the following comprehension categories,
stance, technique, and interpretation, you will find: 1) an overview of the
comprehension category and its observed states and ranges; 2) a table displaying
observed states and ranges; 3) elaboration and further explication of the ranges for
each observed state, including integrated identifications of articulation codes (moment,
pattern, or trend); 4) a table with characteristics and examples of ranges; and 5) a
summary of the data presenting frequency charts of observed states and articulation
codes within each category.
The main categories, stance, technique, and interpretation were assigned their
sequence in the organizational framework based on the logic that reading for meaning
depends on the quality of ones initial stance, and depth of interpretation depends on
ones stance and technique. The presentation of results within each main category in
the following section reflects the hierarchy of the coding system, from category, to
observed state, to range. The presentation alternates between textual and visual

53

representation to assist the reader in locating a particular result within the larger
organizational scheme.

Combined Results
Stance.
Stance, the first category of teachers' observations, is defined as the affective,
socio-cultural, and/or cognitive position a reader takes in relation to a text. The four
observed states are expectation for meaning, engagement, analytic, and critical. Data
were analyzed and coded to further differentiate ranges within each observed state of
stance. For example, within expectation for meaning there are four ranges. Ranges
are consolidated in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Ranges Within Observed States of Stance
Stance:
Range
Observed States
Expectation for
Passive Budding Text-Based Readermeaning
text-based
Engagement
Fragile Emerging Deep
Analytic
Critical

Graphic Semantic/ Structural/

Syntactic Conceptual
Text
Author
World

Expectation for meaning.

The first observed state of stance, coded expectation for meaning, includes
teachers' observations regarding the extent to which students view the process of
reading as a transaction and demonstrate a constructive, interactive stance. The ranges
of expectation for meaning are passive, budding, text-based, and reader-text-based.

54

Table 4.5 provides definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of

expectation for meaning.
Table 4.5

Definitions and Examples of Stance / Expectation for Meaning

Category
I. STANCE

Observed State
A. EXPECTATION FOR MEANING
The extent to which students view reading as a transaction and demonstrate a
constructive, interactive stance.
Range
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Passive

Read without expectation for

I think what concerns me most is what
construction of meaning. Little Deanne is doing. Reading, stopping
evidence of transaction between here, not knowing what it said at all.
reader and text.
(L2.6.2)
Budding
Read with expectation for
For some children, still in second
construction of meaning when
grade, Im stopping at the end of the
external support or prompt invites sentence and saying, what was that
transaction.
sentence about? (L3.5.3)
Text-based Read with expectation that
Theyll say, it didnt say that in the
meaning resides exclusively in text. (S3.3.1)
the text.
ReaderRead with expectation of
They make comments about the picture
text-based transactional process for
based on what they read. That shows
construction of meaning.
us that they are thinking while theyre
Construct interpretations through reading. (S2.4.2)
intertextual and interpersonal
connections.
* See note in body of paper.

Passive expectation for meaning.

In the data, observations describing passive expectation for meaning are
characterized by readers who decode, but offer little or no response to text and do not
demonstrate a constructive meaning-making stance. For example, one teacher
describes a moment. I patted his head and said, what are you doing in here? What

55

are you thinking? And he just shrugged his shoulders (N2.6.1). Another observes a
pattern. I dont think she loves to read and I think its because shes missing the
message. Shes concentrating on starting on the first word and getting to the last word
on the page (L3.4.4).

Budding expectation for meaning.

Budding expectation for meaning refers to observations that describe students
who read to construct meaning, but do so mostly with external support. In the
following excerpt, a teacher reenacts and comments on a pattern of instructional
interactions with a student, who with prompting, knows that a response is expected.
She says,
. . . okay, that sounded great sweetheart, but what did it say? And in the
beginning of the year, many of them do just look at you like, I dont know.
What are you asking me for? And so I think the first thing is just an awareness
of the whole intent of reading . . . and then I notice, the third or fourth time
were reading, [they say] I know Mrs. L., youre going to ask me what
happened. So I know that theyre starting to recognize that at least when
theyre with me that they have to do it. [Imitating what a child thinks] Oh
boy, I have to think about what it says . . . And Ill look at Deanne and ask her
something, even just, tell me what you learned on that page, or what do you
think about that, or just say, say something and she has these big brown eyes
and shed look at me and shed go, Ill read it again. (L3.5.2)

Text-based expectation for meaning.

Text-based expectation for meaning refers to observations that describe literal
readers who believe that meaning resides solely in the text. Many of the observations
in this range were identical to the example of pattern cited on Table 4.5: It didnt say
that in the text. The following teacher describes a groups expectation that meaning
in a social studies text book is found in one particular location, without further reading

56

or thinking needed. In this observation of pattern she says, They are used to finding
the answer to a question in one paragraph, to find it there literally rather than
rereading, or reading on and synthesizing it (Z3.4.2).

Reader-text-based expectation for meaning.

Reader-text-based expectation for meaning is characterized by teachers
descriptions of readers who demonstrate a growing tendency to respond or talk back to
a text. They take a more active stance in the transaction. In the following observation
of trend a teacher notices a change in a students stance from acknowledging only
what the text says, Hes so literal, to expressing insight and being more comfortable
stating his personal reactions to the story. Before he would just mimic exactly what
the book would say. Now he is starting to give his own reactions and say how he felt
about it (F2.2.3). Observations that indicate a more fully formed reflective and
transactional conception of reading are, because of the more sophisticated processing
and content they contain, included in the categories technique and interpretation.

Engagement.
The second observed state of stance, coded engagement, includes teachers
observations regarding the duration and depth of a readers entry into a text-world.
The ranges of engagement are fragile, emerging, and deep. Table 4.6 provides
definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of engagement.

57

Table 4.6

Definitions and Examples of Stance / Engagement

Range

Category
I. STANCE
Observed State
B. ENGAGEMENT
The duration and depth of attention for entry into a text-world.
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Are not engaged in text world. The littlest sound, they're off. They
Exhibit avoidance techniques.
can't get comfortable in their seat.
Are highly distractible; have
They're fiddling with something, or
difficulty self-selecting or
just turning pages. (N3.8.1)
sticking with books.

Fragile

Emerging

Read and express interest in a

particular topic, genre, author, or
series. Demonstrate change in
interest and/or attention for
reading.

He always gravitates toward the

Geronimo Stilton and the Captain
Underpants and I'm thinking I can
remember at the beginning of the year
it was always Magic Treehouse.
(N2.4.1)

Deep

Are immersed in text world;

I'll look around and watch them and
unaware of noise around them; they are so into that book that
lost in a book. Do not want to be anything can be going on around
disturbed. Read widely. Are
them. Or they will be taking it home
animated in response to text.
because they'll say, oh you told me the
Have self-propelled reading
book club meeting is on Thursday so I
lives.
took it home and did it in my reading
log. (B3.8.1)

Fragile engagement.
In the data, observations of fragile engagement are characterized by techniques
for avoidance of reading, distractibility during reading time, and difficulty selfselecting or sticking with books. For example, many teachers note physical signs of
distractibility and avoidance of reading as exemplified by the pattern of fragile
engagement noted in table 4.6. Another teacher conveys different patterns of fragile
engagement.

58

Some kids will ask to go to the bathroom or ask to do anything to escape the
room . . . Often times they don't have 'just-right' books. They're trying to fit in
with the crowd and they think people are noticing what they're reading, but
they're not. Their head is down. Just discouraged. Lethargic. (S2.6.2)
The subtle but salient distinction between an observation of fragile engagement and
passive expectation for meaning is evident in teachers' observations regarding
students difficulty sustaining reading, despite other evidence of active processing,
construction of meaning, and response to text.

Emerging engagement.
Emerging engagement is characterized by observations of readers who express
narrow interest in a particular topic, series, author, or genre. For example, one teacher
observes a pattern.
There's a boy in second grade who strongly favors nonfiction. If he's reading
nonfiction, he wants to call you over and show you everything he's learning. If
you put fiction in front of him, his head is down and it takes a lot of prompting.
Sometimes he won't even read for us. (S2.5.3)
Emerging engagement is also characterized by changes in animation of response, as
expressed in this teacher's observation of a trend. "Vera, who I never see get too
excited about reading, is reading May Amelia, and is just enraptured with it" (F2.9.4).

Deep engagement.
Deep engagement is characterized by observations of readers fully immersed,
often described as being lost in a book, sometimes to the extent that they are unaware
of noise around them. For example, one teacher conveys a few patterns.
I can see they're into the book. If somebody drops a pencil, they're not looking
over there. They're not fidgeting in their seat. If you call their name, they

59

don't look up right away, or if you ask them a question, they can't answer you
because they are just so focused in the book. (N3.7.2)
Deep engagement is also characterized by visible enthusiasm and animation of
response. For example, this teacher describes a pattern evident during meetings of a
particular book club.
They are very engaged in this book. Every meeting, they come with something
they really loved about each chapter. I think they asked that question of each
other each time. What was your favorite part? They loved when Wilbur did a
back flip. (Q3.3.2)
Another teacher observes a pattern of deep engagement as she says, " . . . seeing them
reading on their own when they start to laugh" (Q2.11.2). Observations in this range
also describe students who are self-propelled readers and whose interest, enthusiasm,
and choice encompass a wider selection of books, authors, genres, and or topics. For
example, this observation of moment conveys a reaching out for new texts.
I know the Winn Dixie group, some of them have borrowed an extra War With
Grandpa and an extra Everything on a Waffle book because it wasn't only their
book club book they were excited about, but they also wanted to read the
others. (N3.6.3)
Another feature of this range of engagement is reaching out to other readers as
exemplified by this observed pattern. "They recommend their book to other students,
or ask you for more books in a series or another book by an author you've read aloud"
(B2.11.1). Lastly, deep engagement is represented by the desire of a reader not to be
disturbed as in the following observed pattern. "There are kids who can't wait to
finish a book, or they groan when you say boys and girls we have to put our books
away because we have to do something else" (B2.11.1).

60

Analytic.
The third observed state of stance, coded analytic, includes teachers'
observations of the focus of students awareness and examination of a texts
constituent parts. The observed states of an analytic stance are graphic,
semantic/syntactic, and structural/conceptual. Table 4.7 provides definitions,
characteristics, and examples of each range of analytic.

Table 4.7

Range
Graphic

Semantic/
Syntactic

Definitions and Examples of Stance / Analytic

Category
I. STANCE
Observed State
C. ANALYTIC
Awareness and examination of a text's constituent parts.
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Notice and consider the impact or She said the arrow helps you
purpose of visual/graphic
understand that the bottom closes up.
features of a text.
(L3.4.1)
Notice word choice, meaning,
They were saying this would make a
and or sentence structure and
great movie because the author writes
consider the effect on their ability to make it so you can see it. (F3.7.3)
to visualize or fully sense an
image.

Structural/ Notice and analyze organization He was able to go back and say this
Conceptual of ideas in a text.
one is a timeline and so basically, he's
mapping it out. (N2.9.2)

Graphic analytic.
In the data, observations in the range of graphic analytic stance are
characterized by descriptions of students who notice visual text features and consider
their purpose or impact on a reader. For example, one teacher conveys a moment
when a particular student attended to a graphic feature. "He said good thing they did it
61

[the drawing of a blue-ring octopus] in color (L3.4.1). Another recalls a similar

moment of graphic analysis. She asked the question, why do some authors choose
chapter titles, not numbers?" (N3.10.3).

Semantic/syntactic analytic.
A semantic/syntactic analytic stance is characterized by descriptions of readers
who notice word meanings, word choices, and sentence structures. Some observations
indicate students emerging awareness of how these writerly moves affect the purpose
and tone of a text. For example, this teacher observes a moment. "Kate did say the
author was descriptive and poetic. She was definitely paying attention to the language
of the story" (B3.3.4). A semantic/syntactic analytical stance is also characterized
by a reader's attention to sentence structures as in the following observed moment
about students difficulty understanding the dialogue because of its style. "There was
a part in Maniac Magee which confused them. They didn't know who was speaking"
(Z3.7.2).
In this range, teachers observations also describe students' awareness of how
language in a text helps them visualize or sense images. In this observed moment of
semantic analytic stance one teacher says, "We were reading A Day in the Desert and
I read the first paragraph and they said, the author started with setting and there's a
sensory burst on that first page" (F2.3.1). Another describes a pattern.
They were starting to notice author's craft a lot with the mind movies. They
would talk about it especially when they were doing artful artist. They tried to
really pull the passages that helped them paint a picture in their head. (Q3.2.4)

62

Still another shares a moment when a student considers the effect of Patricia
MacLachlans descriptive language as he "takes a walk with a line" in a written
response to Baby.

About this moment she says,

He chose this line. 'The night I woke to hear the rain turn to ice, the sound like
rocks against the roof and windows.' And he wrote, 'This sentence means a lot
to the setting because it really described what's happening outside. The author
must have put a lot of work into that section because it was so descriptive. I
picture it perfectly and I could predict the power would go out. (B3.8.4)
Structural/conceptual analytic.
A structural/conceptual analytic stance refers to observations regarding
students who notice and deconstruct the organization of a text. For example, this
teacher describes a moment of structural analysis.
She came up to me and she had the triangle drawn and was trying to map it
out. That's how she was doing her jotting. We got to the top of the mountain
she called it. She wanted to see where the turning point was. She didn't call it
the turning point. She called it the peak of the mountain and then she used the
word closing. (N2.9.2)
Another teacher describes this moment of analysis. "They even started talking about
different authors techniques like cliff-hangers. One of the chapters she said I feel like
he left me on a cliff, like I wanted to know more" (Q3.2.4).
The following teacher describes a pattern of a second graders conceptual
analyses of books.
She has us create Venn diagrams for her and chooses two books she wants to
compare on her own. She did Abraham Lincoln and someone else. She
compared the similarities and differences. Then she compared Barack Obama
to someone else and made the graphic organizers all on her own. (S2.5.1)
Finally, another teacher describes a moment with a student whose reading response
characterizes both a structural and conceptual analytic stance as he realizes the
emotional circle around which the family in the book Baby, has traveled.
63

He wrote a wonderful response at the end of the story. He answered a

question, how did Sophie's time with the family help them. He said it was the
family connecting; it was the one thing that they needed, and that it was like
the circle coming together. (B3.2.1)
Critical.
The fourth observed state of stance, coded critical, includes teachers'
observations regarding readers emotional response, opinion, or critique of a text. The
ranges are text, author, and world. Table 4.8 provides definitions, characteristics, and
examples of each range of critical.

