\fiLIBRARlES _—:_1I_— -___. RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. FINES will '— “.g ‘* ‘::§l'5 535' 1 THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF TEACHER ELICITATIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL SEQUENCE INTERACTIONS DURING THE LOH GROUP READING SKILL LESSONS OF MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE FIFTH GRADE TEACHERS VOLUME I BY Linda Gire Vavrus A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1987 Copyright by Linda Gire Vavrus 1987 This work is sponsored in part by the Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University. The Institute for Research on Teaching is funded primarily by the Program for Teaching and Instruction of the National Institute of Education, United States Department of Education. The Opinions expressed in this dissertation do not necessarily reflect the position, policy or endorsement of the National Institute of Education. (Contract No. uOO-B1-OO1R) ABSTRACT THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF TEACHER ELICITATIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL SEQUENCE INTERACTIONS DURING THE Low GROUP READING SKILL LESSONS OF MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE FIFTH GRADE TEACHERS By Linda Gire Vavrus This dissertation investigated the functional roles of teachers' questioning practices in low reading group instruction. Twelve fifth grade teachers were included in the study. Six were designated as "more effective" and six as "less effective," on the basis of their students' awareness of reading strategies and gains in reading achievement. Teacher-student verbal interaction sequences and component discourse elements (i.e., teachers' elicitations and evaluations) were identified and analyzed for frequency and lesson positioning. In all, transcripts and audiotapes from fifty-one skill lessons were examined on the following dimensions: (a) elicitation frequency within identified lesson sections or phases; (b) content focus of instructional sequences; (c) knowledge orientation conveyed in instructional sequences (i.e., declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge); (d) structural form of verbal discourse of instructional sequences (i.e., interaction formats, including length of interactions); and Linda Gire Vavrus (e) perceived purpose of the teacher's instructional task (i.e., assessment or assistance). Quantitative analyses yielded few statistically significant differences between the more effective and less effective groups, but several suggestive trends were present that were buttressed by complementary qualitative transcript analyses. In particular, four conclusions about more and less effective low group skill instruction appear warranted on the basis of the study: (a) the position within phases of sequences that involved elicitations of different types is key to the function Of questioning in skill lessons; (b) elicitation sequences that provide students with practice Opportunities for skill use are preceded in more effective lessons by an explicit presentation of information; (o) elicitations assist student learning by modeling skills and by directing student attention to important skill features; and (d) more effective assessment questioning goes beyond declarative knowledge to include procedural and conditional skill knowledge as well. On the basis of these results, the dissertation implies several directions for further questioning research in reading, and suggests strategies for teacher educators and classroom teachers for improving questioning in reading skill instruction. For Jessica Who knows that competing with a dissertation isn't easy! With Love 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my guidance committee members, Dr. Laura Roehler (Chair), Dr. George Sherman, Dr. Tom Carr, and Dr. Phil Cusick for being there for so long and then rallying on short notice. Indebtedness is particularly heavy to Laura for never ceasing to believe this dissertation would be completed, even when I had my doubts. She epitomizes patience and flexibility. Very special appreciation goes to family, numerous friends and colleagues for their sustained support during the years it took to complete this task. I especially wish to thank Janet and Henry Gire, my parents, for their continual support-~Mahalo; June and Donald Gray, for providing a much needed rural retreat; Ken Howe, for editorial assistance when sentences were unwieldy, among many other things; Jill Dickman, for raspberry truffles in times of stress; Bob Egbert, Carolyn McCall and Lynn Mortensen, Cornhuskers with timely words of encouragement; Jim Walter, Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, who kept the faith; and last but certainly not least, Gerry Duffy, whose skepticism about the role of questioning got this whole thing started. I wish to acknowledge the important assistance provided by the members of the Teacher Explanation Project: Dr. Laura Roeher, Dr. Gerald Duffy, Dr. Cassandra Book, Dr. Joyce Putnam, Dr. Roy Wesselman, Michael Meloth, Gary Rackcliffe, Eva Sivan, Ruth Polin, Claire Simon and Diane Drenth; also, the Lansing School District teachers who participated in the 1982-83 Study. I could have never negotiated final preparation of "classy" versions of the numerous tables and figures without the expertise of Suzie Sybouts in Lincoln, Nebraska. Finally, I appreciate the financial and logistical support provided for conducting the research and for manuscript preparation by the Institute for Research on Teaching (a special thanks to Mary Mowry). iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VOLUME I LIST OF TABLES ................................... xii LIST OF FIGURES .................................. xv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 00000000000000000 1 The PrOblem 000000000000000000000000.00000 14 Statement of the Problem .............. Background to the Problem ............. Significance of the Study ............. A 6 14 Definitions 000000000000.00000000000000000 19 General Terms 000000000000000000...’IO. 19 Terms Used to Characterize Lesson Discourse Elements .......... 21 ResearCh Questions 00000000000000.00000000 35 Sample Selected for the Study ............ Design of the Study ...................... 37 38 COlleCtion Of the Data 0000000000000000 39 Data Analysis Procedures .............. 39 Assumptions 000000000000000000000000000000 LE7 Limitations 000000000000000000000000000000 49 Organization of the Remainder 0f the Dissertation 0000000000000000000 51 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE RELATED TO TEACHER QUESTIONING PRACTICES DURING READING INSTRUCTION ............ 52 Section 1: Classification Systems for Types of Teacher-Posed Questions ...... 53 Cognitive Complexity Taxonomies ....... 5M iv Sources of Information Taxonomies ..... Cognitive Function Taxonomies ......... Page 60 65 DiSCUSSion 0000000000000000000000000000 70 Summary of Section 1: Classification Schemes ............. 7“ Section 2: Questioning Effects and StUdent outcomes 0000000000000000000000 76 Effects of Higher and Lower Level Teacher Questions on Student Outcomes ................... 76 General Characteristics of Teacher Questioning Included in the Direct Instruction Model based on Classroom Studies of Teacher Effects .................... 81 Specific Characteristics of Teacher Questioning Reported in Classroom-based Studies of Reading Instruction ................ 8“ Summary of Section 2: Questioning Effects and Student Outcomes ................... 89 Section 3: Teacher Questioning, Comprehension Training and Student Cognitive Processing .......... 90 Cognitive Mediation ................... 91 Teacher Questioning in Comprehension Training Studies ..... 93 Summary of Section 3: Teacher Questioning, Comprehension Training and Student Cognitive Processing ....... 96 Section 4: The Sociolinguistic View of Questioning Practices .............. 97 Characteristics of Instructional Discourse .......................... 100 Major Findings from Sociolinguistic Studies of Reading Instruction ..... 101 Summary of Section 4: The Sociolinguistic View ........... 102 Section 5: Issues in Classroom Questioning Research .................. 103 Page Specifying the Instructional Context .. 103 Instructional Task Context ......... Interactional Context .............. Learner Aptitude Context ........... 10H 105 106 Redefining the Unit of Analysis for Studying Questioning Practices IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 107 sequences IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 108 Instruction as Assessment versus ASSj-Stance IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 109 Summary of Chapter II .................... 111 NOTES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1114 IIII DESIGN AND PROCEDURES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 115 Procedures to Obtain a Teacher Sample .... 116 The Study from which the Sample was Selected: The Teacher Explanation StUdy IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 116 Procedures Used to Select the sample IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. 119 Sample Characteristics ................ 120 TeaCherS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 120 Lessons IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 123 Summary of Sample Characteristics .. 126 Summary of Procedures to Obtain a Teacher Sample ............ 126 Data Analysis Procedures ................. 126 Step One: Procedures for Identifying Elicitations ........... 131 Step Two: Procedures for Reformatting the Transcripts ....... 132 Step Three: Procedures for Identifying Lesson Phases and Sequences ...................... 133 Phases III II II I I III II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I 133 sequences I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II 13” vi Page Summary of Step Three: Procedures for Identifying Lesson Phases and Sequences ...... 140 Step Four: Procedures for Determining Lesson, Phase and Sequence Length .. 140 Summary of Data Collection Procedures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11:2 Data Analysis Procedures ................. 143 Step One: Procedures for Identifying and Classifying Elicitations within Instructional Sequences ..... 147 Step Two: Procedures for Identifying and Classifying Evaluation Elements within Instructional Sequences .......................... 151 Summary of Step One and Two: The Identification and Classification of Elicitations and Evaluation Elements within Instructional Sequences ............ 153 Step Three: Procedures for Identifying and Classifying Instructional Sequences ............ 155 Code 1: Sequence Structural Form ... 156 Summary of Structural Form Coding .................... 163 Sequence Content and Purpose Codes (Codes 2 - 5) .............. 164 Summary of Sequence Content and Purpose Coding ............. 176 Summary of Step Three: The Identification and Classification of Instructional Sequences ....... 177 Step Four: Procedures for Transferring Coded Data to Lesson Maps ........................ 179 vii Page Step Five: Procedures for Characterizing Visual Profile of Lesson Discourse Characteristics .................... 181 Step Six: Procedures for Quantifying Frequency Information Obtained from Coded Sequence Data ................ 184 Step Seven: Procedures for Characterizing the More Effective and Less Effective Teacher Groups ..................... 188 Step Eight: Procedures for Comparing Questioning Practices Between the Two Teacher Groups ..... 189 Quantitative Analysis .............. 190 Qualitative Analysis ............... 191 Summary of Data Analysis Procedures IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 191 Summary of Chapter III: Design and Procedures .............. 192 Iv. RESULTS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 195 Introduction ............................. 195 Research Question 1: ' Overall Lesson Length and Discourse Component Characteristics ... 197 Lesson Length ......................... 199 Sequences ............................. 202 Elicitations .......................... Evaluations ........................... 203 203 Summary of Findings Related to Research Question 1 ................ 204 Research Question 2: Content and Form Dimensions of Sequences and Discourse Components .... 205 Kinds of Elicitations and Their Frequency in Lesson sequences IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOII 207 Product Elicitations ............... 212 Process Elicitations ............... 213 Usefulness Elicitations ............ 214 Academic Management Elicitations ... 215 viii Sequence Structural Form .............. Sequence TOpical Information Content .. Evaluation Structural Form and Page 216 224 Informational Content .............. 229 Evaluation Information Content ..... 229 Evaluation Structural Form ......... 231 Cognitive Knowledge Types ............. 235 Instructional Purpose (Assessment or Assistance) of Sequences Containing Elicitations .. 242 Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 ................ 250 Research Question 3: Positioning of Sequences, Elicitation and Evaluation Elements ......O...’. 253 General Phase Characteristics of the Average Skill Lesson: Distribution of Length, Teacher Talk and Discourse Elements ........ 255 Distribution of Kinds of Elicitations in Lesson Phases ...... 263 Positioning of Sequences with Different Sequence Structural Form Characteristics ............... 270 Positioning of Sequences with Different Topical Information Content Foci ....................... 275 Positioning of Evaluations with Different Information Content Foci and Structural Form Characteristics .................... 280 Evaluation Informational Content ... 280 Evaluation Structural Form ......... 281 Positioning of Sequences with Different Cognitive Knowledge Type Characteristics ............... 287 Positioning of Sequences with Different Instructional Purpose Characteristics .................... 289 Summary of Findings for ResearCh Question300000000000000... 290 summary or Chapter Iv ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 295 ix V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .... 300 summary Of the StUdy ......OOOOOOOOOOOO... Conclusions and Recommendations .......... 300 304 Page General Lesson Characteristics Related to Teacher Questioning ........ 305 Descriptive Dimensions of Sequences and Component Discourse Elements Related to Teacher Questioning ..... 307 318 320 320 323 327 329 346 Summary Conclusions Regarding the Role of Teacher Questioning in Low Group Reading Skill Lessons ...................... Implications ................OOOOOOCOOOOI. For ResearCherS ...OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO For Teacher Educators and Teachers .... AFj-nal word I.00............OOOOOOOOOO... REFERENCES O.I.........OIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI......OOOOO VOLUME II APPENDICES 0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOO0000.00.00... Appendix 3A FORM FOR TYPED REFORMATTED TRANSCRIPTION OF LESSONS 3B SAMPLE DATA SET (Lesson 18R4, Main Idea) 3B.1 3B.2 38.3 33.4 33-5 Reformatted Transcript Sample Completed Lesson Map Sample Worksheet for Elicitation Types, Sequence Structural Form, and Sequence Topical Information Content Sample Evaluation Elements Worksheet Sample Visual Lesson Profile 3C SAMPLE LESSON LENGTH RECORD FORM 3D EXAMPLE SEQUENCES FROM LESSON TRANSCRIPTS TO ILLUSTRATE CLASSIFICATION CODES Appendix 3D.1 3D.2 30.3 3E 3F 3F.1 3F.2 Example Interaction Sequences Illustrating Elicitation and Evaluation Codes Examples of Structural Form Codes Examples Illustrating the Application of Sequence Content and Function Codes SAMPLE FORM FOR LESSON MAP CONSTRUCTION SAMPLE VISUAL LESSON MAPS FOR TWELVE TEACHERS More Effective Teachers' Lesson Profiles Less Effective Teachers' Lesson Profiles 36 SAMPLE DATA REPORTING WORKSHEETS AND FORMS 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 3G08 Tally Sheet for Sequences and Elicitations Tally Sheet for Evaluations Worksheet: Summaries of Phase/Lesson Information Worksheet: Cognitive Knowledge and Instructional Purpose Codes Phase Summary: Cognitive Knowledge Types Phase Summary: Instructional Purpose Codes Summary of Elicitation Type Frequencies Record of Sequence Time Measures for Lessons/Phases xi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 An Overall Teacher Effectiveness Ranking based on Rankings of Z-Scores Converted from Two Student Performance Scores: Achievement and Awareness ............... 121 3.2 Student Engagement Ratings at Four Observation Points During the Academic Year for the Six More Effective and Six Less Effective Teachers ................................ 122 3.3 Descriptive Characteristics of Reading Groups 0.000.000.0000.0.00.00... 12” 3.4 Reading Skill Lesson Topics ............... 127 3.5 Lesson Phases ......OOOIIOCOOOOOOOOOO...... 135 3.6 Elicitation Content Purpose Codes ......... 150 3.7 Evaluation/Elaboration Structural Form COdeS .........COOOOOOOOCOCOOOC.... 15“ 3.8 Sequence Structural Form Codes ............ 159 3.9 Instructional Sequence Topics-- TOpical Information Content Codes ...... 168 3.10 Evaluation Information Content Codes ...... 169 3.11 Cognitive Knowledge Type Sequence Codes ... 172 3.12 Instructional Purpose Codes Based on the Perceived Function of Teachers' Elicitations in Instructional sequences OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO...O. 175 xii List of Tables (cont'd.) Table Page 4.1 Average Lesson Means (and Standard Deviations) for Lesson Discourse Characteristics of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ............... 198 4.2 Mann-Whitney U Test: Group Mean Ranks and Significance Levels for Tests of Differences in the Two Teacher Groups on Transcript Characteristics ......................... 200 4.3 Types of Elicitations and Rate of Occurrence in the Skill Lesson Sequences of the More and Less Effective Teachers ..................... 209 4.4a Means (and Standard Deviations) and Percentages of Sequence Structural Form Categories in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 217 4.4b Breakdown of Extended Sequence Form by Response Acceptability and Number of Student Participants ......... 218 4.5 Means (and Standard Deviations) for Sequence TOpical Information Content Categories in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 225 4.6 Means (and Standard Deviations) for Sequence Evaluation Content Categories in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 230 4.7 Means (and Standard Deviations) for Evaluation Forms for Interaction Sequences in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 234 xiii Table Page 4.8 Means (and Standard Deviations) for Knowledge Type Foci in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ...... 239 4.9 Means (and Standard Deviations) of Instructional Purpose Categories for Interactive Sequences of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 244 4.10 Phase Distribution of Average Lesson Factors: Length (Time and Transcript Lines), Amount of Teacher Talk, and Lesson Discourse Components for the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ................................. 256 4.11 Means (and Standard Deviations) and Percentages of Total Types of Elicitations in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 264 4.12 The Structure of Instructional Sequences with Phases for the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ................................. 271 4.13 Comparing Overall (3) Sequence TOpical Information Content Focus and (b) Evaluation Statements' (within Sequences) Information Content Focus Characteristics in Phases in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........ 276 4.14 Means (and Standard Deviations) and Percentages of the Evaluation Structural Forms used in Average Lesson Phases for the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ............... 283 xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 Transcript Example of Serial Sequence Identification ................ 138 3.2 Description of Visual Profile Contents .... 183 4.1 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized as Percentages of Elicitation Types ...................... 210 4.2 Comparison of Elicitation Types in the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ......................... 211 4.3 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized as Percentages of Sequence Structural Form ............... 219 4.4 Comparison of Structural Form Types in the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ................................. 221 4.5 Conditions of Sequence Extension in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........ 223 4.6 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized as Percentages of Sequence Topical Information Content ... 227 4.7 Comparison of Sequence Topical Information Content in the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ............... 228 XV List of Figures (cont'd.) Figure Page 4.8 Comparison of Evaluation Topical Content in the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ............... 232 4.9 A Comparison of the Evaluation Content of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........................ 233 4.10 Comparison of Mean Number of Evaluation Structural Forms for the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ................ 236 4.11 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized as Evaluation Elements: (a) Evaluation Topical Content and (b) Evaluation Structural Form ........................ 237 4.12 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized by Cognitive Knowledge Types ........... 240 4.13 Comparison of Cognitive Knowledge Types in the Average Skill Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ................................. 241 4.14 A Comparison of the Instructional Purpose of Interaction Sequences Between the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........ 247 4.15 The More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons Characterized as Percentages of Instructional Purpose Categories (Assessment and Assistance) and Subcategories .......... 248 4.16 A Comparison of Average Lesson Phase Length (in Transcript Lines) for the More and Less Effective Teachers ....... 259 xvi List of Figures (cont'd.) Figure Page 4.17 Elicitations Relative to Phase Length and Amount of Teacher Talk (Transcript Lines) in the Average Lessons of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups ............... 261 4.18 Percentages of Total Sequences Compared to Percentages of Total Elicitations in Lesson Phases of the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ................ 262 A Comparison of the Phase Distribution of Product, Process, Usefulness and Academic Management Elicitation Types (Percentage of Type Occurrence) in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........................ 267 4.20 Phase Positioning with Different Structural Forms in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons ........................ 274 4.21 Information Content Foci of Sequences in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lesson Phases ... 279 4.22 The Informational Content Foci of Teacher Evaluations Following Student Responses in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lesson Phases .................. 282 4.23 A Comparison of the Phase Distribution of Evaluation Structural Forms (Simple Statement, Elaboration and Elicitations as Evaluations) ........... 286 4.24 Description of within Phase Sequence Focus for the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups: Instructional Purpose and Cognitive Knowledge Type ........... 