64

Table 4.8

Range
Text

Author

World

Definitions and Examples of Stance / Critical

Category
I. STANCE
Observed State
D. CRITICAL
The focus of emotional response, opinion, or critique.
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Demonstrate an emotional
Robert was talking about how the
response, express opinions or
mother leaving Sophie there was a
critique ideas or information
selfless decision. He said she could
contained in the text.
have just left Sophie to suffer too, but
she gave her to Larkin's family. When
she came back to pick her up she could
have made a better decision. (B3.8.1)
Demonstrate an emotional
response, express opinions or
critique choices made by the
author.
Demonstrate an emotional
response, express opinions, or
critique ideas or information
represented in a text about the
world.

She asked, 'Why do you think the

author chose for this character to do
that?' (N3.10.0)
We read about Rosa Parks so there
was some really strong stuff in their
letters to me about how they felt and
physically I could see it when I read it
the first time. You could just feel that
they were so uncomfortable, that their
bodies were tensed. (Q2.2.3)

Text critical.
In the data, observations in the range of text critical capture readers' feelings or
opinions about ideas conveyed through a text. This teacher observes a moment when
students stated their opinions about characters and their situations.
We were reading Loser with one group and we were talking about different
teachers and how this teacher was not a good teacher for Zinkoff and a student
says, I think that one was a pretty good teacher for Zinkoff because he needed
structure and she was strict and firm with him. (F3.2.3)

65

She continues, "Then another says, 'Well, she shouldn't have been teaching at all. She
didn't like children so why would anybody go into that career? The principal shouldn't
have allowed her to be in the school' (F3.2.3).

Author critical.
Author critical refers to teachers' observations of readers opinions about the
choices an author makes. For example, the following teacher observes the moment
when a student questions the author for the way a particular story begins, considering
its audience. "She was reading, Everything on a Waffle and asked, 'Why would the
author open the story in such a way that it comes right across that the parents may be
dead? Why would they do that in a children's book?'" (N3.6.1). Another teacher
observes a pattern of an author critical stance.
Sometimes they don't like the endings of books. You can see the
disappointment and some kids are very vocal about it, saying the author should
have ended this way or that. Or they like to rewrite the end of the stories
themselves. (S2.5.2)
World critical.
World critical refers to teachers observations of readers who respond strongly
to real world events or phenomena as represented in a text. For example, one teacher
recalls a moment when a student faces the horror of slavery as conveyed in a picture
book about the life of Henry Brown, a slave who mailed himself to freedom. There's
a student in second grade who is reading Henry's Freedom Box. She couldn't believe
things were happening and she had to keep telling me, 'Can you believe this
happened?' (S2.4.3). Another teacher noticed a similar moment when reading Pink
and Say.

66

Well in the beginning they were laughing. They thought it was really silly, but
then they started to see how serious the book is and they were pretty devastated
when they both ended up in Andersonville and they realized they ended up
hanging Pink, and Say went on to live a very happy life. Their mouths were
hanging open. They were really depressed. You could just see it in their faces
and body language or the fact that they were so quiet. (Z2.5.2)
Summary of stance.
These findings identify, characterize, and organize teachers observations of
stance, the positions readers take in relation to text. Teachers describe students
developing conceptions of reading for meaning, levels of engagement, and use of
analytic and critical lenses. Teachers observations in this category contain
descriptions of how students process and respond to text.
Distributions of teachers observations among the observed states of stance
(Table 4.9 and Figure 2) provide a view of teachers access and/or attention to its
multiple dimensions. From least to greatest, they are critical (.12), expectation for
meaning (.15), analytic (.34), and engagement (.39).
Table 4.9

Distribution of Observed States: Stance

Category Observed States

Stance

Total

Total Proportion

Expectation for meaning

14

.15

Engagement

38

.39

Analytic

33

.34

Critical

12

.12

97

1.00

67

Figure 2: Observed States Within Stance

Observed States Within Stance

Engagement
39%

Analytic
34%

Critical
12%
Expects
Meaning
15%

Frequencies of articulation codes within stance are shown in Figure 3. Note

the relatively even distributions among moments and patterns, and the low incidence
of trends.
Figure 3: Articulation Codes Within Stance
Articulation Codes Within Stance

Trend
12%
Moment
41%
Pattern
47%

68

Distributions of articulation codes within stance by observed state are presented on

Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Distribution of Articulation: Stance by Observed State
Stance
Articulation
Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total

Expects Engagement Analytic

meaning
# Prop.
# Prop.
# Prop.
4
.29
9
.24
20 .61
8
.57
22
.58
12 .36
2
.14
7
.18
1 .03
14 1.00
38 1.00
33 1.00

Critical
# Prop.
7 .58
3 .25
2 .17
12 1.00

Total
# Prop.
40 .41
45 .47
12 .12
97 1.00

Of interest here are differences in the way teachers articulate content and
process-heavy indicators of comprehension. Overall, content heavy indicators, such as
analytic and critical are more frequently articulated as moments (.61, .58). Processheavy indicators of comprehension, such as expects meaning and engagement, are
more frequently articulated as patterns (.57, .58).

Technique.
Technique, the second category of teachers observations, is defined as the
degree to which students apply strategies to construct, monitor, and synthesize
information or ideas. The three observed states are access prior knowledge, monitor
meaning, and synthesize. Data were analyzed and coded to further differentiate ranges
within each state of technique. For example, within access prior knowledge there are
four ranges. Ranges are consolidated in Table 4.11.

69

Table 4.11 Ranges Within Observed States of Technique

Observed States

Range

Access prior
knowledge

Gap

Monitor

Partial

Active

Synthesize

Simple

Complex

Weak

Bridged

Strong

Access prior knowledge.

The first observed state of technique, coded access prior knowledge, includes
teachers' observations regarding the degree to which readers call upon relevant
knowledge and experience and apply it to deepen their understanding of text. The
ranges of access prior knowledge are gap, weak, bridged, and strong. Table 4.12
provides definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of access prior
knowledge.

70

Table 4.12 Definitions and Examples of Technique / Access Prior Knowledge

Category
II. TECHNIQUE
Observed State
A. ACCESS PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
The degree to which readers access and apply
prior knowledge to construct meaning.
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Indicate a distance or disconnect I know with Aldo Applesauce, I had
between personal knowledge and only one student who moved to a new
experience and ideas presented in school. He didn't bring a lot of that
a text, or do not activate what
into the story when we were talking
they know.
about it, which kind of surprised me.
(Q2.10.2)

Range
Gap

Weak

Access prior knowledge in literal I find that most of my students'

ways, but do not apply it to make connections are superficial. Their
deeper sense of text. Connections connection doesn't help them
may divert attention away from understand the text as well. Some say,
text or be weak and cause some I have a dog too and the dog has a
confusion.
minor part in the story. (Q2.4.3)

Bridged

Access appropriately significant He does make a lot of connections, but

prior knowledge. Apply prior
he does need a person to talk them
knowledge to deepen
through with him. (S3.1.2)
understanding of a text when
given support.

Strong

Access prior knowledge to

analyze, interpret, and/or to
understand emotional aspects of
text or self with independence.

When he was talking about

Commander Toad he was kind of
amazed. He said this is a harder book
for me. But he said I can understand it
because I know some things about Star
Wars. And I can also understand it
because I know some of the words.
They are similar but funny. He didn't
know the word pun. (H3.2.3)

Gap in access to prior knowledge.

In the data, observations describing a gap in access to prior knowledge are
characterized by a distance or disconnect between readers' knowledge and experience
71

and ideas presented in a text. For example, one teacher describes a moment when she
noticed variations in students' access to prior knowledge during a read-aloud. She
explains,
We were reading an alphabet book about Rhode Island and that's something
you would assume all kids could relate to because we all live in Rhode Island.
Some kids could tell you how many times the bug had been changed and what
it wears at Christmas and there were other kids going, I don't know what
you're talking about. A blue bug? (S3.4.3)
Another teacher observes a pattern of a gap in access prior knowledge.
I have one child who has difficulty understanding fictional text, particularly if
it is about family. I don't think she is ready to connect with the one big happy
family that we see in books at this age level. I think there is some pain there.
(H2.5.3)
Weak access to prior knowledge.
Weak access to prior knowledge refers to observations that describe readers
who access prior knowledge that matches an aspect of a text literally or tangentially.
They do not, however, use their knowledge as a springboard for inferring meaning or
deepening understanding. One teacher uses a hypothetical example to illustrate an
observed pattern. "It's just that literal piece. Alfred's sister is evil. My sister is evil
too. It seems like it has to be stated in black and white for him to connect to it. The
inferring, I don't see" (N.2.4.2). Another dimension of weak range of access to prior
knowledge is represented by observations of students whose meaningful but too
frequent connections, divert attention away from the text. For example, this teacher
describes a pattern.
I'm thinking about one kid who is so busy trying to make those connections.
Raising her hand to talk about them prevents her from really understanding the
story. Every time she stops to make a connection that is not significant, it
stops the flow of what's happening in the story and then it's hard to get back
into the story. (Z2.7.1)
72

Bridged access to prior knowledge.

Bridged access to prior knowledge refers to observations that describe readers
who access appropriately relevant prior knowledge but whose connections are
recognized by teachers as in need of support to meet the inferential demand of the text.
For example, while talking about her students reading of Maniac Magee, one teacher
observes a moment.
They usually think about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks and they know
these historic African American figures, but in this book it was much more on
a personal level so they had a hard time trying to connect, thinking well of
course the families eat the same things, and why is he thinking that there is
anything different about them. (Z3.2.1)
Another teacher describes a moment when she helped bridge the gap between students'
prior knowledge and experience and events and ideas in Charlotte's Web.
Someone connected about having gone to a fair, a kind of petting zoo. They
made a connection but they needed a little help molding it to the story. I asked
how is that the same as for Wilbur? How can you understand from his point of
view? And they said there were other animals there but not for a competition.
So they could see how a competition made poor Wilbur sitting there nervous.
(Q3.4.1)
Strong access to prior knowledge.
Strong access to prior knowledge refers to observations that describe readers
who access appropriately significant prior knowledge or experience and apply it to
analyze, interpret, or understand emotional aspects of the text and/or about
themselves. The following teacher identifies a pattern, then describes a particular
moment of a students strong access to prior knowledge.
There's one student who has really strong background knowledge on
everything and he would have to explain certain things the others didn't
understand. Like he could explain a stampede to the kids. He had a strong
understanding of Native Americans and why they would trade. One of the

73

things they wanted to trade were animal skins and he explained what hides
were. (S2.3.2)
Another teacher observes a particular moment of connection.
When Mara was talking about Amanda Beal in Maniac Magee she could really
understand how Amanda was obsessed with her books, about keeping them
neat and keeping them nice and returning them on time. She really connected
with that character because she feels the same way so she completely
understands it. (Z3.1.2)
This teacher recalls the moment in a discussion of Baby, when a student tapped into
his knowledge of philosophy.
Robert talked about Ghandi and the actions of Ghandi. So here we had this
very philosophical point of view. He said actions are more powerful than
words. The teacher in the book said words were so powerful, so that's when he
brought in Ghandi's action. (B3.6.2)

Monitor.
The second observed state of technique coded monitor includes teachers'
observations regarding the extent to which students notice confusion and apply
strategies such as self-questioning, rereading, reading on, or visualizing to construct,
or repair meaning. The ranges of monitor are partial and active. Table 4.13 provides
definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of monitor.

74

Table 4.13 Definitions and Examples of Technique / Monitor

Category
II. TECHNIQUE
Observed State
B. MONITOR/REPAIR
The extent to which readers note confusion and apply strategies such as
self-questioning, rereading, retelling, or visualizing to construct or repair meaning.
Range
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Partial
Do not apply strategies to
When he is questioning it is more of,
construct/repair meaning without 'Why are they doing that?' but not
assistance. May ask questions, reading for the answer. (N2.2.2)
but do not actively seek answers.
Active

Ask salient questions of text.

Apply strategies to
construct/repair meaning with
independence.

If she doesn't understand, she goes

back and she rereads. (N2.6.4)

Partial monitor.
Partial monitor technique refers to observations that describe readers who
notice comprehension breakdown but require intervention to construct or repair
meaning so they can move on. For example, this teacher observes a pattern in a
student who stops frequently to ask for help clarifying or filling in background
knowledge.
He asks a lot of questions. A lot of clarifying questions. If something doesn't
make sense to him, he wants to know why or what. He will not read on until
every question he has is answered. He requires a lot of conversation to satisfy
his questioning. (L2.9.2).
Another teacher observes a pattern among a group of students who are aware of their
uncertainty but have no way of proceeding.
I think when they have questions at the beginning of a book they think they're
not a good reader because they are confused. They say they hate the book or

75

are confused and want to give up, but I teach them sometimes it has to unfold.
Sometimes they have to read on. (Z2.5.1)
Active monitor.
Active monitor technique refers to observations that describe readers who
notice comprehension breakdown and apply strategies for repair with greater
flexibility, self-awareness, and independence. Note the two following examples of
pattern. The first is observed of a group. "We have students who stop periodically
throughout the story and check out the picture to confirm that what they've understood
makes sense" (S2.4.2). The second is observed in one student. I have a student who
does a lot of rereading and she'll tell me she does it because she didn't understand"
(Q2.8.3). Still another teacher describes a moment of an active monitor in action.
"She initiated a closer look at the dialogue because she noticed her comprehension
breaking down. She was confused and interested in solving that problem" (Z3.11.1).

Synthesis.
The third observed state of technique, coded synthesis, includes teachers'
observations regarding the extent to which students process information from a text or
other sources to make logical predictions, substantiated claims, or draw logical
conclusions. The ranges of synthesis are simple and complex. Table 4.14 provides
definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of synthesis.

76

Table 4.14 Definitions and Examples of Technique / Synthesis

Category
II. TECHNIQUE
Observed State
C. SYNTHESIS
The way in which information from a text or ideas from other readers are
combined to make logical predictions, claims, or theories.
Range
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Simple
Make short-range predictions or They go around and ask, what do you
conclusions. May or may not
think is going to happen next?
provide evidence.
(F1.9.3)
Complex

Make predictions, claims, or

theories that integrate complex
information / data sources.
Consider multiple perspectives.
May revise thinking.

[About Bud, Not Buddy] It's a tough

book to understand and they'd listen to
somebody else and go oh yeah, now I
get it. (F2.10.1)

Simple synthesis.
In the data, observations describing the technique of simple synthesis are
characterized by short-range predictions or claims. Many observations in this range
describe the general frequency with which students predict a subsequent event or
action similar to the example in Table 4.14. This cluster is also represented by the
following specific observation of a moment.
The chapter ended and they heard the garage door go up and the voice said,
who is going to help me with the groceries? And then all the hands go flying
up. Well, I think Jean is going to distract her mother by bringing the groceries
in while Randall cleans. And another one is saying, no Randall is going to go
out the window. It was so interesting. They were making these predictions.
(F2.5.1)

77

Complex synthesis.
Complex synthesis refers to observations that describe students who process
information to make long-range predictions, draw conclusions, or construct a new
understanding or insight. For example, in this moment, the following teacher observes
a group of students as they work through initial ambiguity in the book Baby. About
one student in the group, she says,
We'd only read two chapters and the comments that Melissa were making and
the thought that went into her predictions about who the baby could be or who
she thought the little passages at the beginning of some of the chapters were
about [were impressive]. She thought that could have been the baby
remembering someone and she hadn't read more than two chapters. (B2.1.1)
Complex synthesis is also represented by teachers' observations of readers who
integrate information gained through a greater span of text. For example, while
reading Bud Not Buddy, this teacher observes the moment when,
Some of their predictions were way off. Then they'd read the next chapter and
go oh yeah and they'd see what was happening. Especially at the end when
they found out he was the grandfather and not the father. That was like a light
bulb going off in their head. (F2.6.2)
Another teacher observes a moment of complex synthesis.
We've been doing a lot with historical fiction and the freedom train. We read a
couple of books and finally one of the boys realized that it was the color of
their skin that separated the blacks from the whites. He had missed it for a
while, and then he went, oh and finally made that connection. It was kind of
an ah-ha moment. (S2.4.1)
Another dimension of complex synthesis is the consideration of multiple
perspectives. For example this teacher recalls this moment.
Blake said, 'I agree with Tess after listening to her explanation and it
contradicts my original thoughts.' So they actually went back into the book
and they reread this particular piece and talked about their individual thoughts
at that time. And I can't remember what made Tess think whatever she was
thinking. (N3.3.4)

78

Summary of technique.
These findings identify, characterize, and organize teachers observations of
technique, strategies readers apply to construct or repair meaning. Teachers describe
the degree to which students access prior knowledge, the extent to which they note
confusion and apply strategies such as self-questioning or rereading, and the way they
synthesize ideas and information. Teachers observations in this category contain
descriptions of how students process and respond to text.
Distributions of teachers observations among the observed states of technique
(Table 4.15 and Figure 4) provide a view of teachers access and/or attention to its
multiple dimensions. From least to greatest, they are monitor (.28), synthesis (.34),
and access prior knowledge (.38). Note the fairly even distributions among observed
states in this category.
Table 4.15 Distribution of Observed States: Technique
Category

Observed States

Total Proportion

Technique Access prior knowledge

Monitor
Synthesis
Total

79

36

.38

27
32

.28
.34

95

1.00

Figure 4: Observed States Within Technique

Observed States Within Technique

Synthesis
34%

Access Prior
Knowledge
38%

Monitor
28%

Frequencies of articulation codes within technique are shown in Figure 5.

Note the relatively even distributions among moments and patterns and the low
incidence of trends.
Figure 5: Articulation Codes Within Technique
Articulation Codes Within Technique
Trend
7%

Pattern
52%

Moment
41%

Distributions of articulation codes within technique by observed state are presented on

Table 4.16.

80

Table 4.16 Distribution of Articulation: Technique by Observed State

Technique

Access prior
knowledge

Articulation
Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total

#
19
14
3
36

Monitor
meaning

Prop. #
.53 3
.39 22
.08 2
1.00 27

Synthesis

Prop. #
.11 17
.82 13
.07 2
1.00 32

Prop. #
.53 39
.41 49
.06 7
1.00 95

Total
Prop.
.41
.52
.07
1.00

Of interest here are differences in the way teachers articulate content and
process-heavy indicators of comprehension. Observations of monitors meaning, a
process-heavy indicator of comprehension, are more frequently articulated as patterns
(.82). Articulations of access to prior knowledge and synthesis, dimensions of
comprehension that clearly merge ideation and process, are more evenly distributed
between moments (.53, .39) and patterns (.53, .41).

Interpretation.
Interpretation, the third category of teachers observations, is defined as
information, ideas, and emotions readers take away from a text. The two observed
states are literal and abstract. Data were analyzed and coded to further differentiate
ranges within each state of interpretation. For example, within literal there are three
ranges. Ranges are consolidated on Table 4.17.

81

Table 4.17 Ranges Within Observed States of Interpretation

Observed States

Range

Literal

Just the facts

Abstract

Significance/ Emotional tone Theme

Motive

Sequences

Gets the gist

Literal.
The first observed state of interpretation, coded literal, includes teachers'
observations regarding readers' understanding of information that is stated explicitly in
a text. Ranges of literal interpretation are just the facts, sequence, and gets the gist.
Table 4.18 provides definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of literal.
Table 4.18 Definitions and Examples of Interpretation / Literal
Category
III. INTERPRETATION
Observed State
A. LITERAL
Information understood by readers that is explicitly stated in a text.
Range
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who take-away . . .
Just the facts Basic story elements and/or
She's very literal. She gets the facts
information.
right but doesnt go beyond that.
(L2.2.1)
Sequence Events/ideas in the order they
I had a student who I thought would
occurred or were presented.
have done a better job [summarizing]
but in places flip-flopped the order.
(Q2.3.2)
Gets the gist The most important ideas in a
I did have the group at some point
text.
write a summary and they did very
well. They were able to sift out what's
important. (F2.5.2)

82

Just the facts.

In the data, observations describing just the facts are characterized by readers
who understand basic elements contained in a work of fiction or information stated in
nonfiction at a literal level. For example, one teacher observes a pattern among
students.
For the most part my students' literal understanding is decent. They get the
story. They are able to talk about characters, setting, and problems that are
happening and how they're working to solve them. So I think for the most part
they get the literal part of the text. (Q2.3.1)
Another aspect to just the facts observations are teachers' indications of students who
are exclusively literal readers, also indicative of a text-based stance. In the following
examples of observed patterns one teacher conveys, I am comfortable with his literal
understanding, but not beyond that" (N2.2.4). The other says:
One will start to read and anything that is in the text she can recall and tell you.
She 's very literal. She has the facts right. . . . Hypothetically, the decorator
crab sticks seaweed onto his shell, but why is it called a decorator crab? I don't
know. How would I know that? . . . And the other child would go, I get it.
That's so funny. (L2.2.1; L3.7.1)
Sequence.
The range of sequence in literal interpretation refers to observations that
describe readers' conveyance of the order of events or information in a text. For
example this teacher describes a pattern in a student's understanding of sequence in
Charlotte's Web. "She had trouble with sequencing. I think overall she knew what
was happening but there was definitely some confusion at points knowing when
something happened" (Q3.1.4). Another teacher observes patterns related to
sequence.

83

The overall sequencing was about right. I don't remember them actually
having significant things out of order . . . They might not be able to retell a
story in sequential order but they can give you other details. They may need
some prompting. If they're really strong readers they can tell you in a-b-c
order. (S2.2.3)
Gets the gist.
The range of gets the gist refers to observations about readers who prioritize
and summarize ideas in a text. For example, this teacher recalls a particular moment
when students drawings revealed their difficulty distinguishing important from
interesting information.
I said draw one of the main events that happened and some of the kids really
needed some guidance on what the main thing was. They wanted to zone in on
what was their favorite part versus what was the main event. (S2.2.1)
The following observation of moment describes differences among a group of students
in regard to gets the gist.
I was just amazed when I looked at the summary. It was complete and
thorough. It was sequential. But she was just one of five. The others, some of
them struggled a little more. Some of them missed a few things that should
have been included. (Q2.4.2)
Finally, another teacher observes a pattern of gets the gist among a group of students.
"We talk about summarizing and I think this group was able to narrow down the key
points of a chapter. They weren't just spitting back everything. They were really
picking out the key ideas" (B3.2.3).

Abstract.
The second observed state of interpretation, coded abstract, includes teachers'
observations regarding ideas readers infer or intuit from a text. The ranges of abstract

84

interpretation are motive/significance, emotional tone, and theme. Table 4.19

provides definitions, characteristics, and examples of each range of abstract.
Table 4.19 Definitions and Examples of Interpretation / Abstract
Category
III. INTERPRETATION
Observed State
B. ABSTRACT
Ideas readers infer or intuit from text.
Range
Characterized by observations of Examples from the data
readers who . . .
Motive/
Explore the reasons why
They asked, why do you think Mars
Significance characters (or subjects of a text) Bars asked him over? (Z3.8.1)
do what they do. (What moves
them.) Explore implications of
details or events.
Emotional
tone

Theme

Explore/understand characters'
emotions.

He asked, how do you think Larkin

feels about Sophie showing up? Do
you think Rebel has a soft side?
(B3.5.2)
Extend beyond the text to
One of them tried to come up with an
understand unifying ideas or life author's message which was showing
lessons.
deeper understanding. They were
talking about trust and not giving up
and they were themes in the book.
They raised it on their own. (Q3.2.1)

Motive/significance.
In the data, observations describing motive/significance are characterized by
students' explorations of deeper meaning of characters actions, specific details, or
events. For example, this teacher observes a moment in a book club discussion of
Maniac Magee when students interpret the motivation for a characters decision.
One of their questions was, why doesn't Jeffrey want to go to Mars Bars'
house? The kids talked about how he had already said that he was tired of
losing people and that after what had happened to Grayson, he was so

85

distraught and distressed and just couldn't bear to be attached to anyone else
and be left again. (Z3.1.1)
Another teacher observes a moment of unfolding understanding of the dad's motive in
Baby.
One of the things they raised a lot was why Dad warned Larkin not to get
attached or not to love her and I think [at first] until they got to know the whole
story, some of them were able to figure out that it's because they lost the baby
but others had to wait a few more chapters to see how dad was behaving. Then
they were the ones who said Dad warned her not to fall in love with the baby,
but he's falling in love with her. They picked up on that. (B3.1.1)
This teacher observes the moment when a student interprets the significance of a
detail. "Allen said she did rock, paper scissors because that's what she remembered
most about Dad, his hands. He was mentioning something about how much Sophie
liked Dad's hands" (B3.4.4).

Emotional tone.
Emotional tone refers to observations that describe students' understanding of
affective dimensions of text. For example, this teacher observes the moment when a
student's perception of Sophie's emotional state at the end of Baby is revealed. She
says, "[He said] Papa was the one who healed the most because he didn't like Sophie
at first but he was the saddest when she left" (B3.8.1). The following moment of
students reading Charlotte's Web exemplifies the multi-faceted nature of
comprehension and response to text as students simultaneously infer Wilbur's
emotional state and interpret a motive for planning his day. This is also framed by
their deeply engaged stance.
They would talk about the characters and become really emotional. Like some
were crying when certain things in the story were happening. Someone asked
the question, why would he [Wilbur] schedule his day? And it became a whole
86

discussion of how he was feeling and he didn't want to feel that way so he kept
himself busy. They said it's because he doesn't want to be lonely, feel bored,
or scared. So they were thinking in the head of the pig in a sense; they were
trying to figure out the characters' emotions and their emotions and how it
plays into the story. (Q3.2.5)
Theme.
Theme, the last range of the observed state of abstract interpretation refers to
observations that describe students' understanding of unifying ideas or life lessons
implied by a text. For example, this teacher describes the moment in a book club
discussion about War With Grandpa. She says,
One student asked, what do you think Peter learns about war? One of the kids
said it's not fun. The rest of the kids realized that it's important to work
through your problems and that family is more important than any room could
be. (B2.5.2)
During a small group discussion of Red Dog, another teacher observes the following
moment. "They were very upset that the dog is not going to have any freedom now.
It's always going to be tied up or chained. They got talking about quality of life and is
it worth it" (B2.6.2)? Some observations describe how students misunderstand a
book's message or theme. For example, this teacher recalls a moment when reading
Stargirl.
They didn't make the connection between how people are unique individuals
and you should be proud of your individuality and you shouldn't fall into that
whole peer pressure thing. At the end of the story a lot of them said, oh it's
good she changed. Now she can fit in. (Z2.9.1)

Summary of interpretation.
These findings identify, characterize, and organize teachers observations of
interpretation, the range of information, ideas, and emotions readers take away from a

87

text. Teachers describe what students understand about what is explicitly stated in a
text. They describe what students infer or intuit through abstract reasoning, such as
motive, significance, emotional tone, and theme.
Distributions of teachers observations among the observed states of
interpretation (Table 4.20 and Figure 6) provide a view of teachers access and/or
attention to its multiple dimensions. From least to greatest, they are literal (.46) and
abstract (.54).
Table 4.20 Distribution of Observed States: Interpretation
Category

Observed States

Total

Proportion

Interpretation

Literal

31

.46

Abstract

36

.54

67

1.00

Total

Figure 6: Observed States Within Interpretation

Observed States Within Interpretation

Abstract
54%

Literal
46%

88

Frequencies of articulation codes within interpretation are shown in Figure 7. Note

the relatively even distributions among moments and patterns, and the low incidence
of trends.
Figure 7: Articulation Codes Within Interpretation
Articulation Codes Within Interpretation

Trend
12%
Moment
52%

Pattern
36%

Distributions of articulation codes within interpretation by observed state are

presented on Table 4.21.
Table 4.21 Distribution of Articulation: Interpretation by Observed State
Interpretation

Literal

Articulation
Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total

#
4
23
4
31

Prop.
.16
.71
.13
1.00

Abstract
#
30
2
4
36

Prop.
.83
.06
.11
1.00

Total
#
35
24
8
67

Prop.
.52
.36
.12
1.00

Of interest here are differences in the way teachers articulate text-based

observations (literal) and reader-based (abstract) observations. Observations of literal
comprehension are more frequently articulated as patterns (.71). Observations of
abstract comprehension are more frequently articulated as moments (.83).