288 xvii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Teacher questioning is a central feature of the reading instruction provided in elementary classrooms. Findings from observational studies of classrooms have repeatedly con- firmed the obvious: teachers spend a great deal of their instructional time asking questions. Teacher questioning is a frequently used pedagogical device for facilitating stu- dents' thinking about academic content. Given the large amounts of time teachers and students spend verbally inter- acting during the daily reading period, it is not surprising that teachers' questioning practices command a great deal of attention from researchers and educators interested in improving the quality of reading instruction. A persistent belief among educators and educational researchers is that good instruction means good questioning. Classroom questioning practices continue to enjoy a high level of investigation from a variety of methodological Perspectives. Despite its popularity as a research topic, however, teacher questioning's role in promoting greater student learning during reading instruction remains unclear. The belief that the role of teacher questioning prac- tices in reading lessons should be instructionally strate- 810--that is, more than mere assessment of content outcomes, provided the impetus for this study. Assessment is certainly an important component of reading instruction, and it is one important area served by teacher questioning. The assumptions that more questions are better questions (Tom, 1984) and that all students implicitly understand how to be strategic when reading Just by answering example or story based questions aimed at different cognitive skill levels, encourages the limited instructional use of teacher elicita- tions for knowledge assessment, however. Teachers' assess- ment questioning functions to evaluate how students are responding to instructional intent, to gage students' abil- ity to correctly use reading skills (e.g., decoding skills, comprehension strategies), to ascertain if students are paying attention to important information, and to establish a pace for instructional interactions. To be more effec- tive, however, instructional assessment should do more than monitor students' ability to use reading skills to produce correct informational content. It should also provide information about how aware students themselves are of which cognitive skills they are using, why they are using them and how they are using them (Duffy, Roehler, Meloth & Vavrus, 1986b). Additionally, recent research on student metacognition (Baker & Brown, 1984; Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1983) suggests an assistance role for teacher questioning. Effective teacher questioning behaviors should not only assess where students are in the learning process but should also guide them in deve10ping conscious understanding, or metacognitive awareness, of the cognitive processes they used to get there. Thus, effective teacher questioning behaviors should ideally function to both assist and assess student learning. In the present study, I investigated the validity of this view by studying teacher elicitations embedded in teacher-student interaction sequences in the instructional context of reading skill lessons. Teacher elicitations are rarely isolated lesson events whose role in instruction can be evaluated simply by tallying their overall frequency or categorizing the kind of information individual questions elicit according to taxonomies of cognitive skill levels (i.e.. literal, inferential, evaluative, etc.). Further, reading instruction in American elementary schools occurs in a variety of lessons, not just story comprehension lessons. To understand the role of teacher questioning in reading instruction requires examining those behaviors in a variety of lesson contexts. Prominent among those contexts is the skill lesson. For this study, reading skill instruction was of inter- est and was defined as that which the teacher says and does to actively promote student conscious awareness of process, as well as product, learning outcomes (Roehler, Duffy & Meloth, 1984; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986b). Recent studies of the effects of teacher explanations on low read— ing group students' reading achievement and awareness of instructional outcomes (Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, Polin, Rackliffe, Tracy & Vavrus, in press; Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, Vavrus, Book, Putnam & Wesselman, 1986c) indicate that students learn more in skill lessons when the teacher provides explicit explanations of skill tasks that focus on using the prescribed skills as strategies, as opposed to lessons in which students are simply being engaged, interrogated or given practice opportunities (Duffy & Roehler, 1982b). Studies of teachers' explanations have not, however, carefully examined the role of questioning behaviors in skill lessons where explanations, differing in degrees of explicitness, are present. Thus, lessons taught by teachers identified as providing more and less effective skill instruction were descriptively analyzed to better understand the relationships between teacher questioning, the instructional interaction context created during skill instruction, and instructional effectiveness. Statement_2£_ths_nzchlem THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study was to provide further under- standing of how teachers use questioning during reading instruction. The goal was to further clarify the functional role of teacher questioning practices in reading skill instruction by undertaking 2913 has descriptive analyses of the interaction sequence elicitation patterns found in skill lessons. The study examined teacher questioning patterns by analyzing teacher-student verbal interaction sequences in the context of lessons intended to teach reading skills. The instructional sequence patterns in the lessons of six more effective and six less effective teachers of fifth grade low reading groups were compared. The grouping criteria for identifying teacher effectiveness were student achievement growth and instructional awareness. The study identified and characterized similarities and differences between the two teacher groups for several functional aspects of elicitation-response-feedback sequences. Aspects of sequences and their discourse elements (i.e., teachers' elicitations and evaluations), examined for frequency combined with lesson positioning, included the following: (a) elicitation frequency in interactional sequences within identified lesson sections or phases; (b) the informational or topic content focus of instructional sequences, particularly those containing elicitations; (c) the knowledge orientation or kind of cognitive mediation conveyed through instructional sequences--i.e., declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge (Paris, et al., 1983; Winne, 1985); (d) structural elements characterizing the verbal discourse of instructional sequences (i.e., interaction forms and length of interactions); and (e) the perceived purpose of the teacher's instructional task in interactive sequences (i.e., assessment or assistance) communicated by elicitations which initiated and probed student responses. W The educational research literature of the past fifty years documents numerous studies of instructional questioning practices (See reviews by Andre, 1984; Bean, 1985; Bloome A Green, 1984; Brophy, 1979; Brophy A Good, 1986; Dillon, 1982b, 1982c; Gall, 1970, 1972; Good, 1983b; Dunkin A Biddle, 1974; Rosenshine, 1971, 1983; Rosenshine and Stevens, 1984; Wilen, 1984). In that time questioning practices have been viewed from diverse disciplinary perspectives, including instructional psychology, educational sociology, linguistics and cognitive psychology. Questioning research reflects at least three major trends: the identification of effective generic teaching practices; the description of important discourse elements in classroom interactions; and the development of cognitive training programs. Past studies in the process-product tradition (Dunkin A Biddle, 1974) were preoccupied with the identification of cognitive levels of question types and the quantification of questioning practices associated with them. These studies had roughly two foci: determining the levels of student cognitive processing elicited by "lower" and "higher" order questions (Andre, 1979; Redfield A Rousseau, 1980; Winne, 1979) and establishing "teacher effects" on learning out- comes (Brophy and Good, 1986) by experimentally or correlationally identifying relationships between questioning practices and student achievement gains. Detailed taxonomies were developed or existing taxonomies modified to allow classification of observed teachers' elicitations according to cognitive skill levels of student performance. Conducting research along these lines often required isolating teacher questions as singular discourse events, with less concern for their interrelatedness to other conversation elements and dependency on subject matter content, instructional task, or social context. Many of these studies, when examining elementary instruction, used reading as the context in which to experimentally manipulate, or observe and tally as they occurred, teachers' questions (Rosenshine and Stevens, 1984). The intent here was to support generalizable, prescriptive claims about what teachers ought to do to make their questioning practices instructionally more effective (Tom, 1984). A major finding from process-product research on questioning practices, however, has been the realization that questioning practices are not easily understood out of context (BrOphy A Good, 1986). In other words, it's one thing to tell teachers to ask "better questions" yet quite another to offer global prescriptions as to what those questions should be. To counteract the perceived superficiality of process- product studies, sociolinguists and ethnographers interested in classroom processes have turned their attention to in-depth descriptive analyses of classroom interactions and begun characterizing questions from the standpoint of their role as contextualized social, as well as academic, discourse elements (Bloome A Argumedo, 1985; Bloome A Green, 1984; Green, 1983a; Green A Wallat, 1981; Gumperz A Herasimchuk, 1973; Heap, 1982, 1985; Mehan, 1979a, 1982). Qualitative studies have, as well, addressed questioning practices across grade levels and subject matter areas but have centered on characterizing teacher-student interactions during the reading period. Qualitative researchers have reserved prescriptive judgments about how best to conduct instructional interactions. Instead, in-depth understanding of the meaning of the classroom discourse events associated with learning to read, as they are practiced in naturalistic settings, has been of interest. Most recently, cognitive psychologists have ventured into the classroom to explore how students develop aware- ness of the mental processes used to perform intellectual tasks and how that awareness can be affected by cognitive training (Baker A Brown, 1984; Brainin, 1985). From this perspective, teacher questioning practices are important to understand in light of their mediating effects on student learning (Doyle, 1979, 1982; Winne, 1985; Winne A Marx, 1982). Again, reading instruction has been a key instruc- tional setting for pursuing the efficacy of cognitive skills training pragrams and methods that incorporate process- focused teacher questioning strategies (Johnston, 1985; Tierney A Cunningham, 1984). While much has been learned from these broadened research perspectives, considerable disagreement about the purposes of instructional questioning persists. This is particularly true for questioning practices during elemen- tary reading instruction. In this area there are four areas of disagreement in need of clarification. The first major problem is the lack of consensus as to the kind of lessons that provides comprehension instruction (e.g., cf., Carnine A Gersten, 1983; Duffy A McIntyre, 1982; Roehler, Duffy A Meloth, 1984; Durkin, 1978-79; Hodges, 1980; MacGinitie, 1983; Pearson, 1985; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983). Needless to say, how one conceptualizes instruction is bound to influence how one perceives the role of teacher questioning behaviors during reading lessons. This problem has been confused in the research literature, however, by the tendency to equate reading instruction with the dom- inant, basal textbook, story-based comprehension lesson. As will be elaborated in Chapter II's review of the literature, most of the instructional studies in reading have addressed teachers' questioning practices in the con- text of story-based comprehension lessons. While these lessons may predominate in most elementary reading programs, they are not the only task settings which should be studied to understand teacher-student interactions and the role of teacher elicitations in those interactions as they might affect students' learning to read. Studies of teacher ques- tioning practices in kinds of reading lessons other than those involving the reading of stories followed by questions about story content are needed. Prominent among these other 10 kinds of instructional episodes are skill lessons. In a study of teacher questioning patterns during basal reader instruction Mangano (1983) observed, "Questioning of stu- dents would probably take on different characteristics during a skills lesson than it would following the reading of a story or content area text" (p. 2). Second, studies of cognitive levels of questions and of the relationships between those types of questions and stu- dent achievement suggest that the effectiveness of different questioning practices for maximizing achievement depends upon students' reading aptitude and grade level (Guszak, 1967; Hare A Pulliam, 1980; BrOphy A Good, 1986). Research has consistently demonstrated that high and low ability readers appear to respond differentially to instructional task conditions (Allington, 1983; Anderson, 1981a, 1981b; Doyle, 1983; Hansen A Pearson, 1983; Pearson, 1984; Pearson A Gallagher, 1983). More importantly, teachers appear to structure questioning patterns in academic tasks in reading differently based on their perceptions of reader aptitude (Haskins, Walden A Ramey, 1983; Shake A Allington, 1985). Those most affected by differential treatment are low aptitude readers (Anderson, 1981a, 1981b; Garner A Taylor, 1982; Good, 1981; Paris A Myers, 1982). If this is the case, then there is a need to better understand the dynamics of the verbal interactions that characterize reading instruction for readers of differing aptitudes, particularly those at the lower end of the reading performance continuum. 11 Third, researchers need to agree on the more basic issue of what constitutes a reasonable definition of class- room questioning. One explanation of why questioning research has fallen short in leading to an understanding of the role questioning plays in instruction has been too nar- row a conception of what constitutes a question (Heap, 1982; Mehan, 1979a). Studies which identify teacher questions solely on the basis of their grammatical correctness as interrogatives, instead of on the basis of how different forms of utterances function as elicitations of student responses, permit many kinds of teacher questioning behav- iors to slip between the analytical cracks. One promising direction is to dispense with these narrow characterizations and define "the classroom question" in broader terms. Finally, there is the issue of whether questioning can be considered instructional assistance, as well as instruc- tional assessment. Process-product researchers interested in teacher effectiveness have studied the relationship between the frequency of teachers' use of different cogni- tive levels of questions and student achievement, concluding that the more effective teacher is one who asks more ques- tions with an academic focus (Rosenshine, 1976, 1983). For example, if teachers are interested in teaching children basic skills, they tend to elicit numerous responses focused on factual recall and recognition (Brophy, 1979; Dunkin A Biddle, 1974; Gall, 1972; Rosenshine, 1976, 1983; Rosenshine A Stevens, 1984). Likewise, if teachers are interested in 12 teaching children to comprehend informational content, a "cognitively richn diet of questions with an academic focus is desirable (Andre, 1979; Bloom, et al., 1956; Sanders, 1966; Tharp and Gallimore, 1983). An underlying assumption in both cases is that questioning, in and of itself, provides instruction. Students' acquisition of and ability to use cognitive skills is assumed on the basis of students' correct responses to teacher questions (Tharp, 1982). Thus, the message from process-product questioning research to teachers is this: to improve instruction, increase the quantity and upgrade the cognitive level of questions in order to determine what and how much informational content students have mastered--and do this often! Unfortunately, while cognitive variety and academic focus may be important attributes of effective teacher ques- tioning, these attributes have been difficult to locate in observational studies of classrooms. Wilen (1984) reported that teacher questions were typically used merely for lit- eral level comprehension of content focused on memorization. Further, most questions of this type, as reported in studies of classroom reading instruction, were posed primarily to assess or monitor student learning (Duffy and McIntyre, 1982; Durkin, 1978-79, 1984). These findings suggest a very limited instructional role for teacher questioning--one merely of assessment of content coverage. In reading instruction, this means the focus of teacher questioning behaviors is on producing 13 answer accuracy through interrogation and recitation (Duffy A McIntyre, 1982; Durkin, 1978-79, 1984); in other words, testing what students know. Getting a sense of where stu- dents are in the learning process is narrowly conceived in terms of product outcomes-~answer-getting to workbook exer- cises and questions about the topical content of basal text- book stories (Durkin, 1984). Ultimately, students learn that it is "what you know," not "how you know," that is important. Duffy, Roehler, Vavrus, Book, Meloth, Putnam and Wesselman (1984) observed: When assigned academic reading tasks, students make interpretations about what they are supposed to learn by reference to the task being assigned. If the task is one of accurate answer-getting, they conclude that reading is rote answer- getting; if the task is one of strategically and consciously applying skills to solve problems of meaning-getting in text, they conclude that read- ing is strategic. (p. 3) In summary, researchers are just beginning to disen- tangle the complexities of how patterns of verbal interaction act as mediating factors in providing more or less effective reading instruction. While there is general agreement that certain general patterns of teacher behaviors do make a difference in instructional quality (Brophy A Good, 1986), much work remains to be done in identifying specific contexts in which teachers implement particular patterns more effectively. One area needing further clarification in classroom reading instruction is hQfl teachers pattern elicitations during instruction intended to mediate student acquisition of reading skill knowledge and 1n the cognitive strategies needed to more efficiently comprehend text. W This study contributes depth to the study of teacher questioning because it provides information about how elici- tations function to mediate student learning outcomes in instructional interactions when reading skills are being learned. Researchers interested in improving students' cognitive skill functioning have concentrated on describing teacher-student interactions during text-based comprehension lessons. As yet, development of the same kind of in-depth data base for other kinds of reading lesson interactions, particularly skill lessons, is in its infancy. Additionally, research on questioning generally, and research on teacher questioning during reading instruction specifically, provides only limited support for the pre- scriptions that have been offered in educational methods texts and courses. Researchers remain divided regarding how to instruct teachers and perspective teachers about "the best way" to ask questions or the "best" kinds of questions to ask. The lack of attention to contextualization remains a problem. While findings generally support teachers asking lots of academically-focused questions in order to improve student achievement, these findings are limited in their ability to help researchers or, more importantly, classroom Practitioners understand how teachers' questioning behav- iors function during specific kinds of instructional 15 interactions to promote the development and use of students' reading skills and strategies. The results of this study are important for both read- ing educators and researchers for several reasons. First, elementary teachers are involved in skill teach- ing as part of their instructional programs in reading. It is important for teachers to understand how skills can be more effectively taught to enable students to better inte- grate knowledge and use of skills in real reading situa- tions. Additionally, teachers can benefit with better knowledge of how their questioning practices can be inte- grated into a pedagogy of instruction that asserts the importance of providing active assistance to students learn- ing to use reading skills. One way to accomplish this would be to employ descriptive methods which qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, examine the teacher-student verbal interactions that occur during various parts of skill les- sons and begin to characterize differences in the elicita- tion patterns of more effective and less effective teachers. Second, there is growing confirmation that the content focus of elicitations communicates to students what the teacher really values as important to remember about the reading lesson (Wixson, 1983b). In skill lessons, this means that the teacher's questioning practices may or may not provide students with important accountability information about the strategic reading behaviors they must be able to use to demonstrate skill mastery. It would be 16 instructive to compare how more effective and less effective teachers might vary in their patterns of eliciting student responses to develop such accountability for skill knowledge and skill use. Characterizing differences in content foci might be important in understanding why some students view skills as isolated bits of information and others view skills as strategies to selectively apply toward achieving greater reading comprehension. This would be of particular interest for low group instruction since these readers most consistently receive the heaviest doses of skill instruction (Shake A Allington, 1985). Third, interactive teacher elicitation-student response-teacher feedback sequences can serve as useful instructional tools for guiding students toward understand— ing the fit of particular reading skills into the whole of the reading act. In addition to explicit explanations, explicit questioning patterns may be another means teachers might deliberately employ at particular lesson points to model how to perform skills and how to use skills strategi- cally when solving problems encountered in reading. Fourth, the ultimate goal of reading instruction is the development of self-sufficient readers who comprehend what they read or know what to do when they don't (Johnston, 1985; Roehler A Duffy, 1984; Winne, 1985). Given this goal, I believe teachers have an obligation to provide appropriate directed assistance that helps readers of all ability levels develOp self-sufficiency. Collins and Smith (1980) 17 summarize the importance of this aspect of the problem as follows: We do not argue that reading curricula should not stress interpretation. We argue only that read— ing curricula should also try to teach how to construct interpretations . . . If we do not teach these skills, then the better students will develop them on their own, and the worse readers will find reading very frustrating. (p. 28) For low ability readers, especially, this entails explicit instruction in how to use reading skills strategi- cally (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c; Roehler A Duffy, 1984). While recent research has begun documenting how teachers explicitly explain the processes of reading during skill instruction, there is a need to establish how expli- citness might be importantly related to teachers' question- ing practices in teaching the strategic use of skills. Fifth, this study is grounded in the belief that there is more to effectively mediating students' acquisition of reading skills than an explicit presentation. Explicit questioning geared toward the intended outcome of developing deliberate, yet flexible, use of reading strategies may complement explicit explanation (Roehler, Duffy A Meloth, 1984; Vavrus, 1983). I was interested in investigating the possibility that the teacher's elicitations during instructional events are a pivotal variable that assists students in developing better awareness of how to use reading skills strategically. By orchestrating an on-going DPOgression of other- to self-regulated interaction Sequences in skill lessons, teachers may provide guidance 18 for students' demonstrations of their understanding of the strategic role of skills in comprehending text. In this sense, teacher elicitations might be thought of as opening the "window to the mind." As yet, however, research on questioning, with an eye on its relationship to explanation, has not been systematically undertaken. In summary, this dissertation identifies factors that appear to be important in characterizing teacher questioning practices and explores their use in actual lessons. By investigating the use of elicitations by teachers selected on the basis of their instructional effectiveness in teach- ing reading skills, this study contributes to expanding understanding of questionings' contribution to instructional effectiveness in a particular, and important, area of the elementary reading curriculum. An investigation of this kind should inform suggestions for improvement of instruc- tional practices, particularly when teaching reading skills. Methodologically, this study elaborates a qualitatively- based model for examining lesson interactions through trans- cript analysis, consistent with Hugh Mehan's (1979a) model for studying classroom interactions. The remainder of this chapter will establish the parameters used to conduct the research. Terms will be def- ined, the research questions stated, the design of the study overviewed, and assumptions and limitations clarified. 