89

Summary of Findings
I close this chapter with a summary of findings. To facilitate this summary, I
begin with three sets of charts previously distributed throughout the results section,
now consolidated to provide an overview. This is followed by a review of the
consolidated data that includes indicators of the separability of the coding system and
my final remarks.

Consolidation of Data
The following three sets of tables provide an overview of the results for
questions one and two. The first, Table 4.22, contains the full organizational
framework of comprehension categories, observed states, and ranges. The second set
includes Table 4.23, which provides distributions of observations by comprehension
category and observed state, followed by Table 4.24 indicating distributions of
observations by comprehension category across the entire data set. The third set
includes Table 4.25, which contains distributions of articulation codes by observed
state, followed by Table 4.26 indicating distributions of articulation codes across the
entire data set.

90

Table 4.22 Organizational Framework of Comprehension Categories

Category/
Observed
Definition
Range
Definition
States
Stance
Expectation for The extent to which reading is Passive
meaning
viewed as a transaction and to Budding
The position a
which the reader interacts with
Text-based
reader takes in
text to construct meaning.
Reader-text-based
relation to a text.
Engagement Duration and depth of
Fragile
attention and meaningful entry Emerging
into a text-world.
Deep
Analytic
Awareness of a text's
Graphic
constituent parts, textual,
Semantic/Syntactic
literary features or conceptual
Structural/Conceptual
structures, (concrete or
abstract) as objects for
consideration or discussion.
Critical
The focus of emotional
Author
response or critique.
Text
World
Technique
Access prior The degree to which a reader Gap
knowledge
accesses and applies prior
Weak
Strategies applied
knowledge.
Bridged
to construct
Strong
meaning
Monitor /
The extent to which strategies Inactive
Repair
such as rereading, retelling,
self-questioning, prioritizing Active
and visualizing are used to
monitor or repair meaning.
Synthesis
The extent to which
Simple
information from a text or
ideas from other readers
Complex
(multiple perspectives) are
combined to make/revise
logical predictions,
substantiated claims or
theories.
Interpretation
Literal
Information understood by a Just the facts
reader that is explicitly stated Sequences
Information,
in a text.
Gets the gist
ideas, and
Ideas and feelings a reader
Motive/Significance
emotions taken Abstract
infers
or
intuits.
away from a text
Emotional tone
by a reader.
Theme/Draws threads

91

Table 4.23 Distribution of Comprehension Category by Observed State

Category

Observed States

Total

Prop.

Stance

Expectation for meaning

14

.15

Engagement

38

.39

Analytical

30

.32

Critical

12

.12

94
Total

1.00
Prop.

Total
Category

Observed States

Technique

Access prior knowledge

36

.38

Monitor

27

.28

Synthesis

32

.34

95
Total

1.00
Prop.

Total
Category

Observed States

Interpretation

Literal

31

.46

Abstract

36

.54

67

1.00

Total

Table 4.24 Distribution of Comprehension Category Across Data Set

Category

Total

Prop.

Stance

97

.37

Technique

95

.37

Interpretation

67

.26

259

1.00

Total

92

Table 4.25 Distribution of Articulation Code by Observed State

Category

Observed State

Stance

Expects meaning

Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total
Technique

Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total
Interpretation
Moment
Pattern
Trend
Total

Total
Engagement

Analysis Critical

Prop.

Prop.

4
8
2
14

.29
.57
.14
1.00

9
22
7
38

.24
.58
.18
1.00

Access prior
knowledge

Monitor
meaning

Prop.

20 .61
12 .36
1 .03
33 1.00

Prop.

7 .58
3 .25
2 .17
12 1.00

Prop.

40 .41
45 .47
12 .12
97 1.00

Synthesis

Prop

Prop.

19
14
3
36

.53
.39
.08
1.00

3
22
2
27

.11
.82
.07
1.00

Literal

Prop.

17 .53
13 .41
2 .06
32 1.00

Prop.

39 .41
49 .52
7 .07
95 1.00

Abstract
#

Prop.

Prop.

4
23
4
31

.16
.71
.13
1.00

30
2
4
36

.83
.06
.11
1.00

Table 4.26 Distribution of Articulation Code Across Data Set

Articulation
#
Proportion
Moment
114
.44
Pattern
118
.46
Trend
27
.10
Total
259
1.00

93

Prop.

35 .52
24 .36
8 .12
67 1.00

Indicators of Separability
I began this research project with the benefit of knowing, as an insider, what it
is like to observe reading comprehension. I knew how much I learned about a
students understanding, processing, and engagement by hearing them wonder why
Charlotte compared Mr. Zuckerman to a bug, interpret the symbolism (without being
asked) of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich in Loser, or cry at the end of Pink and
Say. This kind of knowledge about students is not delivered in a box at the end of
February or June. It is not available for purchase from an outside source. It is a hard
earned, coming-to-know, a felt-sense (Perl, 2004) that seeps in slowly and deepens
with time spent in the presence of active readers. It is from this position of knowing
that I began the work of analyzing teachers observations of students reading
comprehension for this study. The distinct coding categories I devised for organizing
the data are as much a reflection of my own experience observing comprehension, as
they are a product of my detailed and close analytic reading of other teachers
observations.
The in-depth analysis of the data for question one resulted in a three-tiered
organizational system of categories, observed states, and ranges (Table 4.22, p. 91).
This system accounts for the breadth, variety, and specificity found in teachers
observations of students reading comprehension. The three main coding categories,
stance, technique, and interpretation, reflect the multiple lenses through which
teachers observe students as they interact with text. Definitions of stance, technique,
and interpretation, and the accompanying exemplars included in the results section of
this chapter delineate boundaries between the angles of inquiry or questions teachers

94

bring to bear on their observational processes. For example, stance asks, what is the
readers relationship to the text? Technique asks, what strategies does the reader use
to construct meaning? Interpretation asks, what ideas or information does the reader
take-away from a text?
The subordinate codes (observed states) make even further distinctions by
identifying finer variations between observations of comprehension within each
category. For instance, within stance: Do they read with an expectation for meaning?
What is the depth and duration of their engagement? Do they read and analyze a
texts features? Do they ask critical questions? Finally, the analysis for question one
is carried out to the level of range where twenty-seven codes capture nuance within
observed states such as the focus of a readers analytic stance, or degrees of efficacy
of a readers access to prior knowledge.
The quantitative analysis of data for question one reveals close to even
distributions of observations among the main categories. For instance, stance,
technique, and interpretation captured .37, .37, and .26 percent of the data,
respectively. These and similarly even distributions among most of the observed
states indicate a balance of teachers attention to the multiple layers of reading
comprehension and the effective separability of the coding system.
The analysis of the data for question two sought to learn more about teachers
data processing and articulations. It resulted in three codes: moment, pattern, and
trend. These codes indicate differences in the amount of processing associated with
each observation. For instance, processes of storage and analysis are implied through

95

the revelation of moments. Processes of analysis and interpretation over time are
implied through the revelation of patterns and trends.
The quantitative analysis of data for question two indicate an even distribution
across the data between articulation codes of moment (.44) and pattern (.46) but only
ten percent (.10) coded as trend. Within each category, differences are noted in the
way observations with codes of moment and pattern are distributed between particular
observed states. For example, in stance, observed states of analytic (.61) and critical
(.58) are more frequently coded as moment, while expects meaning (.57) and
engagement (.58) are more frequently coded as pattern. These distributions point to
differences in the way teachers attend to ideational indicators of comprehension such
as analytic and critical versus process-heavy indicators of comprehension such as
expectation for meaning and engagement.

Closing Remarks
When each subset of data related to question one is consolidated into a single
framework, (Table 4.22, p. 91) a full body portrait of teachers observations is drawn.
Place this portrait beside the findings from question two regarding teachers
articulations and an image of a powerful system for collection, storage, management,
analysis, and interpretation of data emerges. These findings are a reflection of the
complexity and capacity of teachers internal data processing. The scope of the data
speaks to the multiple theoretical frames that inform study participants instructional
practices and to the dimensions of student performance on which they focus. The
specificity of the data speaks to the close attention these teachers bring to bear on the

96

complex layers of engagement, reading for meaning demands. The research itself
speaks to the importance of opportunities for teachers like me to study the practices
they know well, but have little time to contemplate. It was, by no small measure,
knowledge-in-practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) that guided me through this
analysis and allowed me to capture the depth and complexity of teachers thinking.

97

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine and give voice to what
teachers in a transactional strategic instructional setting perceive about students
comprehension through embedded observation. My desire was to account for the
insight teachers gain as they interact with students and texts in their language-rich
classrooms and to use their articulations to build a practice-based conception of
comprehension assessment.
Motivation for this investigation came from three sources. First, it grew out of
concern expressed within my school by teachers about the absence of tools for
assessing comprehension. Given current public policy focus on quantitative
assessment schemes, its no wonder teachers consider what they come to know
about students comprehension through interaction and observation, too ephemeral to
really count. Cognitive strategies, modes of response, and points of literary analysis
made explicit during instruction are difficult to tease apart, analyze, interpret, and
articulate when students internalize and operationalize these processes in less
controlled, more socially complex contexts. Checklists and rubrics offer insufficient
representations of the multi-dimensional, intertwined performances teachers witness.
Teachers concerns about comprehension assessment led to a second
motivation for this study -- my interest in the intellectual pyrotechnics they perform
while engaging in embedded observation. Teachers simultaneously observe students

98

in action, analyze and interpret their observations, and implement and revise
instructional plans. They perform these complex cognitive tasks while attending to
everything in their classrooms from mundane requests for Band-Aids to critical socialemotional cries for help. Considering the problems researchers face when analyzing
the complexities of reading comprehension in the comfort of a study, the diverse fields
that inform a transactional strategic approach to reading instruction (language
acquisition and development, cognitive processing, reader response, literary analysis,
composition, sociocultural theories of learning), and the challenge of integrating these
perspectives into a coherent conception of instruction and assessment, I wondered,
how do teachers do it all in the transactional heat and light (Bomer, 1998) of their
classrooms?
My third motivation was political. It seemed important to make teacher
observation, the black box (Black & Wiliam, 1998) in the realm of reading
comprehension, visible, to provide some balance to education policy that legislates
restrictive definitions of evidential data and methodology in research and assessment.
With this study, by giving teachers observations voice and form, I hoped to call
attention to the challenging work teachers engage in daily as they gather, analyze, and
interpret the complex qualitative data that is alive in their classrooms.
Thus, I asked, what do teachers notice about students comprehension? How
do they articulate what they observe and interpret? What follows is a discussion of my
findings, their significance and implication for teachers, for professional development,
and for future research. I close by considering the limitations of this study and by
offering a further remark.

99

Discussion
The abundance of information conveyed by participants in this study about
students comprehension confirms previous findings (Meisels & Piker, 2001; Hall &
Webber, 1997; Paris, Paris & Carpenter, 2001; Stiggins and Bridgeford, 1985) of
teachers reliance on processes of embedded observation - their perception and
analysis of classroom activity - as an assessment tool. This study also confirms the
current hypothesis that, more specifically, teachers in a transactional strategic
instructional setting gain extensive knowledge about students reading comprehension
through embedded observation. The analysis of teachers articulations (descriptions of
students comprehension) accounts for the content of their observations in great detail.
Furthermore, it reveals dimensions of teachers interpretative practice that can be
characterized as a real-time data processing system.
This discussion follows a sequence similar to the presentation of findings in
chapter four: an overview of the framework, followed by a section for its main
categories: stance, technique, and interpretation. Each of these four sections is
framed by a question that locates points of significance regarding what teachers notice
about students comprehension, respectively: Overview of the Comprehension
Framework: What do teachers see?; Stance: What is missing?; Technique: What is
everywhere but hard to see?; Interpretation: What is most important? As in the
previous chapter, insights drawn from the analyses of data for questions one and two
are integrated as they become pertinent to the discussion. To conclude the discussion,
I draw ideas together to articulate a conception of teachers observational assessment
of reading comprehension.

100

Overview of the Comprehension Framework: What Do Teachers See?

The comprehension framework located on Table 4.22 (p. 91), the graphic
representation of qualitative findings for question one, captures the unique perspective
of teachers in highly interactive, language-rich classroom settings as they observe
comprehension. The teachers, upon whose observations the framework is built, are
representative of a larger pool of reflective practitioners (Shulman, 1986) in similar
student-centered environments. In this section, I will present an overview of the
frameworks conceptual source and content.
First, the framework identifies large differentiated conceptual chunks of
comprehension drawn from teachers observations and organizes them into three
categories inspired by parallel dimensions of a musical performance: stance,
technique, and interpretation. The frameworks performance-based conceptual source
reflects the synchronous play of these dimensions during reading: the way they
resonate to varying degrees in the context of different texts, social settings, purposes
for reading, and modes of communication, rendering them more or less salient to an
observer. The idea of salience, what is most noticeable or important to teachers as
they observe, accommodates notions of comprehension as a non-unitary (Duke, 2005)
and dynamic phenomenon and explains how discrete dimensions of reading rise to the
top of a performance at different times. Because of its variability, this conception
points to the preeminence of a human observer over a proxy (a pencil and paper test)
as the primary assessor of a readers comprehension. The frameworks musical roots
also hint at cycles of action and reflection inherent to any considered performance.
They call to mind the fluid processes of participation, observation, and reflection in

101

which teachers engage. They honor the real-time challenge teachers face as they
interact with students about text (read, think, listen, speak, write, draw) while also
observing and analyzing students complex performances. They depict times when in
the midst of these interactions, teachers pause and ask themselves, What just
happened here? What does this mean? while the music plays on.
Second, what teachers in this study observe about students comprehension is
found in the form and content of the comprehension framework (Table 4.22, p. 91). It
captures the breadth, variety, and nuance of teachers embedded observations. The
breadth of teachers observations are indicated by the three categories they encompass:
stance, technique, and interpretation; their variety by the nine observed states
identifying dimensions within each category; their nuance by the twenty-seven ranges
that further differentiate what teachers notice about student performance within these
dimensions.
These findings suggest that implicitly and/or explicitly, teachers draw on
multiple conceptions of comprehension to make sense of what they observe. The
dimensions of comprehension described by teachers align with cognitive, sociocultural, and literary theories of reading. Teachers look through a prism of lenses to
capture the many facets of comprehension just as Pressley and Afflerbach (1995)
combine the scope of reader response theory with the specifics of modern cognitive
theories (p. 87) to form a theory of constructive responsivity. It is telling of the
complexity of comprehension, that the researchers, whose synthesis of verbal protocol
studies led to the dissemination of knowledge about cognitive strategies to educators,
also draw on multiple theoretical frames to describe comprehension.