19 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of the dissertation, there are several terms used which warrant definitional clarification. Many of the terms used represent subdivision descriptors of cate- gories used to code types of lesson discourse elements. The following definitions of general and specific terms were used. W: Skill_le§sgn. This type of reading lesson is designed to teach a particular reading skill for later use when read- ing. Examples of topics covered by skill lessons can be found in the "scOpe and sequence" charts provided in the introductory information in teacher editions of most basal textbook reading programs. Skill lessons contrast with comprehension lessons as they are typically conducted because the latter are dependent upon the content of a pre- viously read basal story. In skill lessons, the teacher uses word- or text-level examples (which may or may not be found in an accompanying story) to focus instruction on the use of particular cognitive process factors associated with reading rather than on the interpretation of story content. Examples of typically taught reading skills are the follow- ing: word identification skills, such as use of prefixes and suffixes or context clues; comprehension skills, such as determining main ideas; and study skills, such as locating important information. 20 Igachgz_g££ggt11§n3§§. For this study, the term refers to the quality of reading instruction provided for promoting student growth in reading. Effectiveness is defined in terms of the teacher's success in two areas of student out- comes: (1) student awareness of the teacher's instructional purpose; and (3) student reading achievement growth as meas- ured by the use of standardized reading achievement tests. Isaghgn_explanatign: This terms refers to the expli- cit, expository statements made by teachers during skill lessons which present information about what is to be learned, how to do it and when it is to be used in reading. MenLal_ngces§1ng_stnategig§. This term refers to the repertoire of reading skills and strategies which represent the cognitive processes used by proficient readers to acti- vate, monitor, and regulate meaning-getting when reading text. They are the implicit algorithms and principles which govern successful comprehension (Roehler A Duffy, 1984) and characterize reading behavior as planful (Paris, et al., 1983). When reading is proceeding smoothly, these strategies are applied automatically (after LaBerge A Samuels, 1974; Samuels, 1983). However, when meaning breaks down, these strategies are selectively retrieved and consciously applied until the problem is resolved (Roehler A Duffy, 1984). Gibson (1974) summarized the metacognitive character of strategic reading as 21 . . . ability to be aware of one's own cognitive processes, from the segmentation of the phonetic stream all the way up to the understanding of strategies of learning and problem-solving. There seems to be a consciousness raising that goes along with many aspect of cognitive development and it turns out, I think, to be associated with attaining mature reading skill. (p. 681) H- -. . .- . - . ---., n » . -- -u-. L§§§Qn_nha§§§. The term "phase" was used to identify the perceived structural subdivisions of the reading skill lesson according to the kind of instructional task pursued by the teacher at various time points in the lesson; for example, introducing the lesson, presenting information about the skill or activities to be performed by students during the lesson, practicing use of reading skills, review- ing information presented thus far in the lesson, and closing the lesson. Except for the introduction and closure phases, lesson phases may be differentially sequenced within the overall lesson structure. The following lesson phases were defined for this study. (1) Introduction: The teacher begins the lesson by introducing skill lesson's topic and/or task. Student background about the tOpic or task may be probed for or described by the teacher. (2) W: (a) ‘Mgnglggne: The teacher provides information in expository statements with minimal verbal interactions with students. Information presented might include (1) the nature of 22 what will be learned about the skill; (2) why it is useful to learn and where it can be used; (3) clarification of practice task directions; and/or (4) how to perform the skill when reading. (b) Iniezactixe_flcnologue: The teacher explains the nature of the skill or task by using a combination of expository statements and elicitations to create an interaction with students. Rather than simply telling, the teacher confirms the correctness of students' information about the skill. The accuracy of their information is certified (if correct), corrected (if wrong), and/or clarified. Interactive presentation sequences differ from guided practice in that it is clear the teacher is presenting new information in the lesson during this phase. Also, these sequences lack the structural formality found in interactive practice sequences in terms of sequence initiations via teacher elicita- tions. (3) finidgd_£nagtigg: The teacher conducts an interac- tion with students which uses examples that require use of the skill. The intent is to soli- dify student knowledge of the skill or of how to perform the task to enable them to do independent 23 work with it. This phase is characterized by elicitations of student responses followed by certifying feedback and elaborations by the teacher when evaluating those responses. The interaction sequences in this phase are often extended beyond the simple 3-part sequence to add depth to discussion of the skill or example. Extensions occur following correct, as well as incorrect student responses. A variety of sequences may be included in this phase focused on assessing student knowledge or providing assistance to solidify knowledge of the skill topic or process. Extended interaction sequences prolong consideration of the sequence topic and teacher elaborations are common as evaluations. (4) Becitatign_£zactlc§: The teacher verbally "tests" or assesses students' knowledge through a series of examples typically taken from practice sheets or written on the board to allow students oppor- tunities to use the skill. This phase is characterized by shorter interaction sequences with less teacher elaboration to student responses. There are typically fewer extended sequences since the intent is assessment of student mastery of skill use prior to independent practice. If they occur in this phase, extended interactions most often seek to repair incorrect 24 student responses and obtain acceptable answers. (5) Ind:nendgnt_£zactigs: The teacher embeds time within/between prior phases or following recita- tion practice for students to complete practice examples using the skill on their own. When this phase occurs within the lesson, student answers are often used as the basis for group guided or recitation practice. (6) Lessgn_§1Q§nL§: The teacher makes statements to conclude the lesson before changing to another topic or activity with the same or different stu- dent group. This phase may precede independent practice or seatwork not considered part of the actual group lesson. (7) figxlgn: The teacher initiates statements or elicits responses, either as a transition to another phase (i.e., guided or recitation practice typically in these lessons, or prior to closure) or as a brief interruption of a practice phase. Reviews are explicitly intended to refocus atten- tion on the task and/or skill topic of the lesson, not the informational content of examples being used for practice. This phase seems intended to assess student understanding of aspects related to the lesson topic. Many of the terms used refer to characterizations given various discourse elements identified to describe teachers' 25 questioning practices. The terms used to characterize sequences, elicitations and feedback elements are defined as follows. Inst:ngtlgnal_§§gn§ngs. In skill lessons, instructional sequences were identified as topically-related sets of information conveyed through the teacher's initiation of an expository monologue sequence and/or through teacher-student interaction sequences. Topical information characterizing the content foci of instructional sequences in the lessons examined for this study grouped into five broad categories: (1) student background experiences; (2) information about the skill and its characteristics; (3) example content; (4) task/assignment directions; and (5) miscellaneous topics, especially references to the informational content of previously read basal stories. While there may be some student verbal participation in teacher monologue sequences, the teacher's talk predominates and student participation is less structured than in interac- tion sequences. Typically, interaction sequences are initi- ated by the teacher's statements or elicitations, although they may be initiated by student questions. Interact19n_§egnence. In instructional discourse events, instructional sequences which contain elicitations will be called ninteraction sequences". This term refers to the basic three part, teacher initiated set of teacher-student verbal initiations and responses: teacher elicitation- student response-teacher evaluation/ elaboration (Mehan, 26 1979a). In this study these were called simple_segnences. The teacher elicits a student response which is then evalu- ated by teacher feedback for its correctness, incorrectness or some other quality of worth. When teacher-student verbal interaction sequences contain several teacher elicitations (an initiation and probes), student responses and teacher elaborative comments prior to evaluative certification, they are called gxtgnded_1ntenagtign_sggnences. Evaluations may simply certify correctness or note incorrectness; or they may include elaborations of varying lengths during which the teacher emphasizes a student response by repeating it verba— tim or provides additional information about the topic of the initial elicitation; or they may probe for additional information. For extended sequences, an additional feature examined was whether the teacher sustained the interaction with the same or different student participants. In summary, the following list shows the categories of instructional sequence structural form which were included: (1) Teacher Monologue; (2) Interactive Teacher Monologue; (3) Simple Three-part Interaction Sequence; (4) Extended Interaction based on Accepted Student Response; and (5) Extended Interaction based on Incorrect/Unacceptable Student Response. Efllcitatigns. This term characterizes the questioning behaviors used by teachers to obtain student responses dur- ing instructional interactions. After Mehan (1979a), this term refers to functional utterances which require some form 27 of response (either verbal or nonverbal, typically) in interactional events between two or more participants. Elicitations include explicit requests for responses, syn- tactically structured as interrogatives or commands. They also include implied requests for information which may be signalled by a verbal intonational cue applied to statements or sentence fragments, such as addressing a student by name. The respondent infers the nature of the response requested based on the immediate task content of the interaction. The term "question" will be cautiously used because of its historically limiting semantic association with a par- ticular grammatical form--the interrogative. While use of the term is helpful for analyzing sentences, the term "ques- tion" constrains descriptions of what functionally trans- pires between participants in naturally occurring discourse, such as that found in instructional events in classrooms (Mehan, 1979a). Thus, elicitations include, but are not limited to, utterances containing wh-words, having subject and verb reversed and being spoken with rising intonation at the end of a sentence. ,Eligitatign_txp§§. While numerous types of elicitations were identified in a pilot study (Vavrus, 1983) preceding this study and described below, the functional categories that occurred most frequently in skill lessons, and subsequently became the focus in the present study, con- formed to Mehan's definitions (1979a) for three kinds of teacher elicitations that are intended to obtain specific 28 kinds of information from students. These are the follow- ing: (1) DLQQHQL_211£1LELIQD. The initiator asks for lower cognitive level response such as a name, a place or some other piece of literal information related to the skill tOpic or story content being used to teach the strategies associated with the skill topic. The elicitation calls for an informational response that reflects "right" or "wrong" perfor- mance of using a complete skill procedure or strategy without specifying how an answer was obtained. Product elicitations focus on students' declarative knowledge of the skill outcome. (2) n:ccess.elicitalion. The initiator asks for an interpretation of previously presented product information from the respondent that is focused on how to perform the skill. The elicitation requests a description of the mental procedures or steps used to obtain a product answer. The initi- ator asks for a formulation of the respondent's reasoning for arriving at a product response by specifying the cognition process or strategy by which the preceding answer was obtained. In a sense, this type of elicitation is a request for a demonstration of "how you know you know." It gives the respondent the Opportunity to show con- scious awareness of how the skill "works", the 29 salient features of the skill task which must be attended to when a problem is encountered in read- ing text, and the mental steps completed to per- form the skill. One particular kind of process elicitation that occurred often enough in the lessons used for pilot study analysis to warrant a separate cate- gorical listing were called usefulness gfljgltatigns. These request that the respondent demonstrate understanding of the function and utility of the skill being learned. The concept of usefulness is important to metacognition because it represents the acquisition of conditional knowledge (Paris, et al., 1983). During reading skill lessons, students should be aware of the situations during reading when particular skills are needed and used to obtain meaning from the author's message. (3) Weighing). These are concerned with the teacher's academic management of the lesson task as it progresses or obtaining responses that require attention to following the directions given for completing the tasks of the lesson. They do not require that the student demonstrate mastery of lesson content. Elicitations of this type are often phrased as directives that demand a particular verbal or 30 nonverbal behavior of some kind. Academic-management questioning is also con- cerned with the logistics required for success- fully negotiating the instructional task at hand. It is management-oriented and focuses on classroom routines which may or may not directly reflect the instructional topic. Elicitations with this func- tion often inquire about the directions for per- forming either oral or written tasks during the instructional episode, and are most often associ- ated with preparing students for independent prac- tice or application activities. Exaluatignfiilahgnatign. In interaction sequences the terms evaluation and elaboration were used to define the teacher's response to a student's response to an elicita- tion. In the data examined for this study several kinds of evaluation statements and elaborations were identified and defined as follows. (1) B§§39n§e_figztifiigatign: The teacher gives positive or negative feedback to a student response in the form of a one/two word remark certifying the cor- rectness of the response, such as "Good, Okay, No." Response certification can also include the teacher's verbatim repetition of the student's response as a way of certifying correctness or incorrectness. 31 (2) Elaboration: The teacher provides an extensive comment following the student response that expands the answer or provides additional clarify- ing or interpretive information about the nature of the response. It includes both positive and negative commentaries which serve as response certification or occur in conjunction with simple feedback; and includes negative certification coupled with statement of the correct answer. (3) figspgnse_£zgh§: The teacher responds to a stu- dent's response with an elicitation as a probe for additional information, thus withholding certifica- tion until additional student responses are obtained. Elicitations as feedback occur only in extended sequences of interaction with students and include the following: probes as negative feedback following an incorrect response; probes for more information; probes for a repeat of the response; elicitations that ask students to cer- tify the correctness of another student's response. We. Two terms: assessment and assistance, have been used to characterize the instructional purposes or functions associated with questioning behaviors/elicitations. In this study, purpose will be considered from the standpoint of how questioning behaviors establish the instructional function(s) which 32 characterize interaction function(s) which characterize interaction sequences. While not an exhaustive list, the terms assessment and assistance will be used here owing to the extensive coverage they receive in discussions of what constitutes reading instruction (cf., Duffy A McIntyre, 1982; Durkin, 1978-79; Heap, 1982; Hodges, 1980; Roehler A Duffy, 1981; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983). Addition- ally, it should be remembered that because the interaction sequence is the central event being studied, an elicitation may simultaneously serve more than one purpose. Assessment_gngstign1ng refers to interaction sequences in which the elicitations are posed in order to find out "the point of achieved individual competence" (Tharp A Gallimore, l983)--that is, what the respondent can remember and recall about what is being taught, or whether the skill in question can be used correctly. Interaction sequences with this purpose are directed at determining whether the respondent can produce the correct answer (Roehler, et al., 1984). Thus, the teacher seeks answers which can subsequently be judged as either "right" or "wrong" (Durkin, 1978-79). The following kinds of assessment questioning were identified in this study: (1) Assessment of example content obtained by using skill; (2) Assessment of strategic understanding of skill use; 33 (3) A combination of (1) and (2); (4) Assessment of experiential background knowledge of topical content information in examples (5) Assessment of experiential background knowledge of skill or strategy; and (6) Assessment of knowledge of procedures/directions for lesson task completion. Assistance_gngstigning refers to interaction sequences in which elicitations are used by the teacher to provide active guidance in learning how to perform some aspect of the lesson task. Questioning with this purpose is often initiated following a student response which cue or prompt answer production when it has become clear during an inter- action that the respondent is having difficulty doing so without mediation from the teacher. According to Tharp A Gallimore (1983), assistance questioning is "responsive and built upon pupil contributions as they are made." Elicita- tions with this function in interaction sequences are intended to help students develop an understanding of how to think through product, process or metaprocess answers. They explicitly offer guidance to the respondent in how to clarify and elaborate the use of skill procedures or strategies. The following kinds of assistance questioning were identified in this study: (1) Questioning provides assistance for correct answer-getting; 34 (2) Questioning in a perceived sequence provides assistance in student acquisition of skill strategy for performance; (3) Assistance in developing background knowledge for example topic; (4) Assistance in develOping background knowledge for skill or strategy; and (5) Assistance in acquiring knowledge of lesson task procedures/directions. flggnitiy§_Kngw1§dgg_pr§. Instructional sequences were also examined to identify the kinds of knowledge solicited through teacher questioning. After Paris, Lipson and Wixson (1983), the following define the kinds of knowledge elicited by teachers in the study. (1) WW: Sequence discourse is focused on developing student understanding of what the skill task is, its characteristics, and how it is structured--either explicitly or impli- citly by using skill with examples. (2) Engggdungl_Kanl§ng§: Sequence discourse is focused on developing student understanding of how to successfully use a skill or strategy. (3) 99nd1319n§l_fingwl§dg_: Sequence discourse is focused on developing student awareness of when and why a particular skill or strategy would be used to better understand conditions for the skill's usefulness. 35 (4) Task_£nccedune_xncnledse: Sequence discourse is focused on developing student clarity of expecta- tions about how to do the academic tasks assigned which are associated with the lesson (e.g., orga- nize instructional materials; worksheets). RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the findings of the pilot study (Vavrus, 1983), described below in conjunction with the research design overview, the present research further investigated the functional roles of teacher elicitations as they occur in interaction sequences in the reading skill lessons of more effective and less effective teachers of low reading groups. At its broadest level, the study asked, "What is the functional role of teacher questioning during reading skill instruction?" Answering this research question involved identifying the instructional sequences that contain teacher elicitations and other elements that constitute teacher questioning behaviors and then, once identified, describing characteristics that might differentiate more and less effective teachers' lessons. The latter was accomplished by answering the component questions listed below. 36 The first and second research questions addressed ques- tioning behaviors in terms of the skill lesson as a whole. 1. What are overall similarities and differences in the characteristics of instructional sequences that contain elicitations for more and less effective teachers of low reading groups? 2. When comparing the instructional interaction sequences of more effective and less effective teachers in reading skill lessons, (a) are there differences in the kinds of eli- citations (i.e., product, process, useful- ness and procedural/academic management) more and less effective teachers pose when teaching reading skill lessons? (b) are there differences in the frequency of elicitations of various kinds within the lesson? (c) are there differences in the structural forms of interaction sequences? (d) are there differences in the informational or t0pical content pursued through ques- tioning within instructional sequences? (e) are the differences in the kinds of evalua- tion and/or elaboration responses, in terms of form and information focus, that teach- ers provide to student responses within interaction sequences? (f) are there differences in the types of cog- nitive knowledge (i.e., declarative, pro- cess, procedural, conditional or academic task procedures) focused upon within inter- action sequences? (g) are there differences in the perceived instructional purpose of interaction sequences (i.e., assessment versus assist- ance functions)? The third research question specifically considered how 'the questioning behaviors addressed above were positioned in ‘the>various phases of the skill lesson. 37 3. When comparing the positioning of instructional sequences with various form, content and purpose characteristics within the structural context (phases) of the reading skill lessons of more and less effective teachers, (a) do phases and instructional sequences within different phases vary in length? (b) are there differences in where sequences that contain elicitations with different content foci occur within lesson phases? (c) are there differences in the informational content foci of instructional sequences in different lesson phases? (d) are there differences in the teacher evalu- ation and elaboration responses in interac- tion sequences in different phases? (e) are there differences in the placement of sequences of varying structural form (simple vs. extended, particularly) in lesson phases? (f) are there differences in the cognitive knowledge foci of sequences in various lesson phases? (g) are there differences in the instruc- tional purposes of interaction sequences in various lesson phases? SAMPLE SELECTED FOR THE STUDY The sample of teachers selected for the study was chosen from the twenty-two classrooms included in the study of teacher explanation during reading instruction conducted by the Teacher Explanation Project (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c), at the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University during the 1982-83 academic year. For this study of questioning practices, twelve teachers were selected pg§L_hgg from the original pool of twenty-two. 38 The six most effective and the six least effective were chosen by using a definition of effectiveness which includes two components. These are (1) the awareness of students following skill instruction about what was being learned, when it would be useful and how to perform the skill; and (2) student achievement growth in reading. The procedures used to operationalize this definition and use it as the criterion for teacher selection are described in Chapter III. In effect, it was known at the outset that there were differences in some of the instructional behaviors of these teachers, i.e., their use of explicit explanations through modeling (see Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986b; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c). The research task in this study involved examining more and less effective teachers' skill lessons to determine if there would be differences that might be related to questioning practices. DESIGN OF THE STUDY To consider questions about teacher questioning prac- tices and how those might vary for more effective and less effective teachers of low reading groups, a variety of meth- odological procedures were used that offer ways of identify- ing and descriptively characterizing teacher-student verbal interaction sequences during instructional events. For the purposes of this study, the insights and theory of conversational discourse analysis, combined with descriptive 39 statistics and micro-ethnographic techniques (Au A Mason, 1982, 1983; Bean, 1985; Cicourel, 1974; Erickson A Shultz, 1982; Green A Wallat, 1981; Gumperz A Herasimchuk, 1972; Heap, 1982; Mehan, 1979a), were used to examine lesson transcripts and compare the two teacher groups. Methods were adapted as needed to characterize the particular interaction discourse elements discovered in the context of the reading skill lesson. Collecllcn_2£_&he_nata. The data base for the study consisted of the audiotapes and typed transcripts of three to five observed reading skill lessons taught during the 1982-1983 school year by each of the twelve teachers. A total of fifty-one lesson transcripts were descriptively analyzed. Transcript ana- lyses for this study were conducted post no; to the lesson data collection completed during the Teacher Explanation Project's study of explicit teacher explanation (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c). 23W. Coding schemes for data analysis were developed as part of a pilot study and subsequently refined and extended as analysis of the full data set proceeded. The pilot study is briefly described below. Ing_pilgj_§jndy (Vavrus, 1983). A pilot study of teacher questioning behaviors was conducted using a random sampling of the twelve fifth grade teachers of low reading Broups designated as more effective and less effective from 40 the Teacher Explanation Project's complement of twenty-two teachers. The purpose of the pilot study was to investigate whether differences in teacher questioning behaviors, spe- cifically the frequency, function, content focus and posi- tioning of elicitations during reading skill lessons, would be found in the lessons of teachers designated as more and less effective in producing student awareness and achieve- ment outcomes. The pilot also provided an opportunity to investigate the types of instructional interaction sequence patterns that characterize skill lessons. The broad research question, "What is the role of teacher questioning behaviors in the skill lessons of more and less effective fifth grade teachers of low reading groups?" guided the pilot. It was anticipated that findings from the pilot could then be used to pose more specific questions for the full study. The sample of teachers used in the pilot study con- sisted of four fifth grade teachers of low reading groups-- two more effective and two less effective. Two were ran- domly chosen from the six more effective teachers, and two were randomly chosen from the six less effective teachers selected from the original sample of twenty-two teachers in the Teacher Explanation Study (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c) described earlier. The sampling procedure, which is detailed in Chapter III, was the basis for selecting teachers for the pilot and subsequent full study. 41 The data base for the pilot study consisted of the audiotapes and typed transcripts of taped discourse obtained from five observed reading skill lessons taught during the school year by each of the four teachers. Nineteen of twenty lessons were used for the pilot. One lesson was eliminated due to equipment malfunction during audiotaping. The sequential description overviewed below summarizes the data collection and analysis procedures which were the basis of the procedures detailed in Chapter III. The sequence developed was based primarily on qualitative trans- cript analysis techniques advocated by Erickson A Shultz (1982) for analyzing the event and participation structures of interactions, as well as those described by Mehan (1979a) and Heap (1980, 1982) for analyzing teacher-student verbal interaction sequences and discourse events. Developing the conventions for teacher-student interac- tion sequence identification was one of the pilot's primary tasks. Heuristics followed for sequence identification were two. (1) The beginning of a sequence was marked with a teacher elicitation requesting information or a particular student behavior. (2) Sequence completion was signalled by some kind of teacher feedback--usually in the form of an evaluative comment or elaboration of the student response, indicating that the information or behavior had been satis- factorily obtained. The various classification codes of sequence structural form, instructional purpose and topical content focus which are described fully in Chapter III were 2:2 identified and defined at that time. Also, a broad range of elicitation types, in terms of content focus and perceived function, were identified. After tallying the occurrence of various elicitation types, those of highest frequency across the four teacher sample were selected as the focus for the full study. Using the definitions stated earlier, these were product, process (and usefulness), and task procedural/academic management elici- tations. Additionally, it was determined during the pilot that an efficient means for examining the positioning of interac- tion sequences and discourse elements within the lesson framework would be to characterize lessons in terms of their principal instructional events, designated as "phases" for this study. Phases identified based on their recurrence in the pilot lessons included an introduction, presentation, practice--subdivided as guided, recitation or independent, reviews, and lesson closure. Once lesson phases were iden- tified, it became possible to develOp a system for visually mapping where discourse events occurred within the lesson. Further, phase identification allowed for tallying the frequency of sequences and their component elements as they were positioned within the lesson, as well as for the lesson overall. The findings of this preliminary descriptive examina- tion of four teachers' questioning behaviors suggested that elicitations were, in fact, used differently by these more 43 effective and less effective teachers during reading skill lessons. While all four teachers consistently posed large numbers of elicitations that requested product information, the two more effective teachers showed interaction sequence patterns that distinguished them from the less effective teachers. Differences were indicated in how the teachers used process, usefulness and procedural/ academic management elicitations. Further, differences between the two teacher groups were noted in how teachers structured lesson phases, particularly in terms of the characteristics of practice and review interactions with students. Finally, there were indications that many of the teacher evaluations to stu- dents' responses in the interaction sequences of the more effective teachers were qualitatively different from those provided by the less effective teachers. In summary, the results of the pilot study provided support for conducting the more extensive study of the skill lesson questioning behaviors of more and less effective teachers of low reading groups. The pilot analysis showed that the instructional discourse analysis methods borrowed from Mehan and others, and which I applied with modifica- tions to a specific kind of instructional event in reading-- the skill lesson, offered viable means for characterizing teachers' questioning behaviors and gaining insight into the functional role of those behaviors during instruction. 44 WW th_£nll_§&ndxg From the analysis of the pilot study data, the procedures used to qualitatively examine the complete corpus of transcript data in the full study of twelve teach- ers' lessons were established. Specifically, the data were examined using a multi-faceted qualitative collection and analysis system. The format of that system, detailed in Chapter III, is outlined as follows. First, the typed transcripts were prepared in the for- mat suggested by Mehan (1979a) for viewing classroom interactions. This three column format records classroom discourse into initiations, responses and evaluations. Regarding teacher discourse, the initiations column housed initiated expository sequences (identified as "Teacher Monologues"), as well as teacher-initiated interaction sequences. I expanded the function of the final column to include elaborations on student responses which did not qualify as initiations. An example of the format is shown in Appendix 3A. Second, each typed transcript was read while listening to the corresponding audiotape to identify initiations which function as elicitations in the discourse of the lesson but may not appear as such in print because of grammatical con- ventions governing interrogative structure. This step was essential to accurately make notations regarding intonation and pause patterns. 45 Third, the reformatted transcripts were read a second time to identify the primary discourse phases or episodes (e.g., introduction, instructional explanation, practice, etc.) in each lesson (Erickson A Shultz, 1982) and the instructional events within those episodes. Fourth, within each identified instructional phase, interaction sequences were identified. The coding schemes develOped to characterize the content foci, structural forms and instructional functions of sequences and discourse ele- ments (i.e., elicitations and evaluations) were applied at this point in the analysis. This stage focused on identify- ing patterns of questioning behaviors/elicitations for each teacher, comparing those patterns across the group of effec- tive teachers and the group of less effective teachers, and then comparing the two groups. When sequence identification was completed, it was possible to time the entire lesson, noting phase and sequence initiation times. Fifth, adapting Erickson A Shultz's (1982) model for depicting participation structures, visual maps of the elicitation behaviors of lesson participants in relation to the overall structure of the skill lesson were developed for each teacher. The positioning of interaction sequences within the structure of the lesson was also plotted on a time line of the lesson. A sample map appears in Appendix BB. The profiles were then analyzed by listing patterns that emerged as consistently appearing over time to develop a composite profile for each teacher. The profiles of the 46 more effective and less effective teachers were then compared to describe the similarities and variations within each group and between the two groups. Finally, the overall lesson and lesson phase frequency data, available from use of the several coding schemes, were analyzed. Weighted averages per category per lesson for each teacher were computed. The six weighted lesson averages for the more effective teachers and the six for less effec- tive teachers were collapsed into an average per category per lesson for each group and compared. To statistically test for significant differences between the two teacher groups in terms of average numbers per lesson of sequences, elicitations, feedback statements, and length of lessons (in terms of time and number of transcript lines of teacher talk), the Mann-Whitney U test was used. To statistically compare the two groups in terms of categorical occurrence of kinds of sequences, elicitations and evaluations at the lesson level, two-way, repeated measures analyses of vari- ance (ANOVA's) was used. The results of the data analysis are fully discussed in Chapter IV. Sequence examples from the lesson transcripts are presented in the appendices to illustrate use of the coding schemes. By analyzing patterns of teacher elici- tations in discourse interaction sequences, the results of this study suggest important functional roles for teacher questioning in reading skill instruction. 47 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions underlie this study: (1) Questioning behaviors/elicitations are not isolated instructional events but are embedded in context-specific social interactions that develop between teachers and stu- dents throughout the instructional episode (Heap, 1982; Mehan, 1979a). While usually initiated based on the teacher's content agenda for the lesson, the structure and content foci of interaction sequences can be influenced by student responses and how the teacher evaluates those responses. In other words, student verbal behaviors have a mediating effect on teacher verbal behaviors (Doyle, 1979, 1983; Hargreaves, 1984), and hence, on aspects of the char- acter of interaction sequences, which assigns student behav- ior an active rather than passive role in instructional events. This means that a reciprocal relationship exists during instruction between teachers acting to influence student learning and students' actions influencing teachers' teaching (Palincsar, 1984; Tom, 1984). (2) The verbal interactions between the teacher and students within the context of the reading lesson may pro- mote or limit student learning (Roehler A Duffy, 1981; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983). (3) Because instructional episodes are social events between the teacher and students, it is possible for a par- ticipant's verbal behavior to serve more than one function 48 simultaneously. Heap (1982) calls this the assumption of multi-functionality. (4) The sequential placement of elicitations in instructional phases and, at a finer level, in interaction sequences within phases may have consequences for how the function of an event, such as an elicitation, is identified and whether the event successfully achieves its perceived function (Heap, 1982). This has also been described by Tom (1984) as " the situational assumption" (p. 58). He notes that Eben a teaching behavior is used can be more important than either how often it occurs or how well matched it is with curricular outcomes. (5) Teacher effectiveness is related to the explicit- ness of the instructional talk employed by the teacher to explain academic tasks (Roehler A Duffy, 1981; 1984). To date research on explicitness (Roehler A Duffy, et al., 1984; Roehler A Duffy, 1984; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1984, 1986c) has focused on teachers' instructional statements of explanation during informational presentations about the processes of reading and during interactions with students following those presentations. I believe that explicitness is also a desirable characteristic to consider in the study of questioning practices. As summarized by Roehler and Duffy (1984), Past research on comprehension instruction has examined the Leek; students are asked to perform. We examine what teachers gay to students about the process of doing the task, because student outcomes depend not only on 49 what they do but on what the teacher says to them about what they do. While students medi- ate the teacher's instructional talk and restructure it in terms of prior knowledge, the extent and quality of this restructuring is influenced by what teachers say and the clarity with which they say it. Hence, we agree with Mosenthal (in press) who says that "reading researchers tend to assume that comprehension is constrained only by text variables and/or by reader prior knowledge variables. They over- look the fact that comprehension can be con- strained also by the organization of the teacher's lessons. (pp. 266-267) (6) Reading skills can be actively or directly taught in structured lessons prior to creating situations where students must apply them in real text reading contexts. LIMITATIONS Recognizing certain limitations is in order to avoid inappropriate expectations and generalizations when inter- preting the results of the study. The major limitations are the following. 1. The nature of the methodology used limits the abil- ity of the study's findings to be generalized beyond the population represented by the sample of teachers. Further, this study has narrowed the study of questioning to a spe- cialized form of reading instruction, the skill lesson, and results are restricted to the functional role of teacher questioning behaviors in that context. However, it is in order to offer tentative inferences and suggest implications about the functional role of teacher elicitations for simi- lar instructional contexts within reading and in other 50 curricular areas that provide direct instruction in skills. In this sense, the study provides baseline information to inform further research in this area. 2. Using a non-participant observer as the data col- lection instrument may have altered the social behavior of the participants studied during their reading lessons. To minimize this possibility, each classroom was assigned a single observer for the duration of the school year. Furthermore, this problem is offset by the opportunity actual discourse analysis provides to gain understanding of the process of verbal teaching and learning of reading skills in the context of the actual classroom. Addition- ally, collecting data during actual observations of class— room interactions provides a sense of credibility about the teaching of reading skills not found in laboratory-based research. 3. The use of transcripts of audio-taped lessons lim- its the scope of the study to the examination of questioning as a verbal discourse event. Conspicuously absent is suffi- cient data about the non-verbal interactions between teacher and student participants that could be available were les- sons recorded on videotape. It was possible, however, to develOp some sense for what was non-verbally occurring in lessons via sounds and teachers' placement of pauses on the audiotapes on the basis of the researcher's prior experiences as a classroom teacher and active participation in the collection of the lesson data used for the study. 51 4. The relatively small size of the sample studied requires that the results of statistical tests for signifi- cant differences be interpreted cautiously. Instead, they can serve as indicators of areas of teacher questioning which warrant further exploration with a larger teacher population. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THIS DISSERTATION The research reported in this dissertation is organized into four major chapters with the inclusion of appendices. Chapter 11 provides a literature review of related research. Chapter III describes the design of the study, focusing on data treatment, and analysis procedures and methods. Appen- dices provide examples of lesson sequences representative of various interaction patterns; samples of data collection and analysis forms; a sample teacher transcript and data set; a visual lesson profile of a lesson selected from each teacher's set of lessons; and other relevant samples of how data were depicted for the analysis. In Chapter IV the findings are described and interpreted. Finally, discussion of the results, implications and recommendations for conti- nuing this direction of research on questioning is the focus in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE RELATED TO TEACHER QUESTIONING PRACTICES DURING READING INSTRUCTION This study examined the role of teacher questioning practices in reading skill lessons as they naturally occurred in the classrooms of six more effective and six less effective fifth grade teachers of low reading groups. This chapter selectively reviews representative studies from the literature on questioning, focusing on how teacher ques- tioning practices have been characterized generally and in reading instruction. Specifically, the review is divided into five main sections. Section 1 reviews taxonomies or classification systems that have been developed for teacher-posed questions. Section 2 reports the major findings related to questioning practices from process-product research on effective teaching behaviors and their relationships to student achievement. Section 3 examines teacher questioning behaviors in relation to comprehension training studies and student cognitive processing. Section 4 surveys socio- linguistic and the ethnography of communication studies that address the role of questioning practices in classroom interaction sequences. Section 5 describes important issues in instructional questioning research. 