102

In addition to the influence of teachers theoretical knowledge upon what they

see, the lenses they use to observe comprehension appear to be honed by experience.
Each tier of the framework (category/observed state/range) describes the ways they
delve deeper to observe variety and subtle nuance in student performance, noticing
gaps, breakdowns, levels of support, and constructions of knowledge - - qualities
visible only to those who spend as much time interacting with young readers (on the
ground with kids) as elementary school teachers do. As previously stated, nine
observed states and twenty-seven ranges are noted in the data. To place the
significance of this finding in context, imagine a fourth grade teacher in this setting
who observes a student reading Shilo. For example: He compared Martys internal
conflict to the yin-yang symbol and explained the metaphor to the class. . . He realized
how complicated Martys problem was and that there was no easy answer. Later I
noticed him rereading the beginning of a chapter. He said he was confused about
where Marty was. . . When I told the class it was time for lunch, he didnt hear me.
He just kept on reading.
In the midst of a few interactions, this teacher observes her students analytic
stance, deep engagement, self-monitoring strategy, and literal and abstract
interpretation. Consider the cumulative effect of kidwatching (Goodman, 1985)
day-after-day over the course of a year on a teachers knowledge of a students
comprehension and the full portrait his or her observations may comprise. Consider
too, the effect of kidwatching over the course of a career on a teachers resources for
noticing variety, depth, and subtle difference in students comprehension. As a result
of interacting with hundreds of young readers, teachers construct personal collections

103

of observed moments - - images of comprehension in action. They draw on their

internalized images and theoretical conceptions of reading comprehension to make
sense of what they observe as students read for meaning, merging theory and practice.
Teachers observations are evenly distributed across the three main categories
of the framework (stance, .37; technique, .37, interpretation .26, respectively). These
even distributions suggest teachers balance of attention to students conceptions of
reading (stance), the skills and strategies they use to process text (technique), and
ideas, information, and emotions they take away from it (interpretation). Such
balance might not be found in observations of comprehension drawn from a different
group of teachers in a different instructional setting where, for example, students
answers to teachers questions alone, in traditional I/R/E fashion (Cazden, 1988),
might be used to assess comprehension, -- most likely only yielding knowledge of
what readers take-away from a text.
The instructional setting in which this study took place can also explain the
breadth, variety, and nuance of teachers observations. A transactional strategic
instructional approach in a readers workshop format places great demands on
teachers subject-matter knowledge. The quality of instruction and assessment that
takes place in classrooms is dependent on teachers broad theoretical and operational
understanding of reading. Teachers must have knowledge of comprehension
strategies, metacognition and schema theory, literary elements, analytic tools, and
approaches to developing interpretations through reader response. Readers workshop
positions teachers to author the path of instruction and assessment in their classrooms
(Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 2000). With this authority, they are able to create

104

environments in which instruction and comprehension assessment are conceptually

and epistemologically congruent. This is in stark contrast to the mismatch associated
with assessments driven by psychometrics over theories of reading (Duke, 2005) such
as word recognition or fluency, used because they are well correlated to
comprehension.
In any instructional setting, comprehension can only be observed indirectly. If
reading is thinking, its outcome, at least initially, exists only in your head. So just
what are teachers seeing? Pearson and Hamm (2005) refer to the ephemeral quality
of comprehension as its residue. They compare it to what Plato saw of the shadows
in the cave of reality. Regarding capture of this slippery construct, James Marshall
(2000) says,
. . . any response to literature, whether viewed as passive or active, will remain
largely invisible to those studying it until it is represented by the reader in
some verbal or material form. A reader's response to literature, in other words,
is never directly accessible: It is always mediated by the mode of
representation to which the reader has access (e.g., talk, writing, drawing) . . .
One reader's response to literature, then, can never be studied apart from the
medium in which it appears, and the response itself must be understood as
shaped by the conventions of that medium. (p. 382)
Indeed, teachers in this study gain access to students comprehension through
many texts, contexts, and modes of communication. In the data, teachers reference
over sixty books (Appendix E). They describe conversations about these books as
they take place in different social contexts: whole class, small guided-reading and
book club groups, or one-on-one independent reading conferences. Teachers refer to
insight gained about comprehension through student writing that includes jottings,
notes, charts, summaries, response journals, essays, and reports. They reference
student drawings of settings, characters, and important and significant events. They

105

describe students physical movement and gesture. But the most frequently referenced
mode of communication is talk, the most elusive form of expression to study.
The range of teachers observational data highlights the significant role they
play as interpreters of student comprehension. No other assessment instrument is
better situated to make sense of how and what students understand and feel as they
read, than the teachers with whom they talk. Without the freedom for students to
express thoughts and feelings in dialogue with a teacher or other readers, their
response is often reduced to saying what they think the teacher or test wants to hear,
a concern voiced by participants of this study, and opportunities for teachers to
observe constructions of knowledge and novel thoughts are diminished. Without
background knowledge about students gained through interpersonal relations, formal
assessments typically yield little insight into the unique transaction that takes place
between a particular reader, a particular text, at a particular moment in time. Teachers
(as assessment instruments) are responsive and flexible enough to capture students
idiosyncratic engagements.

Stance: What is Missing?

As previously discussed, teachers use multiple lenses to observe and interpret
what they see in students comprehension. In the findings, teachers observations are
organized into three main categories: stance, technique and interpretation. Within the
category of stance - - the position a reader takes in relation to a text - - teachers notice
most about students expectation for meaning, engagement, and analytic thinking. In
this section I discuss findings that reveal a dimension of stance teachers notice less

106

frequently. Quantitative and qualitative results point to teachers observations of

students critical reading as an under-represented dimension. Observations of
students critical reading constitute fifteen percent of the data in the category of stance
and four percent across the entire dataset. This is the lowest frequency of all observed
states. It is the weak representation of critical observations in the data that makes
them significant.
To discuss this finding, it is important to note that definitions of observed
states and characterizations of ranges contained in the results section of this study are
derived from the data. Thus, a critical stance is defined as: a readers focus of
emotional response, opinion, or critique. The ranges of critical observations are
differentiated by a readers object of attention. For example, in my analysis I found
teachers observing students who question the intentions of an author: They asked
why would they do that in a childrens book?; judge an idea conveyed by a text:
She said that was a mean thing for Maniac to say, but thought he didnt mean to be
mean.; or question the way things are in the world: She asked, Can you believe this
happened? in response to Henrys Freedom Box. Such distinctions between a
readers critique of author, text, or world, drawn from the data, are similar to those
more familiar categories of a readers connection to self, text, or world. While these
codes serve to organize data in this study that present slightly critical edges, they do
not sufficiently represent qualities of critical literacy, as they are known in the field at
large.
To frame the qualitative questions these findings raise about teachers critical
observations and to provide a broader point of reference for this discussion, I present a

107

brief definition of critical literacy drawn from the literature. Critical pedagogy
embodies goals of teaching toward democratic values of equity and social justice and
includes plans for and taking of social action. In classrooms, this means teachers and
students pose problems, question the status quo, discover new identities, and actively
seek alternative paths for the way things are in the world (Bomer & Bomer, 2001;
Shor, 1999). Teaching those at the bottom to interpret personal and communal issues
in relation to inequality and power and to devise actions to remedy inequality requires
an intentional shift in discourse. Shor (1999) states:
The position taken by critical literacy advocates is that no pedagogy is neutral,
no learning process is value-free, no curriculum avoids ideology and power
relations. To teach is to encourage human beings to develop in one direction
or another. In fostering student development, every teacher chooses some
subject matters, some ways of knowing, some ways of speaking and relating,
instead of others. Their choices orient students to map the world and their
relation to it. (para. 55)
Teaching critical literacy requires moving beyond the traditional literary discourse for
interpreting authors, texts, and the world, toward a discourse adjusted for critiquing or
questioning texts through lenses sensitive to fairness and injustice, power relations,
voice and silence, multiple perspectives, race and class, for example, with intentions
of reorienting the world toward equality (Bomer & Bomer, 2001).
This definition serves to qualify the relationship the critical observations from
this study have to critical literacy. I analyzed and coded teachers observations of
students reading comprehension as critical (though they might more aptly be named
judgments) because of their emergent critical quality and the potential they offer for
further development of students critical stance (Bomer & Bomer, 2001), but it is
important to ask, why are observations of critical reading so sparse? One explanation

108

is that students in these classes read critically, but their teachers dont notice. Given
the abundance of observational data teachers contribute to this study - - their range and
dimensionality - - it is unlikely that teachers would not also have observed and shared
students critical thoughts (regardless of teachers awareness of them as critical or
knowledge of critical pedagogy as formal study). A more likely explanation is that
students are not tooled up to read through a critical lens. In the data, although
teachers observations contain references to student language that is clearly
appropriated from instruction to analyze literary dimensions of text like mind movies,
sensory bursts, and timeline structure, there is no evidence of an equivalent common
critical discourse. Like cognitive strategies, literary response, and interpretation - critical literacy must be explicitly taught; student-teacher partnerships in critical
thinking must be formed. If this were the case, a shared language of critical literacy
would likely have also made its way into teachers descriptions of students
comprehension.
Why dont teachers develop critical reading as explicitly as they develop
students other reading lenses? Possibly, because teaching critical literacy is to teach
against the grain of power, a risky stance to take in an educational system that operates
to control instruction in top down fashion -- from federal, state, and local
administration, and finally to teachers and students. Shor (1999) says,
Some indication of just how high the stakes are in doing critical teaching can
be seen in the enormous official attention devoted to questions of reading,
writing, and the cannon. So much controlling administration and testing
directed to regulating literacy makes language use and instruction into pillars
of the status quo. (para. 46)

109

Indeed, critical tools are left out of official documents mapping literacy
curricula. In the more than thirty years since standards have been generated, none of
the versions with which I am familiar (New Standards, RI GLE/GSE, or the newly
adopted Common Core State Standards), articulate a vision for critical literacy.
Though there is room in these standards to incorporate critical teaching, to find a
teacher who does so is to find one with a strong personal commitment to liberatory
education (Freire, 1970,1993), one who is willing to take an uncommon stance and to
teach an uncommon core.
Beyond its absence from documents of curricular standards, compare the
sparse mainstream access to professional knowledge about critical literacy to the
vigorous streams of professional literature, basal readers, and instructional packages
through which information about cognitive strategies flows: Mosaic of Thought
(Keene, 2007), Strategies that Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007), Guiding Readers and
Writers (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001), Seven Keys to Comprehension (Zimmerman &
Hutchins, 2003), Read 180 (Scholastic). Though there are many resources about
critical literacy for teachers who seek them: Teaching Literacy for Love and Wisdom:
Being the Book and Being the Change (Wilhelm & Novak, 2011); Nurturing the
Peacemakers in Our Students: A Guide to Writing & Speaking Out About Issues of
War & of Peace (Weber, 2006); For a Better World: Reading and Writing for Social
Action (Bomer & Bomer, 2001); and Rethinking Schools ([Link]) - are a few examples - - there is no institutionally sanctioned track for integrating these
resources into the curriculum.

110

While it is possible that teachers in this study lack a critical stance personally,
or avoid it professionally (Wollman-Bonilla, 1998) it is unreasonable to attribute its
absence solely to their personal beliefs, knowledge, or choice. In light of the political
and social pressures limiting teachers engagement in critical pedagogy, it is more
reasonable and more important to ask: Why is critical literacy in public schools
marginalized when its goals are emancipatory and democratic?

Technique: What is Everywhere But Hard to See?

In this section I discuss findings about teachers observations of technique, the
execution of reading for meaning. Technique is implicit to comprehension, as it is to
any performance. It resonates throughout ones reading, like a pedal tone - - a bass
note sustained throughout a song that is at times imperceptible. What makes a
readers technique more or less perceptible or of concern to an observer can be
explained by the cognitivist distinction between a strategy and a skill. In this view, a
strategy is planful, procedural, purposeful, intentional, and conscious and can involve
the use of step-by-step procedures or heuristics, more general approaches to problem
solving. A skill is defined as automatic, habitual, routinized, and unconscious
(Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008; Alexander & Jetton, 2000). This distinction is
critical, since strategies and skills are frequently conflated in instructional language.
To place this distinction in a worldly context, consider a performance by
Jascha Heifetz of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto, a virtuoso and a technically
challenging piece. (It exceeded the abilities of the soloist for whom it was written,
Leopold Auer, in 1878.) Heifetzs technique is so flawless, so reliable, so deeply

111

engrained in his mind and body, it seems to disappear. Such a flawless performance - the kind he is remembered for - - has the effect of moving the audience, (confident of
his technique even in the midst of a tightrope act) into the realm of awe and emotion
and wherever else the music takes them (except perhaps for other violinists who will
also try to analyze his technique). Now imagine the same piece played by a relative
novice. The audience might have much to say about the technical dimensions of the
performance: difficulty with intonation, bow control, fingering speed. The challenge
of the music in relation to the skill of the player makes essential technique, (in its
absence) evident to a listener.
How does this relate to the current study of teachers observations of reading
comprehension? First, it depicts the way in which teachers use their personal
knowledge of students and expert knowledge of comprehension to analyze the
technique of a readers performance. In more proficient readings where strategies are
internalized, teachers draw on a fabric of shared experience with students, woven over
time with knowledge of books read, subjects studied, favorite topics, family
relationships, friendships, emotional triumphs and challenges. They use this
knowledge to infer skillful, essentially invisible dimensions of students reading. For
example, there are many observations in the data when teachers attribute a readers
insight to something they know about a students personality or experience. In
Maniac Magee: Jesse understands Amanda Beals care of books because she feels
exactly the same way about her books and her things. In Baby: Her father is not in
the picture and although its not a sibling as in the book, she understood that kind of
loss.