52 53 The literature review focuses on teacher-guided ques- tioning, not on textbook (or adjunct) questions (for a review of questions in written materials, see Andre, 1979) or student questioning behaviors, except where the occurrence of such behaviors prompted teacher elicitations. Some topics are discussed more in depth than others depending on the importance of each area in establishing baseline information for this study. The summary to each of the five sections includes a brief notation regarding how the research reported therein applied to this study. SECTION 1: Classification Systems for Types of Teacher-posed Questions This section considers taxonomies or classification systems that have been developed to characterize teacher- posed questions. Researchers use taxonomies to place ques- tions in a hierarchical arrangement of categories or "levels". Each category defines a question in terms of its response; that is, what is needed to supply the appropriate answer (Hyman, 1979) or as Andre (1979) characterized it, "the nature of cognitive processing required to answer a question" (p. 282). Questioning taxonomies range from general to curriculum-specific (Gall, 1970). This review focuses on taxonomies used in research to specify types of elicitations used by teachers during reading instruction. They are 54 grouped here as follows: (1) cognitive complexity; (2) sources of information; and (3) cognitive functions. A discussion of the three types and issues involving the use of taxonomies in questioning research concludes the section. Wellies Perhaps the most well-known questioning taxonomy (or classification system) based on cognitive complexity is described by Bloom and his colleagues (Bloom, et al., 1956), and modified by Sanders (1966). These taxonomies are reviewed extensively elsewhere (Gall, 1970; 1972; Hyman, 1974). In the W125 (Bloom. et al., 1956), Bloom developed a system for analyzing questions asked during text-based comprehension lessons using six cognitive levels: knowledge (factual), comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Note 1). Studies using this scheme have generally contrasted the first level (knowledge) to one or a combination of the remaining five (Andre, 1979). According to Gall (1970; 1972), cognitive complexity levels in most taxonomies generally include recall, analytic thinking, creative thinking, and evaluative thinking. For reporting purposes, researchers use taxonomies of this type tend to simplify findings into "lower order" and "higher order" levels of cognitive complexity. Typically, lower order represents recall or recognition of verbatim, factual information retrieved from memory, and higher order represents inferential and evaluative thinking processes. 55 Defining higher order levels, however, tends to be highly subjective and is often variable depending on the taxonomy (Andre, 1979; Bean, 1985). Andre (1979) summarized the rationale behind the lower-higher order distinction: Factual questions are believed to involve less complex cognitive processing than questions requiring more than direct memory. Questions that require more than simple direct memory are believed to involve more complex cognitive processing. (p. 282-83) Cognitive complexity taxonomies have been developed that base each category on the cognitive processing activity needed to answer a particular question. For example, Guszak (1967) and Barrett (1976) developed classification schemes to analyze the questions teachers asked students during text-based reading comprehension instruction. Both schemes are specialized modifications of Bloom's taxonomy (Gall, 1972). The levels of questions in each are charac- terized by a high degree of specificity regarding the con- tent information that should be included in responses. Guszak's WW1: lnxeneezy (1967) tries to capture the kinds of reading-thinking skills teachers require students to use with their reading assignments. Barrett's Iexenem1_e£ Beading_gempneheneien (1976) is more descriptively complex than Guszak's scheme. Barrett modeled his categories more closely after Bloom (1956). Compared to Guszak's scheme, Barrett's identifies specific cognitive skill areas associated with reading (Note 2). Because of this 56 precision, Barrett's taxonomy is more widely used to study levels of text comprehension, particularly for older readers. Nevertheless, Gall (1972) observed that both Guszak and Barrett clearly demonstrate the complexity of comprehension processes: Their taxonomic work suggests that reading comprehension is not a unitary cognitive pro- cess, but instead involves a number of different cognitive processes (recall, analysis, evalua- tion, etc.). If this is true, then perhaps teaching for good reading comprehension is a more complex task than we have been accustomed to imagine. (p. 6) Here Gall alludes to what has been a major problem for most taxonomies focused on cognitive complexity. They are often too complex to be of practical use; that is, they tend to be quite complicated structurally, often making them difficult for teachers to apply. In a critique of taxono- mies of this kind, Bean (1985, p. 339) noted, "the more elaborate the scheme, the more "fuzzy" demarcations become between question types". Numerous studies using cognitive complexity classifica- tion systems are reported in the literature. Typically, researchers observe classroom instruction and tally the occurrence of teacher questions. Gall (1970; 1972) reviewed many of these and concluded, "research spanning more than a half century indicates that teachers' questions have emphasized facts" (1970, p. 712). His synthesis of findings showed that 60 per cent of teachers' questions asked students to recall facts, 20 per cent were "think" 57 questions, and 20 per cent were procedural (1970). Interestingly, researchers who have set out to counter Gall's findings in the 1970's and 1980's have found essentially the same thing. Two studies (Guszak, 1967; Hare A Pulliam, 1980) focused on classroom reading instruction illustrate. Guszak (1967) observed elementary reading group instruction in twelve second, fourth and sixth grade class-‘ rooms to assess "the state of reading-thinking skills devel- opment." (p. 227). Using hisW W. be analyzed transcripts of roughly five hours of observed reading group time per class by tallying questions at each level and computing percentages. Overall, he found that teachers asked readers over 70 per cent recognition and recall questions related to literal comprehension, with highest percentages occurring in second grade (78.8 per cent compared to 64.7 per cent for fourth grade and 57.8 per cent for sixth grade). When he examined the "congruence" or reciprocity between teacher questions and student responses, he found that it was greatest for the recall (93.9 per cent) and recognition (90.3 per cent) categories, and only 75 per cent for inferential questions. Second grade teachers were highest in congruence because of the predominance of lower level questions. He observed: The second grade teachers tended to question more precisely than did the upper grade teach- ers in that they questioned frequently about 58 the factual material on a given page. While the upper grade teachers seemed to question specific factual bits also, it appeared that they lacked the control over the story details because of the difficulty of the memory task created by the greater quantity of words . . . [tlhe upper grade teachers accepted as congruent certain responses which were indeed incongruent. The second grade teachers had no such problems because of the readily apparent answers in the simple reading materials. (p. 231) Guszak took these findings as evidence that students "have learned quite well to parrot back an endless recollection of trivia" (p. 234)--students essentially tell teachers what they want to hear. Dillon (1982a) reported similar findings for the lack of correspondence between teacher questions and student responses in high school discussion classes (49.8 per cent congruence), especially for higher level thinking questions. He concluded that contrary to prevailing opinion on the perceived value of higher level questions as stimulants for student thought, "ask a higher-level question, get any-level answer." (p. 549) Additionally, both Guszak and Dillon noted the relative brevity of student responses, especially to higher level questions. A recent verification study using Guszak's categories was conducted by Hare and Pulliam (1980) to up-date the state of elementary teachers' questioning practices. They asked first through fifth grade teachers to write questions and corresponding answers for text passages as they would ask them in their reading groups. Analysis of 59 question-response patterns indicated over 70 per cent at the recognition-recall level despite differing methodology for data collection. Hare and Pulliam demonstrated that "teachers have not significantly changed their questioning habits in the last decade." (p. 72) Although not addressing questioning directly, observa- tional studies of reading instruction (Durkin, 1978-79; Duffy A McIntyre, 1982), conducted since Guszak's pioneering work, report a predominance of assessment activities in elementary classrooms. This seems to further support that much of the teacher-student interaction during text-based comprehension lessons is distinguished by the literal level focus of elementary teachers' questions. In a recent critique of Guszak's work, Pearson (1983) collapsed Guszak's categories into those with "literal emphasis" (i.e., recall and recognition) and those with "non-literal emphasis". He then compared the resulting percentages for each grade level according to high, average and low reading groups and found that while second grade teachers tended not to differentiate their questioning for readers of differing abilities, intermediate grade teachers questioned high and low ability readers in distinctly dif- ferent ways. Low group readers were asked a greater propor- tion of literal questions compared to high ability readers who received substantially more non-literal questions. Pearson (1983) stated: 6O Examined from the perspective of a student progressing though the grade levels in a school, whereas a high or average-ability student can look forward to a progressively changing diet of questions, a low-ability student can look forward to more of the same. (p. 278) W Contemporary research on question types focuses on the sources of information students draw on when responding to text-based comprehension questions (e.g., Au, 1979; Bean, 1985; Pearson A Johnson, 1978; Raphael A Gavelek, 1984; Wixson, l983b; for a review, see Andre, 1984). Much of this work is based on Pearson and Johnson's (1978) classification scheme in which questions are categorized as text explicit, text implicit or script implicit. They describe their tax- onomy as follows: Textually explicit questions have obvious answer right there on the page. Some would call them factual recall questions. Textually implicit questions have answers that are on the page, but the answers are not so obvious [inferential]. For "scriptally" implicit ques- tions, a reader needs to use his or her script [experiences] in order to come up with an answer. (p. 157) In other words, the relationship between a text-based question and its response is one of "reading the lines," "reading between the lines," or "reading beyond the lines." (p. 176) Pearson and Johnson viewed the relationship between questions and answers as three-way: the interaction of the question, the text and the reader's prior knowledge. In combination, these determine the kind of cognitive 61 processing the reader must do to comprehend the author's message (Andre, 1984). As interpreted by Wixson (1983b), The reader's role in the interaction among reader, text, and question is observable through the reader's answers to the questions asked. Characteristics of the reader such as interest, prior knowledge, and reading skill interact with the question and the text to determine the ultimate relationship. Thus, when the reader is taken into consideration, the interaction which actually occurs may dif- fer from the interaction which was anticipated on the basis of the question-text relationship. (p. 288) Many studies use the Pearson and Johnson (1978) taxon- omy to study teachers' questioning during reading instruc- tion (Bozsik, 1983; Hare A Pulliam, 1980; Raphael, 1982; 1984; Raphael A Pearson, 1982; Raphael A Wonnacott, 1985; Wixson, 1982; l983a). These studies have been mostly interested in questioning during story comprehension les- sons and how teachers develop students better able to answer teacher-posed comprehension questions. Raphael's work (1982, 1984; Raphael A McKinney, 1983; Raphael A Pearson, 1982; Raphael A Wonnacott, 1985) repre- sents the most concentrated use of the Pearson and Johnson taxonomy. In a series of studies of a procedure (i.e., QARs--Question-Answer Relationships) developed to train students to monitor their comprehension while reading text through self-questioning, Raphael and her colleagues demonstrated students' sensitivity to the three question-response relationships described by Pearson and Johnson (1978). She noted, however, that better readers are 62 more sensitive to differentiating sources of information, seeming more proficient than poor readers at using the appropriate strategy to locate answers to text-based questions (Raphael A Gavelek, 1984). In addition to replicating Guszak's study, Hare A Pulliam (1980) used the Pearson and Johnson taxonomy to investigate how teacher's focus on sources of information in story-based lessons. Their study of the questioning practices of first through fifth grade teachers showed that the sources of information most often used were text implicit and scriptally implicit. However, this finding was not supported by Gambrell (1983) in her study of wait-time during third grade reading comprehension instruction or in an observational study by Bozsik (1983). Gambrell (1983) reported that in basal text-based reading lessons taught in nine classrooms, teacher posed questions which were 63 per cent text-based and 37 per cent scriptal, with low groups receiving a disproportionately greater share of the text-based questions. Additionally, Gambrell was a bit disturbed by her significant finding that teachers waited longer for students to answer text-based questions. Her findings suggest that actual classroom practices do not conform to prevailing theory regarding the greater cognitive demands of higher level questions. Given the time requirements of higher level thinking, Gambrell observed, "Elementary students are rarely allowed the 63 opportunity to engage in higher level thinking during reading comprehension instruction" (Gambrell, 1983, p. 80). Bozsik (1983) used the Pearson A Johnson taxonomy to examine teacher's questions and students' responses in grades three, four and five during pre- and post-story reading in comprehension lessons. Students in classrooms at each grade level were grouped by ability into high and low reading groups. She identified question-response sequences (interaction blocks) based on length of interactions dealing with a single topic, and tallied the number of questions of each type for six blocks. Additionally, she classified students' responses as supported (based on text examples or personal experiences) or unsupported (failure to qualify a response). Bozsik's results across sequences of varying length consistently showed that these teachers posed mostly text explicit questions. Further, the low reading groups received more of these questions and were not necessarily required to support their responses to the extent found in the high groups. Interestingly, low group readers supported more of their responses during pre-reading when it appears they could appeal to their personal experiences to answer questions and not be forced to access information from the text. Wixson (l983a; 1983b; 1984) used the Pearson and Johnson taxonomy in two studies of question-answer interactions following passage reading. In the first experiment (l983a), average and above average fifth graders 64 read short narratives and responded in writing to sets of questions which were either text explicit, text implicit, schema-based (scriptally implicit) or text irrelevant. Results showed that different kinds of questions signifi- cantly influenced the interaction between reader and text in terms of information recalled. Text explicit questions produced fewer inferences than the other question types and vice versa. In Wixson's second study (l983b; 1984), she incorporated the importance of information to the passage in organizing the sets of questions for students to respond to following reading. This time both text explicit and text implicit questions were included in each set of post-passage ques- tions. One week after initial reading and question answering, students were given a recall test during which they had to prepare answers to questions at all levels, as well as free recall the story. Results indicated that students recalled information best if they had directly answered questions about it, regardless of that informa- tion's importance. Echoing Guszak's remark from sixteen years earlier (Guszak, 1967), Wixson concluded, "Apparently children learn and remember best those items of information that are directly questioned, regardless of whether they are important or trivial" (Wixson, 1983b, p. 291). 65 WW Taba (1965) developed a classification system based on the idea that questions and questioning strategies help children develop their comprehension abilities. She coined the term "cognitive commerce" to describe how the child's interaction with environmental influences promotes active use of cognitive processes. In this sense teacher question- ing is influenced by the specific purpose or function it serves within the "immediate interplay of verbal discourse" (Hyman, 1974). To determine question function, one must analyze questions within interaction sequences. Several researchers (e.g., Bean, 1985; Hyman, 1974; and Ruddell, 1974; 1978; Mehan, 1979a; Ruddell A Haggard, 1982) used Taba's ideas to develop classification schemes describing how teachers use questioning to activate differ- ent levels of cognitive processing. To illustrate the multifunctionality of purpose which accompanies a teacher question, a cognitive function taxonomy is usually coupled with levels of questions and/or information source. Hyman (1974) stated: To decide which cognitive function a question performs, it is absolutely necessary to view the question in the context of the ongoing interaction. Context is more important in classifying function of the question than it is in classifying the productive thinking [refer- ring to Guilford's model of the intellect] elicited by a question. Furthermore, it is possible for a question to have more than one function simultaneously. (p. 308) 66 In stressing the role of context and the interactive nature of questioning, Hyman anticipated the present focus of sociolinguists and educational ethnographers on discourse analysis (see Section 4). Also, Hyman identifies an impor- tant issue in questioning research-~question multifunctionality-~which will be addressed later in this chapter. Because the classification scheme developed by Mehan (1979a) was of central importance in developing the elicita- tion coding system used in this study (see Chapter III), Mehan's taxonomy will be overviewed first as an example of the cognitive function direction in questioning research. Mehan (1979a) develOped a set of categories to charac- terize the cognitive function of elicitations in classroom discourse. He identified four different kinds: (1) choice elicitations--"the respondent is called upon to agree or disagree with a statement provided by the questioner" and "contains the information needed in order to form the reply"; (2) product elicitations--"the respondent is asked to provide a factual response such as a name, a place, a date, a color"; (3) process elicitations--the respondent is asked for an Opinion or interpretation"; and (4) metaprocess elicitations--"students are asked to be reflective about the process of making connections between elicitations and responses" by "formulating the grounds of their reasoning" (pp. 43-46). 67 Acknowledging the relationships between these catego- ries and those of other taxonomies in terms of identifying the kind of cognitive processes used by the learner to respond (for a discussion, see Mehan, 1979a, p. 184-85), Mehan stresses the scheme's distinctiveness in that it is designed to identify any utterance in interactive discourse, not only questions determined by grammatical criteria, which performs the function of eliciting a response. Additionally, he noted that determining the meaning of an elicitation was best accomplished by considering it as part of "interactionally accomplished sequences" which "allowed the participants' prospective and retrospective treatment of action to decide meaning", rather than by viewing elicitations as autonomous speech acts. The cognitive function taxonomies develOped by Hyman (1974) and Ruddell (1974; 1978) are quite similar and more focused on the kind of behavior the teacher engages in when posing a question in a story comprehension lesson. Hyman's scheme includes five question categories: focusing, foundation, extending, lifting and promoting. Ruddell describes seven categories of "questioning strategies" including the following: focusing, ignoring, controlling, receiving, extending, clarifying, and raising. He has used them specifically to analyze teachers' questioning practices during elementary reading instruction in story-based les- sons. Bean (1985) reports using a scheme quite similar to 68 Ruddell's and defines terms similarly (see Bean, 1985, p. 348). Two types of questioning strategies not accounted for by Ruddell's taxonomy, but which quite prevalent in the data analyzed for this study, are captured in Hyman's "Foundation Questions" and "Prompting Questions" categories. Founda- tion questions function to elicit responses that will serve as the basis of a more complex question or discussion. They might request, for example, connecting evidence or criteria for an explanation schema, an evaluative judgment schama, or a divergent- thinking operation. The questioner asks the question in such a way as to bring out the evidence of criteria to be used in a more com- plex though Operation. The question may seek its information through a review of a previous session, a recapitulation of the ongoing dis- course, or the presentation of new information not yet offered. Example: Will you now sum up the points we've made so far about a rhombus, so we'll be ready to compare it with a triangle. (p. 302) Prompting questions describe the efforts of the ques- tioner to promote the flow of conversation and "keep the discourse from bogging down" (p. 304). Both of these categories reflect questioning that teachers might use to establish cohesiveness in a lesson. According to Ruddell (1978), however, the four most prevalent strategies for developing students' comprehension processes are focusing, extending, clarifying and raising. Focusing enables the teacher to immediately establish a mental set, a purpose for reading. Extending allows the teacher to elicit addi- tional information on the same subject at the same comprehension level. Clarifying enables the teacher to encourage returning to a 69 previous response for further clarification, explanation, or redefinition. Raising allows the teacher to obtain additional information on the same subject but at a higher comprehension level. There were not many studies available that use taxonomies from this group by simply tallying question frequency in isolation of other factors (Gall, 1972). Also, the kinds of questioning dimensions receiving emphasis for cognitive function are more typically explored in ethnographically-oriented descriptive studies of one or two classrooms (e.g., Bean, 1985; Mehan, 1979a; for reviews, see Evertson A Green, 1986; Green, 1983a; Green A Smith, 1983). For example, Mehan develOped his classification scheme during a year-long ethnographic study of a kindergarten classroom and then used it to analyze teacher-student discourse and determine participants' roles in a variety of lessons across the school day. Bean (1985) and his colleagues used a cognitive function taxonomy to create discussion maps (Green A Wallat, 1981) of a single first grade basal reader lesson. Section 4 below considers studies grounded in the sociolinguistic tradition. Ruddell (1978), however, reported using his classifica- tion scheme to study the question-response interactions of 24 primary grade teachers. He combined cognitive function with complexity level to analyze both questions and their responses. Results showed factual questioning in the most dominant role, accounting for 68.2 per cent of teacher 70 questions. Interpretive questions accounted for 31.8 per cent of total questions. When combined with function, the extending strategy was most often used with factual questions (57.5 per cent), and the raising strategy most often with interpretive questions (49.7 per cent). When considered separately, focusing and extending accounted for 71 per cent of all strategies used. When student responses were considered, Ruddell found the same lack of congruence ‘ between questions and responses noted earlier (Dillon, 1982a). Students responded at a factual level in 85.9 per cent of their total responses-~a rate higher than the number of factual level questions posed by the teachers. Students gave teachers only 14.1 per cent interpretive responses to their questions at that level. Ruddell (1978) noted: "Obviously, a number of the teacher's questions at the interpretive level were not handled effectively by the child's responses" (p. 117). He recommended that teachers should try to broaden the focus of their questions beyond the factual level by posing them in a variety of ways. Discussion In this section the three types of classification systems are discussed in terms of issues surrounding the use of taxonomies to study teacher questioning behaviors. Guszak's 1960's questioning research (Guszak, 1967) illustrates the major finding repeatedly emerging from taxonomical studies as a whole: teachers avoid complexity 71 when teaching reading and stick close to details presented in the text. Several researchers confirmed this to still be true in the 1980's. In a similar vein, studies using the Pearson A Johnson (1978) taxonomy found that when viewed as question-response relationships, teachers' elicitations tended to seek information directly stated in the text. Ruddell (1978) added that in terms of questioning strate- gies, teachers focus and refocus on the topic being discussed or elicit information on the same topic at the same level of comprehension (typically, factual). Reacting to these findings, both Pearson (1983) and Guszak (1983) stressed the need to take a "hard look" at current questioning practices with readers of different ability levels and look more closely at the way questioning patterns might differ relative to the type of content (stories vs. other types of material) stressed through questioning. In addition to enjoying wide use by researchers, taxon- omies have been widely published for practitioners' use in planning comprehension questions to accompany textual reading lessons (cf., Hyman, 1974; Sanders, 1966). Perhaps their greatest value comes in sensitizing teachers to the complexities of providing good comprehension instruction and providing a diet of questions rich in cognitive variety. Cazden (1986) concluded that while categorizing questions according to some scale of cognitive difficulty lacked the precision needed to effectively research classroom question- ing, taxonomies were valuable to teachers as heuristic devices. On the other hand, according to Bean (1985), 72 Effective teacher questioning presupposes a high level of awareness concerning ways in which questions may be classified. A teacher must have a finely tuned analytical sense of question types and their correspondence to sources of information used in class. (p. 339) Further, while most of the suggestions for improving classroom practices derived from research on taxonomies encourage teachers to vary the cognitive level of their questioning and to ask more higher level questions to facil- itate higher levels of student thinking (Hyman, 1974; Pearson A Johnson, 1978; Ruddell, 1974), this recommendation has yet to show up in practice, particularly in the reading instruction provided for low group readers. Andre (1979) and Gall (1970; 1972) urge caution in tak- ing the findings from taxonomical studies too seriously by pointing out that there are a number of problems with their use. The first problem is, there are times when it is not possible to tell whether a student's response, in fact, reflects higher level processing, or may just be recall of a fact read somewhere outside of the lesson context. Gall pointed out, "Cognitive processes are inferential con- structs, and therefore cannot be observed directly." (Gall, 1972, p. 6). Hyman (1974) noted this problem particularly for interpreting "why" questions: . . . a question is not a memory question or a thought question in and of itself. Rather, only by knowing the context of the lesson can ques- tions be classified." (p. 309) 73 Another problem is that although there are promising signs from the use of cognitive function taxonomies in conjunction with other schemes, most taxonomies still encourage the assumption that purposes for questions can be determined by analyzing questions in isolation of other discourse elements. Third, many types of elicitations are never accounted‘ for because they do not "fit" existing categories in a particular taxonomy or they may overlap several categories such that placement is spurious at best (the problem of multifunctionality). Thus, when research studies report "other" as a category of questioning observed, important insights about how instruction is conducted may be lost. Pearson (1983) notes this as a particular problem with the Pearson and Johnson (1978) taxonomy. Mehan (1979a) took this problem into consideration in defining the sequence as the unit of analysis to which he applied his elicitation classification scheme. Fourth, studies tend to generalize findings on question types to groups of students when teachers' oral questions are usually answered by one student at a time. Andre (1979) points out that if the response "makes" the question in terms of its instructional effects in active processing, then only the student responding benefits. This may account for the equivocal results of many of the effectiveness studies summarized in the next section. 74 Fifth, most taxonomies have been developed to be as widely applicable as possible across curricular areas. This limits their ability to detect aspects of questioning that may be highly specific to particular content or lesson type. For example, the taxonomies described for reading instruc- tion were develOped exclusively with the kind of content processing students must do in text-based story lessons in. mind. They may not be as useful for analyzing elicitation- response patterns in other kinds of instructional settings, such as skill lessons, because of the use of word or text examples rather than lengthy text passages for practice. Finally, in 1970 Gall noted that most taxonomies were designed to investigate the kinds of questions used in actual classrooms. Little research was available at that time to address what teachers ehenld be doing in their questioning practices. Times have changed. As will be shown in the next section, the 1970's and early 1980's were the decades of identifying and prescribing "effective teacher" behaviors. Snmmanx_cf_Seciicn_ii__Classi£ication_fichemes This section presented and discussed several classifi- cation systems used to identify and analyze dimensions of teachers' classroom questioning practices, including cogni- tive complexity, sources of information available to the respondent, and cognitive functions. Several studies were reviewed that used these taxonomies. The major finding is that most questions posed by teachers assess recall of facts 75 or literal comprehension, while the remainder are either intended to establish student background for the topic of instruction or to clarify procedures and directions for instructional activities. Taxonomies usually represent attempts to understand the kind of thinking teacher ques- tions prompt from students, although some were reviewed that described the teacher's instructional activity. In reading, taxonomies are mostly used study questioning in story-based comprehension lessons where questioning is a more highly visible. Contextualization issues remain a problem because most of these taxonomies cannot easily document how students might be probed in less text-bound reading lessons. Questioning taxonomies were important to review prior to beginning this study because of the need to locate existing schemes that might be applied to examining teacher questioning in reading skill lessons. In this respect, Mehan's cognitive function scheme was best suited for adaptation to the present study because (1) it viewed questioning broadly as elicitations; (2) it reflected the current research interest in student metacognition; (3) its categories were not as dependent on text materials in describing function and (4) it was specifically developed for use in analyzing lesson transcripts. 76 SECTION 2: Questioning Effects and Student Outcomes This section reviews the major findings related to questioning practices from process-product research on effective teaching behaviors and their relationships to student achievement. Major observational studies of class- room reading instruction are discussed here because they report findings that are informative regarding teacher ques- tioning. Included here is a characterization of questioning components in "direct instruction"--a synthesis model incorporating many of these findings that has been widely applied in various forms to reading instruction. Three areas of process-product findings reviewed here are as follows: (1) effects of higher and lower level teacher questions on student outcomes; (2) general characteristics of teacher questioning incorporated in the direct instruction model based on classroom studies of teacher effects; and (3) specific characteristics of teacher questioning reported in reading instructional studies. Wm Wm” Process-product teacher effectiveness studies report numerous findings related to teacher questioning practices (e.g., Anderson, Evertson A Brophy, 1979; Call, Ward, Berliner, Cahen, Winne, Elashoff A Stanton, 1978; Rosenshine, 1983; Ruddell, 1984). Researchers are particularly interested in the higher level-lower level 77 distinction for determining effective questions. Results thus far, however, are mixed relative to favoring either lower or higher order cognitive questioning as the best means for promoting higher student achievement. Extensive reviews of process-product studies with findings related to questioning are provided in BrOphy A Good, 1986; Winne, 1979; Redfield A Rousseau, 1981; and Rosenshine, 1983). In a meta-analysis of eighteen experimental and quasi- experimental studies of teacher questioning that distin- guished the effects on student learning of lower and higher order questions, Winne (1979) concluded that teacher questioning practices had no effect on student achievement. He classified studies as either "training studies" or "skills experiments". In training studies teacher training was the independent variable with teachers' deciding how they would apply the questioning skills learned in their classrooms. In skills experiments the researcher prescribed to teachers how and when to use particular questioning skills during instruction. For each study, Winne surveyed and tallied those results reported as statistically significant and then counted across studies those results favoring a particular treatment condition. In both classes of studies, there were few differences in student achievement attributable to whether teachers used lower order fact or knowledge questions (i.e., those that call for verbatim or student worded recall of material previously taught by the teacher or read from text) or higher cognitive 78 or divergent questions (i.e., those calling for student manipulation of previously learned information to create an answer or provide evidence to support an answer). When discussing these equivocal results, Winne noted that despite his efforts to examine studies that provided similar treatments, there was still great variability in how well treatment implementations were controlled, in the cur- ricular and student context in which experiments were con- ducted, and in the methodologies used to examine treatment effects. Questioning treatments appeared difficult to implement and replicate because of the complicated effects that other teaching behaviors might have on teachers' uSe of questions and students' learning from questions. In contrast, a meta-analysis review of the same set of studies by Redfield and Rousseau (1981) concluded the oppo- site: teachers' use of "higher cognitive" questions had a measurable positive effect on student achievement. These results replicated Gall's 1970 findings regarding the effects of teacher questioning behaviors on student achieve- ment--that is, the cognitive level of questioning makes a difference. Reasons given to account for the lack of sup- port for Winne's findings centered on the effects of metho- dology selection in determining the outcomes and conclusions of analytical reviews of this kind. More important, how- ever, student sample size seemed to play an important role in determining the effectiveness of a questioning treatment. Teachers who provided instructional questioning treatments 79 to smaller groups of students (in the training studies) obtained larger effect sizes than those with larger student samples (in the skills studies where researchers were inter- ested in generating a larger sample size). The net result of these two "meta-analyses" seems to be no new light shed on the effects of teachers' use of lower or higher order questions on student achievement. The find- ings of both studies, however, offer strong support for the importance of carefully specifying the context in which questioning is examined for student effects. Redfield and Rousseau appeared to get results favoring higher cognitive questioning by controlling what appears to be an important contextual influence on students' learning from teacher questioning--namely, student group size. Whether groups were greater or less than 64 students seemed to influence effect sizes. The equivocal findings also reflect the larger problem of trying to acontextually describe the influence of teacher questioning on student learning. Finally, these studies suggest that variation in how ques- tions influence students cognitively may be obscured when findings are based solely on frequency counts of isolated question types (Cazden, 1986). Interestingly, Dillon's study (1982a), examining the degree of cognitive correspondence between teacher questions and statements and student responses, supported Winne's findings of the lack of superiority for higher order cognitive questions over lower order questions. Cognitive 80 correspondence between question and answer means that a question that is inferred to express a given type of cognition is presumed to elicit an answer representing a corresponding type of cognitive process in the student (Dillon, 19 2a, p. 540). Dillon studied correspondence between teacher questions and statements and student responses in high school discus- sion exchanges to determine if this type of relationship characterized teacher-student interactions. Overall, his findings indicated that teacher questions and statements of lower cognitive types tended to elicit higher cognitive level student responses; higher level questions were more likely to obtain lower level responses; and to the degree that there was correspondence, it occurred mostly for lower level questions. Surprisingly, lack of correspondence was particularly pronounced for statements versus questions (in the grammatical sense). Dillon observed: As a separate result, this study finds that questions differ from statements in degree of cognitive correspondence with their respective responses. For lower cognitive types, one- third of responses to questions but two-thirds of responses to statements were at correspond- ingly higher levels. Overall, half the answer to questions were at the same level as the question but half of responses to statements were at higher levels. (Dillon, 1982a, p. 549) In discussing these results, Dillon reflected that his results conflicted with findings supporting high degrees of correspondence, especially for higher cognitive questions. To explain reasons for why this might be the case, he focused on the lack of agreement among educational 81 researchers in defining the term "question". Dillon stressed the tendency to artificially limit studies of classroom questioning on the basis of the interrogative form of utterances, noting that statements in his study seemed to be more effective at generating higher level student responses. Overall, he argues that the ambiguity of findings from questioning studies is largely a matter of failure to agree on definitions. Dillon's findings provide support for Mehan's (1979a) suggestion that classroom questioning might better be viewed broadly in terms of student responses to teacher elicitations rather than student answers to teacher questions. WWW WW1 W A number of large-scale, classroom-based, experimental and correlational studies of teacher effects have been con- ducted since the early 1970's. These studies are broad ranging in terms of the instructional teacher behaviors correlated with improved student achievement. Several extensive reviews summarize the common findings from effec- tiveness studies (BrOphy, 1979; Brophy A Good, 1986; Dunkin A Biddle, 1976; Rosenshine, 1971, 1976, 1983; Rosenshine A Stevens, 1986). Various aspects of teacher questioning consistently appear in these discussions as an important area of teacher behavior that affects student learning. 82 Those aspects of greatest interest for this study are summa- rized below. Teacher effectiveness researchers have studied the relationship between the frequency of teachers' use of dif- ferent levels of questions and student achievement, conclud- ing that the more effective teacher is one who asks more questions with an academic focus (Clark, Marx, Staybrook, Gage, Peterson A Berliner, 1979; Rosenshine, 1976, 1983). Rosenshine (1983) emphasized the higher frequency of teacher-directed questions found in the lessons of more effective teachers when teaching basic arithmetic and reading skills in the primary grades. Also, instructional effectiveness seems most closely associated with asking large numbers of factually-based questions focused on the academic content being learned (Brophy, 1979, 1982; Rosenshine, 1983; Rosenshine A Stevens, 1984, 1986). Support for this was provided by the Follow Through studies (e.g., Stallings A Kaskowitz, 1974) which identified the teacher factual question-student response-teacher feedback interaction pattern as the most beneficial for promoting student achievement. Further, these interaction patterns occurred during lessons in what Rosenshine (1983) called "guided practice", defined as that portion of a lesson (usually following a demonstration of information about the skill) when . . . the teacher asks questions and is also standing by to supply assistance and help, if necessary. This guided practice continues 83 until the students are confident and respond firmly . . . During successful guided practice two types of questions were usually asked by the teacher: questions which called for specific answers, and those which asked for explanation of how an answer was found. (p. 340) While this finding derives from initial skill instruction in mathematics and reading, there still seems to be the assumption in Rosenshine's work that this finding is gener- alizable to all kinds of lessons focusing on skill applica- tion. While generally supportive of Rosenshine's character- ization of effective teacher questioning, Brophy A Good (1986) were more cautious about prescribing questions at a fixed level of difficulty because of the inconsistency of results in this area. In their discussion of the characteristics of effective teacher questioning, they stated: It seems clear that most (perhaps three- fourths) of teachers' questions should elicit correct answers, and that most of the rest should elicit overt, substantive responses (incorrect or incomplete answers) rather than failures to respond at all. Beyond these gen- eralities, optimal question difficulty probably varies with context. Basic skills instruction requires a great deal of drill and practice, and thus frequent fast-paced drill/review les- sons during which most questions are answered rapidly and correctly. However, when teaching complex cognitive content, or when trying to stimulate students to generalize from, evaluate, or apply their learning, teachers will need to raise questions that few students can answer correctly (as well as questions that have no single correct answer at all). (pp. 362-63) 84 Brophy A Good pointed out the distinction between ques- tion difficulty and cognitive level but do not clearly spe- cify that distinction. They concluded that cognitive levels is an area not easily clarified by simple coding of individual questions: To develop more useful information about cogni- tive level of question, researchers will have to develOp more complex methods of coding that take into account the teacher's goals (it seems obvious that different kinds of questions are appropriate for different goals), the quality of the questions (clarity, relevance, etc.) and their timing and appropriateness given the flow of the activity. Research on the latter issues will require shifting from the individual ques- tion to the question sequence as the unit of analysis. (p. 363) 0‘ .1. ‘ ‘ ‘ o '. 4‘ 9 " c. .1 U ,‘oo ‘0 In process-product research, reading, particularly, is a curricular area notable for high numbers of teacher ques- tions during instruction. Teachers use questions to check students' comprehension of story content or evaluate the successful completion of practice exercises at a literal level of understanding by focusing on memory level thinking (Guszak, 1967; Wilen, 1984). This supports the combination of monitoring and assessment findings reported in classroom observation studies by Durkin (1978-79) and Duffy and McIntyre (1982). Teacher questions in the context of text-based lessons tend most often to assess student understanding of story content (Durkin, 1984; 1978-79; Roehler A Duffy, 1981). 85 In her observational study of reading comprehension instruction in fifth grade classrooms, Durkin (1978-79) observed that students spend large amounts of their instruc- tional time answering questions that assess how well they have learned the informational content of stories. Durkin's results generated considerable debate within the reading research community because they imply that actual instruction does not occur very often. Her findings focused attention on the issue of whether assessment or assistance is more often the goal of teacher questioning during instructional episodes (Hodges, 1980; Heap, 1982). Duffy and McIntyre (1982), documented the prevalence of assessment-oriented instruction in elementary reading les- sons, concluding that teachers seemed to confuse instruc- tional assistance with assessment. Duffy (1982a) argued that there is more to instruction than simply assessing, a position endorsed by other reading researchers (Good, 1983; Rosenshine, 1983; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983; Hodges, 1980). What that "more" is continues to generate debate, how- ever, particularly with regard to low group readers. For example, disagreements remain regarding whether teacher assistance is best provided by information convey through explicit explanation of reading strategies (Atwell A Rhodes, 1984; Duffy A Roehler, 1982b; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1984; Holmes, 1983) or through use of "regulatory questioning" following story reading (Tharp A Gallimore, 1983). 