112

Second, when teachers observe readings of texts that offer students new
challenges, technique may be more noticeable. For example, in the data, teachers see
students reread a portion of text that is confusing (He rereads Commander Toad to
understand the puns), check a visualization with an illustration (Can sidewalks be
made of wood?), or make Venn diagrams to compare and contrast American
presidents. Though such vivid evidence of comprehension strategy use is not always
perceptible, when it is, it is significant that teachers have front row seats for students
performances and are able to capture their strategic tool use through direct
observation.
There are also examples in the data when students technique or
comprehension monitoring actions are evident to teachers, but their purposes are not
so clear. For instance, two teachers working with the same student describe the same
behavior: He stops frequently to ask for clarification about information in readings. It
seems he cant read on if a point of confusion or question of curiosity lingers in his
mind. Both wonder aloud: Why does he do this? What does he need? Is it a problem
or strength at this point in his development?
The uncertainty these teachers (and others in this study) express while
describing and interpreting students reading behaviors could be seen as an indication
of their ill-informed or weak assessment of comprehension. To the contrary, I believe
their questioning is evidence of an appropriate tentative inquiry stance. First, as
previously stated, it is not easy to capture and interpret the residue of comprehension.
It would be a misrepresentation of what can be known about another readers
processing through any means of assessment for a teacher to state his or her findings

113

in absolute terms. Rather, what renders a teacher a sophisticated assessment

instrument is his or her ability to capture dimensions of comprehension missed by
standardized tests and the potentiality to consider alternative explanations of the
dimensions observed. Second, a readers comprehension is not a fixed commodity. It
varies as text, social context, and purposes for reading change. Qualification of
context is necessary for conclusions about comprehension to be meaningful and
purposeful for instruction. Teachers observe, describe, and flexibly consider
contextual variables.
Findings regarding how teachers articulate what they observe about students
comprehension indicate a model of continuous embedded assessment, an on-going
construction of knowledge about students. Across the entire dataset, .44 of teachers
observations are moments. Forty-six and ten percent are patterns and trends,
respectively. This fairly even distribution between moments and patterns suggests the
existence of a hidden real-time data processing system. The data teachers collect
from day-to-day are stored, analyzed, and interpreted over time to yield performance
theories or working conclusions. Teachers store moments, descriptions of the here and
now, in wait and see mode, until they gather enough evidence to consolidate into a
pattern and thus, articulate their understanding more conclusively. Teachers
speculative posturing is reflective of the on-going interpretative processes in which
they engage. It is this interpretative work itself that makes the data teachers collect
most meaningful to them and most useful for informing instruction in the short and
long term. This proposition raises epistemological questions about the imposition of

114

traditional psychometric standards and quantifications of reading for meaning on

teachers classroom assessment processes.
As Mike Rose says,
The mother of big ideas in contemporary school reform is the belief that we
can capture dynamic phenomena like learning or teaching with a few
numerical measures. This is the logical fallacy of reification, and the last
century of psychological science is filled with unfortunate examples, as
Stephen J. Gould trenchantly observed in The Mismeasure of Man.
[Washington Post, posted 12:30 PM ET, 10/20/10]
It is significant that observational assessment offers much more space for
interpretation and insight than most diagnostic instruments grant teachers. In a
discussion of dynamic assessment, a method based on Vygotskian principles of
teaching and learning currently used and studied in the field of second language
learning, Lantolf & Poehner (2004) explain the psychometric concern with differences
in the amount of support given to subjects during administration of a mediated
learning experience. In response to the psychometric critique, Lantolf & Poehner
state,
For Vygotsky, improvisation and creativity are essential to providing
appropriate forms of mediation in the ZPD (Newman & Holzman, 1993), while
measuring a childs performance provides little more than a purely empirical
establishment of what is obvious to persons who just observe the child and
adds nothing new to what is already known through direct observation
(Vygotksy, 1998: 205). This gets at the fundamental purpose behind and
meaning of assessment: for Vygotksy, the task is not to measure but to
interpret the child (Vygotsky, 1998: 204). (p. 66)
Ironically, forms of assessment that measure rather than interpret progress are
required when a childs approach to learning presents as puzzling to a teacher, when
his or her development falters, and special education services are sought. In such
cases, a teacher might turn to a problem solving team seeking deeper understanding of

115

a childs behavior, perception, thought and language, physicality, or social and

emotional engagement. In this forum, teachers are required to present their findings
about students quantitatively. By privileging this reductive approach to assessment,
qualitative descriptions like those documented in this study are often neglected.
Insight teachers gain by observing students as they engage in reading by talking with
them about what they do to solve a particular problem, or what they think and feel
about a particular text, become sidebars to dimensions of progress that can be counted,
narrow though they may be.
Another point of significance in the findings regarding how teachers articulate
what they observe is the low incidence of trend (.10) across the data. The most
frequent dimension of comprehension about which teachers noted and described
change was engagement (.18), in the category of stance. Comments about students
attention, desire, interest, pleasure, and choice were most common. This could mean
changes in attitudinal or process-based dimensions are easier to observe over time than
changes in ideation. Teachers might need to engage in closer analyses of students
response to text to identify more nuanced indicators of change in dimensions such as
abstract interpretation or analytic stance. The finding of fewer trends could also be
attributed to the short window of data collection (between March and May).
Transformation in comprehension might happen at a slower pace and need to be
studied over a longer period of time. Or finally, it could be because participants were
asked to draw observations from their general practice, not about one particular
student, change over time was difficult to see. The breadth of data this research design
offered might have been at the expense of narrow data necessary for tracking change

116

over time in individual readers. Regardless of its reason, this finding indicates an area
for future study, which I will discuss later in this chapter.

Interpretation: What is Most Important?

Findings in the category of interpretation reveal differences in how teachers
articulate what they observe about students literal and abstract comprehension. First,
descriptions of students literal interpretations indicate teachers use of internalized
benchmarks of key or essential ideas in any given text to evaluate students
comprehension. Rather than articulate or cite specific details from a text understood
by a student, teachers make general, more conclusive statements. Teachers
observations of literal understanding of narrative text, for example, are conveyed in
general terms referencing students attention to literary elements, important
information, or sequence of events as in comments like, They get the story. They are
able to talk about the characters and setting, problems that are happening and how
theyre working to solve them, so I think for the most part they get the literal part of
the text (Q2.3.1). Rarely, and only within the context of comprehension breakdown,
do teachers cite specific ideas from a specific text to describe students literal
comprehension.
Indeed, eighty-four percent of observations in the observed state of literal are
coded as patterns and trends, collectively. This means that as teachers observe
students reading, over time, they collect, analyze, and interpret evidence of their
capacity for understanding at the literal level. Teachers pattern analyses result in
evaluative statements indicating students general strengths and weaknesses noted

117

across texts such as: He gets the gist. Im very comfortable with her literal
understanding. Teachers also make distinctions between students who understand at
the literal level but do not interpret more abstract ideas from their reading. They often
do so with concern, referring to their thinking as low level comprehension. This
suggests that although teachers consider literal understanding important, it is not their
end goal for instruction, but rather a point from which to march onward and upward.
This finding is significant when considered in light of the historic focus of
standardized assessments on literal and simple inferential levels of comprehension. It
raises the question, why do teachers in this study aim beyond the relatively narrow
scope of such tests? Perhaps they believe it is better (for the sake of improved test
scores) to teach beyond the test than to it. Or perhaps knowing the failure of such tests
to capture the most intellectually challenging and aesthetically enriching aspects of
reading, these teachers assume a professional responsibility for countering their
negative effect. It is also possible when teachers are protected from the ubiquitous
pressure to raise test scores and are instead encouraged to engage students in deep
learning over test preparation (as the principal did for the teachers in the school under
study), their conceptions of comprehension and goals for students broaden and deepen.
As standards and accountability programs are applied at large with a heavy hand, it is
important to consider the possible positive effect of local resistance to the intensified
use of standardized tests as measures of success.
Indicative of teachers deep and nuanced conceptions of successful reading are
the abundance of observations in which they revel in the details of students creative
and insightful interpretive moments in their classrooms. In contrast to the finding that

118

eighty-four percent of observations of literal interpretation are articulated as patterns

and trends, in the observed state of abstract, eighty-three percent of observations are
coded as specific moments. In these moments, teachers convey student response in
great detail by placing their utterances in textual context. When teachers describe
students abstract understanding or insight, they do so with specificity, citing titles
and scenes of books, merging them with ideas and feelings students convey at
particular points in texts. During my interviews with teachers, I witnessed them
search their memories for moments or events in a text during which students shared
insightful interpretations. For example, an observation in the data begins like this, as a
teacher tries to locate such a moment in Maniac Magee:
There was one section where Grayson said to Maniac about, he said something
to Maniac about, Im trying to think, one of the students took it the wrong way.
Grayson was angry. Was Grayson angry? Grayson wasnt mad at him but
they really . . . Ill have to go back to that part. They looked at it and they
didnt get the fact that Grayson had bought him some stuff for his room. Oh,
the part when Grayson dies and theyre at the wake and Maniacs talking out
loud and hes saying something like, someone had new sneakers and Maniac
said, oh Grayson could never have afforded that . . .(Z3.10.1)
The observation continues with the teachers interpretation of what one student
understood at this moment in the text:
and someone had said, I dont think he meant to be mean to Maniac because he
knows that he cant afford - but deep inside the person [the reader] thought that
was a mean thing for Maniac to say, but didnt want to believe that Maniac
was mean enough to say it. (Z3.10.1)
Another striking example of such synthesis of reader and text in the data is of a
teacher who held the nonfiction book, How Animals Defend Themselves, in her hand
(most did not physically refer to the text during interviews) and read aloud to me,

119

pausing to insert her students interpretations at different points in text. Here is an

excerpt:
When we got here, Allie stuck her tongue out. She pretended she was scared
and she stuck her tongue out . . . so then the kid that read this paragraph, Cara
wiggled her body like a snake. Well, what do you know, we get, I think Sara
pretended she was putting stuff on herself, but then we get - oh heres the
copycat. Oh heres another thing with this child. I got gross, the cut throat
finch. Somebody at one point said, wow, I get it now. It was this kind of
comprehension. It was hard for them to understand this idea. I think Allie was
the only one who got it. The monarch butterfly is poisonous. The viceroy
butterfly, it never says its not poisonous. It says the viceroy butterfly looks a
lot like the monarch so birds stay away from both kinds. So I did ask the
question, Do you think the viceroy butterfly is poisonous? It was hard for
them to think, it isnt poisonous. Thats why it needs to look like the monarch.
Until, and the same thing here. [Points to another page.] Birds dont eat ants
but they will eat spiders, so this spider looks like an ant so it wont be eaten.
Somebody said, thats a good second grade challenge . . . (L3.3.4)
Teachers weave detailed descriptions of reader and text together to create new
narratives, revealing their implicit theories of reading as transaction. This weaving,
evident across categories of comprehension where dimensions are articulated as
moments, can be thought of as a third text: the story of a particular reading of a
particular text. Teachers retellings convey dynamic images of comprehension. They
contain a richness of detail and provide a wealth of material from which to draw
insight. The time teachers in this study take to tell and reflect on their stories, the
detail they include, and the enthusiasm with which they share what is clear and what is
cloudy about their students reading are indicative of the value they place on the
active, thoughtful reading that takes place in their classrooms, and the active stance
they take as participants and interpreters.

120

Summary
As Calfee (1993) notes, the word assess is derived from the Latin assidere
meaning to sit beside (and thus assist the office of a judge). From the outset of this
study, I believed in the importance of the knowledge teachers gain about students by
sitting beside them. My hunch was its richness, the problem its obscurity. Teachers
in this study capture comprehension in its realest and fullest sense: as a complex,
multi-dimensional, and dynamic phenomenon that offers rich opportunity for human
engagement and interaction. Analysis of teachers knowledge of student
comprehension provides a conception of comprehension assessment grounded in the
realities of classroom life: It is descriptive, narrative, responsive, provisional,
cumulative, interpretative, formative, and evaluative. It is as attentive to process as it
is to content.
This research presents a way to reconcile the gap that exists between the
comprehensive knowledge teachers gain about students reading comprehension
through embedded observation and the weak authority their knowledge is afforded at
school. It bridges this gap by organizing teachers observational data into a coherent
framework representing the multiple perspectives that drive instruction and assessment
in a transactional strategic instructional setting, giving their knowledge order and
image. Cognizant of teachers in the moment, stance, I present this framework as a
tool for reflection: a way to look back at classroom interactions, to organize the
naturally disperse and multi-dimensional data they gather, and to draw meaning from
them.

121

Given the positivist conception of assessment privileged in schools, it is not

surprising that teachers themselves discount the value of the knowledge they construct
about students. The marginalization of teachers knowledge is cause for great
concern, for it is in each moment spent with students, as those documented in this
study, where school improvement resides. Until we lean into the complexity teachers
face each day, until we systematically and consistently support reflective practice,
until we value the knowledge teachers gain through processes of embedded
observation and interpretation, it is a pretense to call for data-driven instruction.
In the next section I will discuss how what I learned about teachers
observations of students comprehension serves to point the way forward for teachers
and for professional development.