86 Duffy, Roehler and their colleagues (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986b, 1986c; Roehler, Duffy A Meloth, 1986) argue that the most important instructional component in effective teacher talk, when teaching skills to poor readers, is explicit explanation, where the purposes and goals of skill instruction are met as strategies are presented through a presentation, modeling, interactive elaboration and guided practice/application. Roehler, Duffy and Meloth (1984) describe this as instruction with a "process-into-content" emphasis which . . . urges sharing with student (1) the knowledge of how the reading system works and (2) how they can consciously apply this knowledge in the strategic manner which distinguishes good readers from poor readers. (p. 6) In this view, teacher questions are important, but as assessment devices of student instructional awareness of reading processes, as well as content, following the teacher's explicit explanation of the skill as strategy. 0n the other hand, Tharp (1982) and others (Au, 1979; Hansen, 1981; Raphael A Gavelik, 1984) stress the implicit, yet pivotal, instructional role of "regulatory" questioning during text-based comprehension lessons, focusing on appli- cation of skill knowledge. According to this view, if stu- dents answer questions about the informational content of the lesson correctly, they demonstrate that they are, in fact, using reading skills strategically; therefore, reading instruction via questioning procedures has been successfully 87 provided. Because reading comprehension processes are implicit, questioning is the key instructional feature because it allows readers to express their process knowledge by correctly answering story-based questions. This view assumes that readers have the "how to" processes mentally in place and will learn when and how to efficiently use those processes at different cognitive levels by responding to teacher questions. Readers are not asked explain what they mentally did or thought to arrive at story-based answers. Roehler, Duffy and Meloth (1984) observed . . . the assumption seems to be that, if the Legenez explicitly understands the reading process and asks questions about the content of text based on this understanding, etudenee will "naturally" come to understand the system upon which the teacher based the questions.(p. 4) They question the validity of this assumption for all children, especially low aptitude readers. In this Roehler A Duffy, et al., are supported by the work of Allington and others (Allington, 1983; Garner A Taylor, 1982; Good, 1981; Holmes, 1983; Paris A Myers, 1981; Shake A Allington, 1985). For example, Paris and Myers' (1981) studies of the oral reading behaviors of good and poor fourth grade readers support the difficulties experienced by poor readers in acquiring comprehension monitoring strategies. Using a variety of observable measures for assessing students' com- prehension monitoring (including interviews during and fol- lowing reading, student ratings Of the usefulness Of reading strategies, and free recall following passage reading), 88 Paris A Myers documented the general lack of strategies, awareness and organized memory as characteristics of poor readers. They concluded by stressing the need to specify more clearly how teachers can provide students with appro- priate training in monitoring strategies. Carried to its logical outcome, Roehler, Duffy and Meloth (1984) argue that if low aptitude readers do not have the needed comprehension strategies in their heads, then it is rather difficult for "good" questions to "trigger in students an implicit understand of process." (p. 7) What is supposed to assist students in the acquisition of processual awareness, in reality, simply becomes assessment of what they don't know. Furthermore, Shake and Allington (1985) question whether teachers use "good" questions even when provided with suggestions in teachers' materials. In their observa- tional study of low group reading instruction, they found differential treatment of high and low reading groups through teachers' questioning. Teachers were more likely to use suggested questions with their high groups and "free- lance" instruction with their own questions with low groups. One explanation suggested for this finding was the basal text's relative lack of direction for skill instruction, a staple in the diet of low group instruction, compared to very specific suggestions provided for story-based discus- sions, often the focus of high group instruction. 89 These findings support the need to more closely examine teacher questioning practices during low group instructional interactions in skill lessons which typically serve as stu- dents' exposure to the processes of reading. According to Allington (1983), "good and poor readers differ in their reading ability as much because of differences in instruction as variations in individual learning styles or aptitudes." (p. 5H8) .§ummaL1_9f_§ecLi2n.2;__Qnsstionins_£ffscts “Wm This section selectively reviewed process-product and classroom observational research and surfaced issues related to teacher questioning practices. Taken together, findings suggest that teachers are most effective when they pose high numbers of fact based questions with an academic focus in the form of guided practice. Classroom observa- tional studies report that this appears to translate into a high degree of focus on teacher assessment of what students know. Further, teachers appear to apply questioning differ- entially to high and low group readers. These findings are important for this study because of its dual foci on teacher effectiveness and low group instruction. In assessing the potential value of process-product findings for educators, Gall (1983) stated that it is prema- ture to try to investigate the effects of teacher question types on student achievement. Rather than seeking causal relationships as has been common practice, he observed that 90 “It is first necessary to develOp a better understanding of the processes involved in teacher-student questioning sequences." Further, he stresses that emphasis on acquisi- tion of factual knowledge by means of questions is now well established and argues that it is time for researchers to move on to ". . . ask new questions about questions." The findings summarized suggest that a number of changes in current practices used to study questioning may be in order. First, reporting the context in which patterns of teacher questioning behaviors occur is important for maintaining a realistic perspective on results. Second, conclusions about how questioning functions in lessons based solely on frequency counts of isolated questions have pro- vided about as much information as they are likely to. Finally, means for coding questioning sequences need to be developed that allow researchers to view questioning as part of interactive lesson events. Descriptions of questioning's instructional roles requires consideration of how individual elicitations work together with other discourse elements (i.e., student responses and teacher evaluations). SECTION 3: Teacher Questioning, Comprehension Training and Student Cognitive Processing This section examines teacher questioning practices related to comprehension training studies and student cognitive processing. This section begins with overview the 91 recently articulated "cognitive mediation paradigm" (Winne, 1985). Then findings from training studies are reviewed. Training studies focus on the strategic nature of reading comprehension processes and teaching students how to use cognitive skills independently during text-reading situa- tions. Of particular interest for this study were investigators' descriptions of the questioning procedures used by teachers in interactions with students during the instructional phase of training. Coznllixs_flediation The relationships between teacher questioning and development of student metacognitive strategies for under- standing story content have also been explored (Fitzgerald, 1983; Raphael A Gavelik, 198“; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983; Sanacore, 1984). Research derives from recent theoretical work in the following areas: (1) characterization of a schema-theoretic view of reading comprehension processes stressing the importance of the interactions between the reader's prior experiences, the text and the task of reading (for reviews, see Anderson A Pearson, 1983; Tierney and Cunningham, 198M); (2) articulation of the kinds of cognitive knowledge (i.e., declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge) required to be able to read and comprehend strategically (Flavell, 1979; Paris, et al., 1983; Sanacore, 198”); and (3) development of the cognitive mediational view of learning, emphasizing the interaction between the student 92 trying to make sense of instruction and the teacher's efforts to make instruction sensible (Winne, 1985). The work related to cognitive knowledge will be described in Chapter III because of its influence on the development of one of the coding schemes used to examine questioning in instructional sequences. The focus here is on the last area. Research on cognitive mediation is viewed by many as the logical extension of the teacher effectiveness findings from process-product research (Doyle, 1983; Johnston, 1985; Winne, 1985). Developments in this area have redirected effectiveness research to factors related to students' cognitive processing during instruction. In reading, researchers focus on how students learn to monitor their use of cognitive processes and how that learning is facilitated through instruction. winne (1985) defined the cognitive mediational paradigm as follows: . . . during teaching, students engage in cognitive processing of the content they are to learn. Processes yield products. Therefore, teaching can be thought of as providing conditions that encourage students to apply one or another set of cognitive processes to content during instruction. Cognitive products are the results of this processing. When the cognitive products are congruent with objec- tives, I call them cognitive achievements. Cognitive achievements attained during lessons are building blocks for the achievements that are measured by tests, projects, and papers after instruction is over. (p. 674) 93 Thus, teachers' instructional practices, such as those involved in eliciting student responses to academic content, are mediated by student perceptions of and responses to classroom tasks (Doyle, 1983). In this respect, Winne (1985) noted that [Tlhe emphasis in the cognitive mediation view of teaching is not on teaching behaviors but rather on students' cognitive interactions with teaching. The ultimate measure of teaching is not whether teachers teach in a certain way, but whether students think about content in ways that can promote achievement. (pp. 673-74) Clearly, however, the relationship between teaching events and learning events is not easily defined. While it is certainly important in effectiveness research to retain focus on the learner, it is far from established that researchers have learned all there is to know about effective teaching behaviors from process-product findings. It appears that there is room within the cognitive mediation approach to continue that clarification of teaching behaviors but as they affect and are affected by the reciprocal interactive relationships between teachers and students. WWW Research on questioning during reading instruction cen- ters on teachers' use of questions in text-based comprehen- sion lessons that focus on the application of skill knowl- edge to learning story content ( Au, 1979; Carnine, Stevens, Clements A Kameenui, 1983; Guszak, 1967; Hansen, 1981; Mangano, Palmer A Goetz, 1982; Palincsar, 1984; Pearson, 94 198“; Raphael, 1982; Raphael A Gavelek, 198”; Tharp, 1982; Tharp A Gallimore, 1983). Numerous studies have been conducted both with researchers serving in the role of teacher or with classroom teachers receiving instruction in how to teach students self-monitoring strategies. The goal in this kind of study is to teach students how to monitor their use of cognitive processes during reading comprehension. Findings in this area suggest a relationship between reading comprehension and questions requiring both lower order and higher order thinking skills. Teachers who explicitly model questions and question-answering strategies, employing higher levels of thinking, appear to be more effective in producing reading achievement (Au, 1979; Palincsar, 1984; for a review, see Paris, Wixson A Palincsar, 1986). Overall, despite increased interest in how teacher questions assist in the development of students' cognitive skills for monitoring reading comprehension, the results of studies of how students are taught to monitor their under- standing of reading processes have yet to reflect attention to the reciprocal aspects of teaching and learning. Host research continues to focus primarily on reporting student achievement outcomes. While training studies report gains in student comprehension achievement, they have been slow to clarify the nature of the teacher's role in bringing about improvement beyond providing an explanation of the pro- cedures students should use when monitoring comprehension of 95 text. More specifically, training studies have not signifi- cantly increased understanding of how teachers in naturalis- tic classroom settings can vary their questioning behaviors between the aims of assessment of cognitive outcomes versus instructional assistance, or how teachers' questioning behaviors can affect students' developing metacognitive awareness of reading as a strategic process. Wong (1985) in a recent review of self-questioning training studies noted that one problem for researchers in this area has consistently been lack of attention to adequate monitoring of how teachers implemented the required instructional procedures which were successful in promoting student comprehension growth (cf., the self-questioning training studies conducted by Brown, Campione A Day, 1981; Hansen, 1981; Hansen A Pearson, 1983; Palincsar, l98u; Palincsar A Brown, 1982; Raphael, 1982; and Raphael A Wonnacott, 1985; see Brown, 1980, for a review). In other words, it is unclear how teachers actually structured their interactions with students during the reported guided practice sessions following the presentation of the procedures for self-questioning. In her discussion of the successful results of teaching students how to use "Qustion-Answer Relationships" (QARs) during text reading, Raphael (1982) expressed some concern about the importance of establishing the ability of actual classroom teachers to successfully implement complex compre- hension monitoring strategies with students without 96 extensive researcher involvement. In this case, Raphael noted that teachers who were successful at implementation made it a point to elicit student justification of and the reasoning behind how they obtain correct answers to passage-based comprehension questions. Duffy, Roehler A Mason (1984) criticized the focus of instruction in comprehension training studies because it typically centers on explicit treatment of the content of the sample passages used during practice, rather than on explicit discussion of the actual cognitive processes being used to comprehend. In this sense, teachers are trained to conduct lessons that assume students' implicit under- standing of how they were performing the self-questioning strategies. nu. o ‘ 0. ° ‘- Q‘ ' “ 01 0‘ 0“. '4'0‘ 00 This section overviewed the cognitive mediational view relating instruction to student cognitive processing and reviewed the role of teacher questioning practices in com- prehension training studies. This area is important for this study because it illustrates recent directions in research focused on student strategic learning. Notably, these studies used the text-based comprehension lesson as the setting for research. An important finding for teacher questioning is that teacher questions provide important models for students to use in develOping ways to self- question. The evidence for this, however, is limited to 97 text-based lessons. Also, researchers in this area provide little information about how teachers actually conduct self-questioning instruction. SECTION 4: The Sociolinguistic View of Questioning Practices While process-product researchers' contribution to research on classroom instruction is noteworthy for the number of effective teaching practices identified, it is also important to qualitatively describe those characteris- tics as they occur in particular classroom contexts for specific kinds of instructional episodes. This "fleshing out" process has largely been assumed by researchers in the qualitative tradition--e.g., classroom ethnographers, sociolinguists, cultural psychologists and anthropologists. Doyle (1977) observed that teacher effectiveness formulations should include both contextual variables and the meanings teachers and students assign to the events and processes that occur in classrooms...[t]he teacher effectiveness question itself might best be changed from "Which instructional conditions are most effective?" to "How do instruc- tional effects occur?" (p. 188) For this reason, this section considers the influences of studies grounded in sociolinguistics and the ethnography of communication that have addressed the role of questioning practices in classroom interaction sequences. Findings that have contributed to a characterization of instructional discourse are discussed. Also, an overview of major quali- tative findings related to reading instruction is provided. 98 This area is promising as a means of providing the in-depth perspective needed to understand how teacher ques- tioning is shaped by the interactional, as well as academic, context of reading instruction. Many of the techniques used for transcript analysis in this study were adapted from current research in this area and will be described in Chapter III as they influenced the design of data collection and analysis. Recent advocacy of sequences as more appropriate for analyzing questioning (cf., Bloome A Argumedo, 1985; Cazden, 1986; Heap, 1980, 1982; Mehan, 197N, 1979a, 1979b) raises the question: Why have studies isolating and focusing on the individual teacher question as a researchable event proved so problematic in providing educators with useful information for improving the quality of classroom questioning? This question is best answered by appealing to the growing literature from sociolinguistics and ethnography which has examined classrooms as communicative or inter- actional systems jointly constructed by the teacher and students (Mehan, 197a, 1979a). In this respect, socio- linguistic views hold promise for helping researchers bridge the gap between current process-product research and future research focused on cognitive mediation. Researchers with a sociolinguistic perspective view reading "as a cognitive, intrapersonal process embedded in a social and linguistic process and as an interpersonal Social/linguistic process" (Bloome A Green, 1981!). This 99 perspective requires that reading be examined as dependent upon the context in which it occurs, in terms of both instruction and performance. Sociolinguists and ethnographers study interaction sequences in classroom discourse in order to better under- stand (among other things) how participants roles are struc- turally defined and characterized in the unfolding flow of classroom discourse events; how classroom discourse relates to student learning; and how lesson events are structured through the interaction of components such as teacher ques- tioning, explanations, feedback, as well as student responses to teacher behaviors and student peer interactions (cf., Au, 1979; Au A Mason, 1981; Bean, 1985; Bloome, l98u; Bloome A Argumedo, 1985; Cazden, 1981. Cazden, John A Hymes, 1972; Erickson, 1982; Farrar, 1983, 1984; Green A Wallat, 1981; Gumperz, 1981; Mehan, 1978; 1979a, 1979b; 1982; 1984; Shultz, Erickson A Florio, 1982; Wallat A Green, 1979). Many researchers see reading instruction as prime territory in which to investigate participant roles and structures that are relatively recurrent over time (see Bloome A Green, 1984, for a review of studies focused on the sociolinguistic study of reading). According to Cazden (1986), Most attention has been given to teacher ques- tions because of their frequency, the pedagogi- cal work they are intended to do, and the obvi- ous control they exert of the talk and thereby over the enacted curriculum. (p. “#0) 100 Wanna: Qualitative researchers have established that when discourse events occur in school, they take on unique prop- erties that set them apart from conversational interactions in other settings (Au, 1979; Au A Mason, 1983; Shultz, Erickson A Florio, 1982; Mehan, 1979b, 1989). A key characteristic of instructional discourse is the relatively unequal status of the participants (Shultz, Erickson A Florio, 1982) compared to the more equal status of informal interactions. Typically, the teacher's work is initiating, focusing and terminating interactions--in other words, controlling. Students' work is responding when called upon to do so. Teachers most often exercise control in inter— actions through prodigious use of elicitations to which students must usually respond with some demonstration of learned academic knowledge or acquired skill (Hyman, 1979; Dillon, 1981a). In other words, teachers use questioning in ways which encourage students to put their thinking on pub- lic display. This represents a basic level of the "performance-grade exchange" concept articulated by Doyle in his descriptions of task structures (Becker, Geer A Hughes in Doyle, 1977, 1979). The extent to which students control aspects of interactions probably lies in the perceived (acceptability of their responses to the teacher. A second distinguishing feature occurs in the teacher's P‘esponse to a student's response--public evaluation of cor- Pectness (Stallings, 1975; Mehan, 1979a). The evaluative 101 component is particularly important because of another recently articulated characteristic of teacher-student interactions distinct from naturally-occurring conversations--the knowledge state of the questioner (Lehnert, 1978). Typically, instructional interactions tend to center around revealing information that is known in advance by the teacher (Mehan, 1979b). Thus, when the "correct" student response to a teacher elicitation occurs, the teacher duly certifies the event and initiates another interactive sequence. Instructional interactions seem guided by the principle: "Tell me what you know I know and your turn will be over. And by the way, you'll keep the lesson running smoothly." As for the student, successful negotiation of instructional interactions depends on knowing how this principle Operates (Au A Mason, 1981, 1983); in other words, students must become sensitive to the teacher's intent (Guszak, 1967; Mehan, 1979b; Wixson, l983b) and this intent is most frequently communicated through the manner in which teachers elicit responses about the topical content of the lesson from students. HaJ2L_findinzs_fzom_Sociolinsnistic_fitndies W The contributions of sociolinguistic and classroom communication research to influencing directions currently being pursued in reading research are many. According to Bloome and Green (1984), among the findings related to tanderstanding the role of teacher discourse in lesson 102 interactions are the following: (1) the ways in which teachers structure the interpersonal context influences student performance within the lesson and on related tasks and outcome measures; (2) the ways in which students use language in their interactions with teachers within lessons influences teacher evaluation of their reading performance; (3) differences in the nature of reading, in the ways in which reading is structured, and in expectations for reading perfor- mance and participation exist for high and low group students; and (A) the interpersonal context of reading medi- ates the reading-learning process. (p. 415) SummaLx_2f_SectiQn_Ai_The_§ociolinsuistic_liew Qf_9usstioninz_finactices This section surveyed the qualitative research contri- butions of sociolinguitics and classroom ethnography toward gaining better understanding of the interactional context of instruction. Findings in this area are contributing depth to instructional effectiveness research in terms of charac- terizing the functions of teacher and student discourse in the social context of the classroom. Some of these findings were presented. Reviewing studies in this area was impor- tant for the conceptualization and particularly for the methodology of this study. The work of Mehan (1979a) and others supports the broader definition of questioning adOpted here. Also, the development of the methodology for analyz- ing lesson transcripts directly derives from techniques 103 developed by a number of researchers who are also grappling with making sense of classroom discourse--notab1y, Au, Bean, Erickson, Green, Heap, and Mehan. SECTION 5: Issues in Classroom Questioning Research The same research base that provides confirmation of many intuitively known ideas about teacher questioning in classrooms has also raised a number of not easily resolvable issues. These issues relate to how questioning practices should be studied and what the focus of those investigations should now be to make productive contributions to improving classroom instruction. In this section several issues that directly bear on how this study was conceived, designed and executed will be discussed. They are as follows: (a) the centrality of the instructional context, the lack of atten- tion to which has contributed to the superficiality and hence, noninstructiveness of many previous studies of ques- tioning practices; (b) redefining the unit of analysis for studying questioning practices--the question versus sequence debate; and (c) clarifying instructional assessment and assistance roles by identifying meaningful instructional purpose categories for teacher questioning practices. 