Implications
This research confirms the characterization of teachers observations about
students as disperse, abundant, and tacit. The unbounded nature of the classroom
sources of teachers knowledge about students, places great demands on teachers
capacity to capture and process all that is there. This is especially true about
information gathered in dialogue with students. Therefore, teachers need methods of
study for retrospectively accessing, analyzing, interpreting, and organizing
observational data, which by design are gathered unsystematically at point of
contact with students. Intentional processes for reflection can serve to build teachers
metacognitive awareness of the scope, depth, and limits of their knowledge about
students. From this awareness, teachers may gain facility with articulation of

122

observational data, capacity to draw insight about student performance from these
data, and the realization of gaps in conceptions of comprehension and instruction.
This reflective work should, as much as possible, take the long view. This is
critical for two reasons: First, because the continuity of the work itself is essential.
Reflective work must be viewed as a slow-cooker, a dimension of a schools culture
that enhances the knowledge building capacity of the community. Second, for the
opportunity it affords teachers to look at student work longitudinally. The finding
from this study, of almost no articulations of trend, change in student performance,
indicates such a need. To notice and name change or development in student
comprehension, teachers must construct internalized images of comprehension,
perhaps beyond and more nuanced than those captured by this study, images toward
which they will teach and observe. Current education policy requiring teachers to
graph student progress of comprehension in quantitative terms has given rise to the use
of, at best, scored readings of benchmarked texts as proxies for such growth and
change. If instead of producing graphs, teachers were also asked to describe student
progress, to convey detailed images of students positions, actions, attitudes,
strategies, thoughts, and feelings in relation to text complexity, rich language would be
the currency of progress monitoring. Such descriptive language, however, can only be
born from contemplation of what we hope for our students to do as they develop as
readers and thinkers and from close examination of what we actually observe our
students doing as they read and think.
It takes an exploratory stance to consider and convey the complexities of
reading comprehension. It is significant that the teachers in this study embraced the

123

opportunity to take such a stance and delve deeply into the knowledge they gain about
students through observation, even as they humbly doubted they had much to
contribute. Their willingness to share and make vulnerable, knowledge that is
typically a closely held aspect of their practice, speaks volumes about their
commitment to on-going professional learning. Indeed, a culture of collaborative
inquiry was nurtured by the principal of the school years before this study began.
Throughout the interview process, it was clear to me that participants valued the time
they were given to talk about their practice. Because of what I observed happening
when teachers thought aloud about their students for this study, the processes I suggest
for professional development are collaborative, based on protocols developed by the
Prospect Center (2002). Though other protocols exist for looking at student work and
group study (Blythe, Allen, Powell, 1999) I propose four practiced at the Prospect
Institute and by many small teacher working groups around the country because I
believe they best address the challenge of capturing, analyzing, and interpreting
comprehension in action.
First, to assist in the exploration and development of a vocabulary of terms
associated with reading comprehension and thinking, I suggest the use of a protocol
called reflection on a word. This protocol encourages participants to offer definitions,
formal and informal, connections, examples, or images related to the focus word.
Words may be selected to explore a concept inherent to a body of student work to be
studied. They may be selected because their meaning is taken for granted or is
obscure. Reflection on a word is frequently used as a preface to other inquiry
protocols because of how it functions to build consensus, deepen insight, explore

124

divergence, stretch conceptions, and locate frequently overlooked dichotomies or

tensions inherent in thought and language. Cracking open a dense or seemingly
insignificant word collaboratively creates a circle of cumulative insight as one
participant sparks ideas for the next. I suggest this protocol because I believe such
study, done regularly, could have implications for the meaningfulness of language
used to describe reading comprehension among a community of teachers. This is in
contrast to calls for standardization of language for comprehension instruction and
compression of language for assessment (such as in rubrics) adopted from an outside
source without personalization, ownership, or deep understanding of what the
language actually means to the community.
Second, a recollection is the writing or oral telling of an experience
remembered. This protocol lends itself well to a close reading of teachers collected
moments or stories of readings, as they were characterized by this study. Capturing
conversational interactions in snapshot or extended story form allows teachers to bring
observations to the table for close study without the burden of voice recording and
transcribing the actual talk they represent. The act of preparing to present a
recollection provides opportunity for reflection, as processes of writing to learn or
telling of oral histories are apt to do. Collaborative interpretation of recollections once
presented, conducted in rounds with specific guidelines, yield multiple perspectives
and offer new strands of meaning for the teller.
Third, a descriptive review of a child is a presentation prepared by a teacher
and/or a parent, of information about a child organized by the following categories:
physical presence and gesture; disposition and temperament; connections with others

125

(both children and adults); strong interests and preferences; modes of thinking and
learning. In preparation for the presentation a teacher works with a facilitator to
decide upon a framing question for the review. Typically after the presenter shares his
or her portrayal of the child including information regarding illnesses or absences,
observations by family and other staff members who may know the child, the chair
restates the agreed upon focus question. At this time participants ask questions, offer
comments, and dialogue in rounds. After rounds, the chair gathers themes from the
discussion and restates the focus question. Responses and recommendations are
offered from the review group. Finally, participants evaluate the process itself, with
respect for the child, the family, and the teacher. I envision a descriptive review of a
child with the particular focus on a childs reading comprehension. Information
presented can be organized by the categories comprising the comprehension
framework, stance, technique, and interpretation, with ideas for further elaboration, at
least during initial attempts at this descriptive work, sparked by the observed states
and ranges also conveyed by the framework. I see this protocol as a way to create a
comprehensive portrait of a reader which will elicit response, alternate interpretations,
ideas for instruction, and revisions and additions to the comprehension framework
itself, as insight, ways of seeing readers should always be deepened by the experience.
Fourth, a descriptive review of a work or collection of work is best suited for
concrete representations of comprehension like writing and drawing. In this protocol
the procedure, put briefly here, is to introduce the protocol; reflect on a word that
emanates from the work; share first impressions of the work; describe visual elements
or paraphrase line by line all ideas conveyed in a written piece connecting what is

126

stated, to its specific location in the work; locate patterns, recurring images, or
connections between parts of the work; and finally describe the childs presence in the
work such as voice, style, consistencies, divergences, evidence of knowledge and
planning, and evidence of standards (standards the student has for themselves).
The last suggestion for professional development is for teachers to engage in
close reading and study of professional literature. This would provide opportunities to
expand philosophic, theoretic, and research-based content knowledge. Selections
made by the study group might emerge from questions raised during engagement in
other inquiry processes. Readings may be chosen to move participants into a new
field of study, such as critical literacy or to learn more about an aspect of their practice
about which they have read little. This aspect of teachers professional development
would promote a dialectic between practical and theoretic knowledge, and philosophic
thought.

Future Research
An area of future research indicated by findings discussed here is to investigate
the processes and products of a collaborative inquiry group focusing on dimensions of
comprehension that become evident to its participants through observation of student
performance. Studying a group formed intentionally around this goal might facilitate
learning about how teachers transform tacit knowledge about students reading
comprehension into more explicit knowledge. Possible research questions for this
study could be: What happens when teachers use collaborative inquiry tools for
reflecting on knowledge gained through observation? Which classroom artifacts are

127

most informative? How can teachers study classroom talk as evidence of

comprehension efficiently and effectively?
Another possible idea for extending the findings from this study is to conduct
case study research, gathering teachers observations of comprehension about a cluster
of students over a span of years. An outside researcher, who interviews teachers and
observes classroom instruction and interaction, following students through grade
levels, could conduct this study. Alternatively, it could be designed as collaborative
teacher research project, an inheritance study, where a vertical team of teachers agrees
to observe over time, a cluster of students representative of the school community.
Such longitudinal studies could provide insight into indicators of change and
development in comprehension that may not be apparent in studies of shorter duration,
such as the current one.
Finally, it seems worthwhile to pursue in a focused way, the notion of teachers
assessments of reading comprehension as story. Using the protocol for reflecting on
recollections, a group of teachers could meet regularly to share stories of reading in
their classrooms. Some possible research questions might be, what happens when
teachers write and share stories about reading in their classrooms? What insights
about students comprehension do they gain? What insight about instruction and
response do they gain?

Limitations
Several limitations of this study must be considered. First, because its
participants were self-selected, it could be argued that the generalizability of findings
is weakened. This would be a concern if the study were designed to evaluate the range
128

of observational knowledge among members of the participant group in relation to

variables such as years of teaching, certification, coursework, or professional
development. The purpose of this study, however, was not to evaluate or compare the
quality of observations among participants or to predict the likelihood of other
teachers observant tendencies. Rather, it was to document and make visible teachers
tacit knowledge of students. Therefore, the sample for this qualitative study was
drawn purposefully. Information-rich (Patton, 2002) participants were funneled into
the study by virtue of their position at the school. The school community as a whole
was selected for its highly interactive literature-based instructional method, a context
associated with teachers knowledge of students reading (Johnson, Weiss, &
Afflerbach, 1990). If any generalizations can be drawn from this study, they are
limited to teachers in similar contexts with similar content knowledge and experience.
Second, the sample size of ten could be considered too small. This might be
the case if conclusions were drawn about the predictive value of the findings to
teachers at large, but they were not. In qualitative research, sample size is considered
in relation to the breadth and depth of data sought. This study aimed to capture
teachers observations of comprehension broadly and deeply. To examine the
expanse, variety, and nuance of teachers observations, it was necessary to limit
sample size.
Third, as a teacher-researcher and a faculty member in the school under study,
my objectivity could be questioned. Did I bring too much background knowledge of
the setting, the participants, and processes of observing comprehension to the analysis
and interpretation of the data? This possibility must be considered. Alternatively, my

129

insider status could be seen as a benefit, my background knowledge of the setting and
its participants essential for an in-depth analysis, thus raising the opposite question.
Who else is better situated to collect, interpret, and catalogue teachers knowledge of
students for the purpose of creating a framework of comprehension reflective of a
teachers perspective, than a fellow teacher?
Questions could also be raised about my personal investment in the school
community and my ability to report findings without bias. Again, I return to the
purpose of this study about which I was clear at the outset. My purpose was to
document, explain, and organize the scope of teachers knowledge about students
comprehension, not to judge or evaluate it. What mattered more for the success of this
study was participants trust in me, so they would talk openly about their practice. In
return, I used what they shared to paint an honest and respectful portrait of their
knowledge of students and to create something for teachers that I hope will be of use.

Further Remarks
Predictably, this project heightened my awareness of the ubiquitous and
consequential nature of the insight workers in all professions gain about clients
through direct interaction. I found stories of doctors use of observational data to
construct medical diagnoses conveyed in a book entitled, How Doctors Think
(Groupman, 2007). More recently, I noticed an article in The New York Times (Feuer,
2011) about P.J. Cullen, president of a small independent bank in Cattaraugus, New
York. Numbers dont tell the story here, he said of a client seeking an $85,000 loan.
If you know Amish culture, you know his sons work and that everything they earn
goes to him until theyre 21 or married . . . So he was fine, but none of that shows up
130

on a credit score (Cullen, cited in Feuer, p. 27). Decisions influenced by data that
live under or beyond the radar of official measure are made wherever you find
professionals striving to do what is best for the people they serve. In hospitals, banks,
and classrooms, these stories matter because they call attention to the values essential
for effective professional practice: attention to individual difference, a broad
conception of what counts as knowledge, and the autonomy to use knowledge (broadly
conceived) to justify professional decisions.
This project sustained my interest for many years. One compelling reason has
been its effect on my teaching. As a result of looking closely at the dimensions of
comprehension participants of this study observe and describe, I find myself better
able to articulate dimensions of my own students comprehension. I hope this
research inspires other teachers to reflect and grasp the breadth and depth of insight
about students reading comprehension that is possible through embedded observation.

131

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Submitted to faculty of Saylesville Elementary
Susan Vander Does
June 4, 2008
Working Title of Study: Describing Comprehension: Teachers' Awareness and Articulations of
Students' Reading Comprehension
Question:
What do teachers observe about students' reading comprehension and how do they articulate what they
notice?
Purpose and Rationale:
The purpose of this descriptive study is to capture and document teachers' awareness of students'
reading comprehension. It will examine the character and substance of teachers' observations and the
language they use to articulate their observations.
This study operates under the assumption that teachers function as assessment instruments and are a
rich source of data regarding students' reading comprehension. However, because teachers'
observations often remain internal, or unarticulated, they constitute an underutilized and undervalued
source of data. This study attempts to shed light on the content and processes teachers employ as they
"come to know" their students as readers. It hopes to give form, voice, and authority to the knowledge
teachers construct about students' reading comprehension.
Participants: Seeking teachers who provide instruction in reading comprehension.
Data Collection:
Data collection will consist of four tiers: three interviews and one observation for each participant.
Estimated time commitment for each teacher is four hours.
1. Initial interview with each participating teacher (1 hour)
The purpose of this interview is to learn more about each teacher's conception of reading
comprehension.
2. Student work/Interview (1 hour)
Each teacher selects a piece of student work to be used as a "prompt" for talking about student
comprehension.
3. Lesson and observation (1 hour)
The researcher observes a comprehension lesson in each teacher's room for the purpose of
contextualizing the next interview.
4. Interview about observed lesson (1 hour)
Similar to the second interview, the lessons provide a context or prompt for eliciting teachers'
observations of students' comprehension.
The researcher will request permission to voice record interviews and take notes during all data
collection sessions. This study will be subject to approval by the Human Subjects
Committee of RIC/URI.

132

Appendix B
Interview Questions: Phase 1
Within the Text: Conceptions of Comprehension

When you think about comprehension, what comes to mind?

Why do you think some students comprehend better than others?
In your years of teaching, what have you noticed about the way
comprehension is taught?
If you were in charge of the reading curriculum, what would you
include?
Within the Text: Cognitive
What strategic thinking do you notice?
How does the structure of a particular text influence what strategies
readers use?
Beyond the Text: Affective / Aesthetic

Can you talk about a time when a students emotional engagement with
the content of his or her reading was apparent?
How can you tell when students get pleasure / displeasure from
reading?
React to this statement: A text is a work of art.
About the Text: Sociocultural Dimensions

What do you think about the relationship between students language,

cultural experience, and comprehension?
Why do you think students react to text in different ways?
Is there anything else you want to say?

133

Appendix C
Interview Questions: Phase 2
Within the Text: Conceptions of Comprehension

Why did you choose to reflect on this work?

What are your first thoughts about this work?
What surprises you about this work?
What concerns you about this work?
What unexpected thoughts / questions does it raise for you?
Within the Text: Cognitive

What patterns in students thinking do you notice regarding their . . .

self questioning
literal understanding
sequential understanding
connections to prior knowledge about self, text, the world
inferential thinking
thematic connections life lessons, so what, big ideas
claims
evidence from text to support claims
divergent thinking
metacognition awareness of ones reading, prior knowledge, fix-up
strategies
Beyond the Text: Affective / Aesthetic

What does this work tell you about students emotional engagement
with text?
Understanding of characters feelings?
Empathy?
Agreement / disagreement with the text?
Critical stance / critique of ideas or form?
Attention to writerly aspects / authorship
Their attitude toward reading itself?
About the Text: Sociocultural Dimensions

Is the childs prior knowledge visible to you?

What do you notice about the ways your students language and culture
influence their interpretations?

134

Appendix D
Interview Questions: Phase 3
Within the Text: Conceptions of Comprehension

Why did you choose to reflect on this work?

What are your first thoughts about this work?
What surprises you about this work?
What concerns you about this work?
What unexpected thoughts / questions does it raise for you?
Within the Text: Cognitive

What patterns in students thinking do you notice regarding their . . .

self questioning
literal understanding
sequential understanding
connections to prior knowledge about self, text, the world
inferential thinking
thematic connections life lessons, so what, big ideas
claims
evidence from text to support claims
divergent thinking
metacognition awareness of ones reading, prior knowledge, fix-up
strategies
Beyond the Text: Affective / Aesthetic

What does this work tell you about students emotional engagement
with text?
Understanding of characters feelings?
Empathy?
Agreement / disagreement with the text?
Critical stance / critique of ideas or form?
Attention to writerly aspects / authorship
Their attitude toward reading itself?
About the Text: Sociocultural Dimensions

Is the childs prior knowledge visible to you?

What do you notice about the ways your students language and culture
influence their interpretations?

135

Appendix E
Titles or Subjects of Books Referenced in the Data Set
Title or Subject
Abraham Lincoln
Aldo Applesauce
Americas Story
Animal camouflage
Arctic: It's Cold Up There
Baby
Barack Obama
Because of Winn Dixie
Booker T. Washington (bio
Bound for Oregon
Bud Not Buddy
Canyon Mystery (U)
Captain Underpants
Charlotte's Web
Commander Toad
Everything on a Waffle
Fox books
Freedom train
Frindle
George and Martha
Geronimo Stilton
Get a Horse
Hatchet
How Animals Defend Themselves
Island of the Blue Dolphins
James and the Giant Peach
Janitor's Son
King George
Komodo dragons
Lion Witch and the Wardrobe, The
Loser

Author When Known

Joanna Hurwitz
Harcourt Brace

Patricia McLachlan
Kate DiCamillo
Jean Van Leeuwen
Christopher Paul Curtis
Fountas & Pinnell Assessment System
Dav Pilkey
E.B. White
Jane Yolen
Polly Horvath
James Marshall
Andrew Clements
James Marshall
Geronimo Stilton
Fountas & Pinnell Assessment System
Gary Paulsen
Etta Karner & Pat Stephens
Scott O'Dell
Roald Dahl
Andrew Clements
Jean Fritz
C. S. Lewis
Jerry Spinelli

136

Magic Treehouse
Maniac Magee
Martin Luther King
Martin's Big Words
Marvin Redpost
May Amelia
Mouse and the Motorcycle
On My Honor
Pandas
Papa's Parrot (Every Living Thing)
Penderwicks
Pictures of Hollis Woods
Pinballs
Pioneer Cat
President Obama
R is for Rhode Island Red
Red Dog
Rosa Parks
Ruby Lavender
Runaway Mouse
Saving Up
Shiloh
Sign of the Beaver
Skinnybones
Stargirl
Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing
Trouble With Tuck
Twilight
Uncle Remus Stories
Wall, The
War With Grandpa, The
What Does Peace Feel Like?

Mary Pope Osborne

Jerry Spinelli
Rappaport & Collier
Louis Sachar
Jennifer L. Holm
Beverly Cleary
Marion Dane Bauer
Cynthia Rylant
Jeanne Birdsall
Patricia Reilly Giff
Betsey Byers
Hooks and Robinson
Allio & Begin
Bill Wallace
Deborah Wiles
Beverly Cleary
Fountas & Pinnell Assessment System
Phyllis Naylor Reynolds
Elizabeth George Speare
Barbara Park
Jerry Spinelli
Judy Blume
Theodore Taylor
Stephanie Meyer
Harris & Chase
Eve Bunting
Robert Kimmel Smith
Vladimir Radusky

137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers' main

idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 31-46.
Afflerbach, P. (Ed.) (1993). Reading assessment. STAIR: A system for recording
and using what we observe and know about our students. The Reading
Teacher, 47(3), 260-263.
Afflerbach, P. & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively
responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading.
In Israel, S.E. & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading
comprehension (pp. 69-90).
Afflerbach, P. P., Ruetschlin, H., & Russell, S. (2007). Assessing strategic reading.
In J. R. Paratore & R. L. McCormack (Eds.), Classroom literacy assessment:
Making sense of what students know and do (pp. 177-194). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Alexander, P., & Jetton, R. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &
R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 3, pp. 285-310).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic
processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr. M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977).
Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research
Journal, 14(4), 367-381.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and
learning. NH: Heinemann.
Baker, L. & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text
processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research
Quarterly, 17(2), 281-294.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D.
Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394).
Bartlett, F. D. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
New York: Macmillan.

138

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-75.
Blythe, T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. (1999). Looking together at student work. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Bomer, R. (1998). Transactional heat and light: More explicit literacy learning.
Language Arts, 76 (1), 11-18.
Bomer, R. & Bomer, K. (2001). For a better world: Reading and writing for social
action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bormuth, J. (1969). An operational definition of comprehension instruction. In K. S.
Goodman & J. T. Fleming (Eds.), Psycholinguistics and the teaching of
reading (pp. 48-60). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Borko, H., Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Teachers' decisions in the planning
of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 449-466.
Broadfoot, P. & Black, P. (2004). Redefining assessment? The first ten years of
Assessment in Education. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 7-27.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B.C.
Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension:
Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and
education (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day., J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training
students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 10(2), 14-21.
Brown, A. L., Smily, S. S., Day, J. D., Townsend, M., & Lawton, S. C. (1977).
Intrusion of a thematic idea in children's comprehension and retention of
stories. Child Development, 48(4), 1454-1466.
Bruner, J. (1956). A study of thinking. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In In J. V.
Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian
perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Calfee, R. (1992). Assessment, testing, measurement: Whats the difference?
Educational Assessment, 1(1), 1-7.
Calkins, L. (2000). The art of teaching reading. ME: Stenhouse.

139

Carini, P. F. (1979). The art of seeing and the visibility of the person. Grand Forks,
ND: University of North Dakota
Carini, P. F. (1986). Building from children's strengths. Journal of Education,
168(3), 13-24.
Carini, P. F. (2000). From another angle: Childrens strengths and school
standards. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Carini, P. F. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at children, schools, and
standards. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using
knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An
experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249305.
Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Witrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New York:
MacMillan.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition
create each other. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational
equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), retrieved from
[Link]/harvard on 2/27/04.
Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the
old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Duckworth, E. (1996). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching
and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

140

Duke, N. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a nonunitary

construct. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading
comprehension and assessment (pp. 93-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duffy, G. G. (1993). Teachers' progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers.
The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 109-129.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Putnam, J. (1987). Putting the teacher in control: Basal
reading textbooks and instructional decision making. The Elementary School
Journal, 87(3), 357-366.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading
comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, (14)4, 481-533.
Eisner, E. W. (2003). Artistry in education. Scandinavian Journal of Education.
47(3), 373-384.
Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. A. (1993). Using
children's mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational
Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583.
Feuer, A. (2011, December). The bank around the corner. Retrieved from
[Link]/2011/12/25/nyregion on 12/25/2011.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Fishman, A. (1988). Amish literacy: What and how it means. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Freire, P. (1970/1993) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Flavel, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L .B. Resnick
(Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers, grades 3-6:
Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Leveled books, K-8: Matching texts to readers
for effective teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. S. (2007). Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment
system. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

141

Garner, R., Wagoner, S., & Smith. T. (1983). Externalizing question-answering

strategies of good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 18
(4), 439-447.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. K. Kamil, P.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,
(Vol. 3, pp. 195-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodman, Y. (1985). Kidwatching: Observing children in the classroom. In A.
Jaggar & M.T. Smith-Burke (eds.). Observing the language learner (pp. 9-18.
Urbana, IL & Neward, DE: National Council of Teachers of English and
International Reading Association.
Goodman, Y. (1996). Notes From a kidwatcher: Selected writings of Yetta M.
Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Greene, M. (2000). The question of standards. Teachers College Record, 91(1), 914.
Groupman, J. (2008). How doctors think. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness
of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guthrie, J. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
Reading Research, Vol. 3 (pp. 403-424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, K. & Webber, B. (1997). A study in teacher assessment at key stage 1.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 107-123.
Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught?
A quantitative synthesis of "metacogntive" studies. Educational Researcher,
17(9), 5-8.
Hansen, J. & Pearson, P. D. (1982). An instructional study: Improving the inferential
comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Report CSR-TR-235,
35 pp. ERIC, Accession Number: ED21531.
Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to
enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational
Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.

142

Hilden, K. R. & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies

instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly (23), 57-75.
Himley, M. (Ed.) (2002). Prospects descriptive processes: The Child, the art of
teaching & the classroom & school. VT: The Prospect Center.
International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English joint
task force on assessment (1994). Standards for the assessment of reading and
writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Johnston, P. (1984). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19(2), 219-239.
Johnston, P. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
Johnston, P. & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from
text. Cognition and Instruction, 2(3/4), 207-233.
Johnston, P., Weiss, P., & Afflerbach, P. (1990). Teachers' evaluations of teaching
and learning in literacy and literature. (Report Series 3.4). Albany: State
University of New York, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
Johnston, P., Afflerbach, P., & Weiss, P. (1993). Teachers' assessment of the
teaching and learning of literacy. Educational Assessment, 1(2), 91-117.
Johnston, P. & Costello. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(2), 256-267.
Keene, E. O. (2007). Mosaic of thought. NH: Heinemann.
Langer, J. (1995). Envisioning literature: Literary understanding and literature
instruction. NY, New York: Teachers College Press.
Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development:
bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1), 49-72.
Marshall, J. (2000). Research on response to literature. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,
(Vol. 3, pp. 381-402). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston
(Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.

143

Meisels, S. J. & Piker, R. A. (2001). An analysis of early literacy assessments used

for instruction. (Tech. Rep. No 2-1013). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Murphy, S. (1998). Fragile evidence: A critique of reading assessment. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
National Writing Project. About NWP. Retrieved from [Link] on 1/21/
12.
Olshavsky, J. E. (1976-1977). Reading as problem solving: an investigation of
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 12(4), 654-674.
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensionfostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,
1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G. & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instructions for reading
awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083-2093.
Paris, S., Paris, A., & Carpenter, R. (2001). Effective practices for assessing young
readers. (Tech. Rep. #3-013). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for
the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Paris, S. G., Wixson, K. K., & Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Instructional approaches to
reading comprehension. Review of Research in Education, 13, 91-128.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearson, D. P. & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: A
review of practices Past present, and future. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl
(Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perl, S. (2004). Felt sense: Writing with the body. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures.
New York: Viking Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching,
and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
Reading Research, (Vol. 3, pp. 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

144

Pressley, M. (2002). Conclusion: Improving comprehension: A path for the future.

In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.). Improving
comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom
practice (pp. 385-399). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. & El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J. &
Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of
reading comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5),
513-555.
Pressley, M. & Hilden, K. (2005). Commentary on three important directions in
comprehension research. In S. G. Paris & S. . Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading
comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J, Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989).
Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. The
Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Washington, DC:
RAND Education.
Rappaport, D. (2001). Martin's big words. New York: Hyperion Books.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of
classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429-462.
Rea-Dickins, P. & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the
construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17(2), 215-243.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship
between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction.
American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.
Rose, M. (2010, October 20). The threats to school reform . . . are within school
reform. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
[Link] on 9/10/2011.
Rosenblatt, L. (1936/1995). Literature as exploration. New York: The Modern
Language Association of America.

145

Rosenshine, B. (1980). Skill hierarchies in reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B.

C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension:
Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and
education (pp. 535-554). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenshine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate
questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational
Research, 66(2), 181-221.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J.
Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading
comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial
intelligence, and education (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scates, D. E. (1943) Differences between measurement criteria of pure scientists and
of classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Research. 38(1), 1-13.
Schon, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey's legacy to education.
Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119-139.
Schwab. J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do.
Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shank, R. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, and understanding: An inquiry
into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Shannon, P. (1983). The use of commercial reading materials in American
elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 68-85.
Shannon, P. (1988). Broken promises: Reading instruction in twentieth-century
America. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of reading
instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? Journal for pedagogy, pluralism &
practice. 4(1). Retrieved on 9/5/2011 from
[Link]

146

Shulman L. S. (1984). The practical and the eclectic: A deliberation on teaching and
educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 183-200.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The
Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511-526.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural
perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1),
10-29.
Stiggins, R. J. (1985). Improving assessment where it means the most: In the
classroom. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 69-74.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
Stiggins, R. J. & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Sweet, A. P. (2005). Assessment of reading comprehension: The RAND reading
study group vision. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading
comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Valencia, S. (2007) Inquiry oriented assessment. In J. R. Paratore & R. L.
McCormack (Eds.), Classroom literacy assessment: Making sense of what
students know and do (pp. 3-20). New York: The Guilford Press.
Valencia, S. W. & Place, N. A. (1994). Literacy portfolios for teaching, learning, and
accountability: The Bellevue literacy assessment project. In S. W. Valencia,
E. F. Hiebert, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment:
Practices and possibilities (pp. 134-166). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

147

Weber, C. (2006). Nurturing the peacemakers in our students: A guide to writing

and speaking out about issues of war and peace. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Wilhelm, J. D. & Novak, B. (2011). Teaching literacy for love and wisdom: Being
the book and being the change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wilkinson, L. & Silliman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M.
L. Kamil, P. G. Mosenthal, P. D Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 337-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (1998). Outrageous viewpoints: Teachers criteria for
rejecting works of childrens literature. Language Arts, 75(4), 287-295.
Wong, B. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 55(2), 227-268.
Zimmerman, S. & Hutchins, C. (2003). 7 keys to comprehension: How to help your
kids read it & get it. New York, NY: Random House.

148