5nenif1inn_Lh:_lnstnuntional_£9ntext Findings from both questioning and reading instruction research support the need for a closer examination of the functional role of teacher questioning practices in more 104 precisely defined instructional contexts. .At a theoretical level, Brophy (1979) and Gall (1983) advocate considering teacher questions in the instructional context in which they occur. The influence of event contextuality on questioning is often overlooked as it affects what is being asked and how. Event contextuality can be viewed from several angles, three of which are important here: the context provided by the instructional task; the context created by the partici- pants in an interaction; and the context provided by the aptitude of the learners receiving instruction. Instructional_lask_£9ntext First, at the global instructional level, the sub- ject matter context in which questioning is investigated is important. Closely aligned with this is the importance of the instructional task settings within a subject matter area which represent different ways of learning about content. For reading-related questioning research, this means that conclusions drawn about effective questioning in reading instruction should derive from studies using reading instruction as the context of investigation. Rosenshine and Stevens (1984) recently concluded that it is doubtful that there is any such thing as broadly generalizable questioning practices across subject matter areas and perhaps even grade levels. Within reading are several specialized instructional task areas used to teach the subject matter of reading, eug., story-based comprehension lessons, skill lessons, 105 vocabulary lessons, uninterrupted silent reading lessons, and content area reading lessons. Researchers are beginning to acknowledge that in the reality of classroom practice, each of these types of lessons do occur and that each has unique instructional requirements. This means that instruc- tional variables, such as teacher questioning practices, need to be examined within each area to confirm many of the generic findings researchers offer about reading instruction (Mangano, in press). Intezastignal_£2ntsxt Second, as sociolinguists and ethnographers point out, the interactional context is just as important as the physi- cal context of instruction (Green A Smith, 1983). Teacher elicitations are linked to preceding and following topical and social contexts in the larger interactional event of the school day. In classroom discourse student responses must often reflect an understanding of an elicitation's social history, as well as the knowledge required to produce an acceptable content answer (Farrar, 1983). Events have certain holistic characteristics that remain hidden when particular conversational elements are examined out of the context of the "discourse event". For example, Interaction Analysis coding systems (see, for example, Brophy A Good, 1972; Durkin, 1978-79; Flanders, 1970), used to tally or time the occurrence of classroom events as they occur, have been criticized for ignoring (zontextual effects on particular kinds of verbal discourse 106 events (Mehan, 1979a; Heap, 1982). Heap (1982) sees three problems with this research method that directly bear on the issue of event contextuality. These are as follows: (1) because categories are mutually exclusive, only one function can be assigned per event; (2) because such systems are designed to focus on frequency of events, the posi- tioning of those events in the actual sequential organi- zation of verbal discourse in the instructional episode is not considered; and (3) "no function is conceived of, or accounted for which operates across and through a sequence of events" (p. 394). He observed that these problems . . . systematically prevent the discovery of sequences of discourse having functions borne along by events having multiple functions. Concretely, Interaction Analysis has no way of paying attention to the form and function of question-answer-comment sequences which are so noticeable in classrooms. (p. 394) Lsaznsz_AnA1Lnn£_£QnL£xl Learner characteristics are important factors influen- cing the context in which instruction occurs. Several studies note the differences in instruction provided to low versus high group readers, for example. Among differences reported are those involving the kinds of questioning prac- tices teachers employ with readers of various aptitude levels. As noted earlier, low group readers are typically given a diet of literal level, factual recall questions while better readers receive questions designed to encourage the use of higher level thinking skills (Good, 1981; Holmes, 1983; Shake A Allington, 1985). 107 WWW: Wm Contrary to practices in many instructional studies, questions should not be viewed as isolated verbal events. Rather, they are an integral part of interactional sequences that are concomitant with other verbal discourse events. In classroom discourse this would include other functional utterances such as informational and evaluative statements (Mehan, 1979b). According to Hyman (1974, 1979), questions are best thought of as elicitations of verbal responses which assume their identity based on the nature of responses they produce in a particular context. In other words, a question should be defined on the basis of its response (Lehnert, 1978). In this view, grammatical form is usually irrelevant because the question's intent to activate particular types of thinking is most important. Mehan (1979a) sees several problems in studying questions strictly in terms of their grammatical structure. He described the problem as follows: Lessons have often been characterized as sequences of questions and answers, questions asked by the teacher, answers provided by the students (Brophy and Good, 1974; Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Mehan, 1974a; Mishler, 1975a, 1975b). A questions, in turn, is generally thought of as containing a an: word (what, which, who, when), having subject-verb order reversed, and being spoken with rising intona- tion at the end of the sentence. The definition of items on grammatical has been helpful in analyzing sentences (Chomsky, 1965). However, this practice is not heuristic in the study of interactional events because 108 the function of an utterance is not isomorphic with the form it takes in naturally occurring discourse (Gumperz and Hymes, 1964) . . . [tJhe meaning of instructional acts in this classroom was not conveyed by their grammatical form alone. The teacher received "answers" when she had not asked what would conventionally be called questions. For example, on many occasions the teacher began a sentence and paused, and the students completed her sentence, thereby producing an "answer." The implicit meaning of these utterances was not conveyed by their overt form . . . From the point of view of the functions of language in the classroom (Cazden, John, and Hymes, 1972), the teacher elicits information from students; she does not ask them questions. These observations reinforce the view that the study of language in naturally occurring situations requires the use of functional rather than grammatical concepts. (pp. 41-43) Thus, asking new questions about questions requires consideration of just what, exactly, constitutes a "question" during an instructional episode. mum Many researchers (e.g., Brophy, 1979; Gall, 1970; 1972; 1983; Heap, 1982; Hyman, 1974; Mehan, 1979a, 1982; Sinclair A Coulthard, 1975; Gumperz A Herasimchuk, 1972) advocate refocusing research on sequences of teacher-student verbal discourse, not just on question frequency, to examine the quality of questioning behaviors. The analysis of questioning practices by isolating teacher elicitations from the context of teacher-student interactions is ultimately uninformative for altering classroom questioning practices (Bloome A Argumedo, 1985). Regarding sequences, Brophy argued that attention should be paid to "the logical or 109 theoretical qualities" of interactions and whether or not questioning sequences were successful in meeting their stated objectives. He stated, ". . . teachers do not plan to ask so many [some specified number] questions per hour, they plan to ask sequences of questions designed to elicit particular facts or conclusions." (p. 744) W The issue of instruction as assistance versus assess- ment was mentioned earlier in this chapter. It is partic- ularly important for clarifying the appropriate role of teacher questioning in reading skill instruction. Text- based application lessons, often viewed exclusively as the context of reading instruction, are only a part of the var- ied repertoire of reading lessons provided in the elementary classroom. Another prevalent kind of instructional episode is the so-called skill lesson, where particular reading skills are taught for later use, ideally, in real text read- ing situations. Numerous taxonomies of skills have been developed and incorporated into elementary reading programs (Note 3). Skill lesson focus on particular process factors associated with reading as opposed to story content or information acquisition factors (Roehler, Duffy A Meloth, 1983; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1984). A major criticism of skill instruction, when skills are singled out for direct teaching, is that the skill becomes the end rather than the means of learning to read (Note 4). Duffy (1982b) noted that effective reading skill instruction 110 is generally lacking in explicit assistance from teacher to students in how to perform and apply the strategic reading behaviors needed to selectively use skills when problems are encountered during reading. Instead, skill instruction often consist of set routines for eliciting product- oriented responses about letter-sounds, words, sentences or even story content based on interrogation (Durkin, 1978-79) and student recitation (Duffy A McIntyre, 1982). Also, it provides frequent directives for independent student seatwork activities in practice materials (Anderson, 1981a, 1981b). With the heavy reliance in elementary reading on workbook activities, Anderson (1981b) observed that the classroom orientation becomes one of "content coverage" rather than "content mastery". The shortcomings of reading instruction documented by classroom researchers suggest that one way to better under- stand what constitutes reading skill instruction is by care- ful examination of what teachers actually communicate about skills during instructional episodes: that is, how they elicit student responses focused on skill use and elaborate upon those responses. An important question is, how do teachers use elicitations in instructional interactions when the intent for students is meaningful skill learning? Thus, this study of questioning-response-feedback sequences during reading skill instruction is relevant, particularly as it can contribute toward a better understanding of how teacher 111 questioning behaviors may assist, as well as assess, student learning. Summary of Chapter II This chapter reviewed four areas of research that sup- port the need for this study of teacher questioning practices during reading skill lessons. These included the following: (1) classifications systems or taxonomies devel- Oped for types of teacher-posed questions; (2) process- product and classroom observational research related to identifying effective teacher questioning practices; (3) the potential mediational role for teacher questioning practices identified in comprehension training studies; and (4) qualitative approaches to examining questioning within the interactional context of instruction. Overall, the literature on questioning resembles a "patchwork" rather than a unified body of findings (Raphael A Gavelek, 1984). Not only are topics diverse, but findings often conflict (cf., Redfield A Rousseau, 1981; Winne, 1979). This is because of the complexity of classroom ques- tioning itself. It pervades all aspects of the school day, but is extremely sensitive to immediate context effects. In general, the number of studies available that addressed aspects of instructional questioning in reading were numerous. There were, however, few that used skill instruction for contextual focus. Studies typically examined teacher questioning as it occurs in text-based 112 comprehension lessons. Taxonomies developed to study teacher questioning reflected researchers' interests in clarifying the instructional effects of questions of varying complexity on student responses. Findings from several perspectives confirm teachers' high use of factual, assessment-focused questions during reading lessons. This appears particularly prevalent during low group instruction. There was disagreement, however, as to whether these lower level questions, when compared with higher level questions, are more effective in promoting positive student learning outcomes. At present the focus of questioning research in reading is shifting more toward understanding the cognitive mediational role of teachers' questioning practices and how questioning functions in developing reader self-sufficiency in the use of comprehension strategies. The most pressing need at present, however, is to add depth to the array of findings that has been generated. In this regard, quali- tative studies of classroom interactions provide much needed insight. Gall's call in 1983 to ask new questions about ques- tions had two requirements, both of which are accounted for in this dissertation: a specific instructional context in which to study teacher questioning behaviors--in this case, the reading skill lesson, particularly for low reading groups; and use of a broadened definition of what consti- tutes classroom questioning--for this study, the teacher elicitation-student response-teacher evaluation sequence. 113 This review demonstrated that many interrelated factors affect teachers' questioning practices. The most realistic approach is to account for as many of these factors as possible when describing the instructional setting, couch findings in those terms, and resist pressures to be too broadly prescriptive. Eventually there should be an integrative effect across studies that will enable researchers to describe effective questioning patterns to practitioners in terms that will be more helpful than at present for improving instructional quality. 114 NOTES Sanders (1966) observed that all categories are named after mental processes except for the lowest level (knowledge). The reason he renamed "knowledge" as "memory" was to rectify the non-parallelism and better describe the type of processing that occurs. Also, Sanders expanded Bloom's (Bloom, et al., 1956) category, "comprehension," to include translation and interpretation because they "offer opportunities for distinct kinds of thinking." (Sanders, 1966, p. 2-3) Guszak (1983) subsequently explained that at the time he developed his taxonomy, Barrett (1976) had not yet done his. He notes that both he and Barrett used the work of Bloom (Bloom, et al., 1956) and Sanders' modifications of Bloom. The major problem with Sanders' work, however, was that his structure was not readily useful to others who tried to use it on specific tasks such as anglyzing the outcomes of textual reading (Guszak, l9 3). There are as many taxonomies or hierarchies of reading skills in elementary reading programs as there are reading programs. Basal textbook series include skill scope and sequence charts that reflect a program's views toward skills. Although content and sequence across hierarchies may differ, there is general agreement on broad categories of skills. These usually include word recognition and structural analysis skills (also called phonics or decoding skills); comprehension skills; and study or information gathering skills. The specification and validation of skill hier- archies are important issues. Bourque (1980) summarized three validation methods typically used: (1) a priori, ordering based on reading theory or expert opinion and subsequent practitioner verification; (2) empirical, using psychometric data generated from test item-sets; and (3) experimental, designing instructional item-sets; and (4) experimental, designing instructional units based on a priori ordering and then pre/post testing students for hierarchical skill acquisition. Perhaps the most widely known instructional program developed to assist low group teachers with skill instruction is DISTAR which actually scripts informational statements and questions for teachers (Becker, 1977; Becker A Gersten, 1982; Engelmann A Carnine, 1982). DISTAR represents one extreme of reading programs that focuses mostly on discrete skills to ensure large amounts of repeated practice. This program was designed to conform to instructional effectiveness findings from process-product research. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES This study was designed to better understand the func- tional role of teacher questioning behaviors during reading skill instruction. The research investigated whether teach- ers who were more or less effective in promoting student growth in reading used questioning differently. Lesson interaction sequences were analyzed according to the follow- ing: (1) individual elicitation functional content; (2) structural form; (3) overall topical information con- tent; (4) cognitive knowledge type focus; and (5) the per- ceived instructional purposes of participants' interactions. Additionally, teacher evaluation responses within interac- tion sequences were individually analyzed for information content focus and syntactic form. The methodology used was descriptive. Qualitative and quantitative procedures were combined to analyze teacher discourse in lesson transcripts. Teacher questioning pat- terns were characterized and described in terms of the frequency of discourse elements in interaction sequences in the overall readings skill lesson and relative to their positioning within the lesson structure. This chapter presents the methodology used to answer the research questions. First, the procedures used to obtain a teacher sample based on instructional 115 116 effectiveness criteria are described. Second, the qualitatively-oriented data collection techniques used to prepare lesson transcripts and to identify instructional interaction sequences and component discourse elements are detailed. Third, the data analysis procedures used to answer each of the major questions are discussed. Procedures to Obtain a Teacher Sample This section deals with three issues regarding selec- tion of a teacher sample. First, the study from which the teachers were selected is described. Second, the procedure used to select the twelve more effective and less effective teachers from the original study's sample of twenty-two teachers are reported. Third, the characteristics of the teachers and for the lessons they taught are specified. 1Ihe_SLudl_fnom_nhich_the_§amnle_nas_§slectsdi W The teachers in this study were chosen post hog from among the classrooms included in the Teacher Explanation Project (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c), at Michigan State University's Institute for Research on Teaching during the 1982-83 academic year. Twenty-two fifth grade teachers of low reading groups volunteered to participate in a classroom-based, experimental intervention study of teacher explanation during reading instruction. All teachers were employed by a large, midwest, urban school district. They were assigned by their respective 117 school administrators to teach fifth grade low readers. Research was designed to determine whether teacher effec- tiveness in reading skill instruction, defined by student awareness following instructional presentations and student achievement on a standardized reading achievement test, was a product of the explicitness of teachers' instructional explanations (Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1984; Duffy, Roehler, Book, Meloth A Vavrus, 1986a; Duffy A Roehler, et al., 1986c; Roehler A Duffy, et al., 1984). Teachers in the parent study were randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group following stratification of the entire sample according to classroom management ratings obtained during baseline observations of teachers' reading skill instruction. The management assessment was important as an entry variable to ensure equality of the two groups in terms of ability to engage students in academic tasks. Teachers were identified as high, average or low managers. The use of these designations was relative owing to the fact that no teacher was identified as a poor man- ager. An overall management rating for grouping purposes was derived from ratings in three areas: (a) the number of students in the reading group on task at 3- to 5-minute intervals (engagement rate); (b) the teacher's verbal and non-verbal management behaviors; and (c) the number of interruptions to activity flow. Additionally, each observer made an overall subjective assessment of the observed teacher's management. Management was monitored for each 118 teacher at four of the five lesson observations throughout the school year. The eleven Treatment teachers received training from Project researchers during the academic year in how to incorporate explicit explanations into presentations in their skill lessons. There were three instructional compo- nents emphasized in explicit explanation training: (1) how to present traditional reading skills as mental processing strategies useful for repairing blockages to meaning; (2) how to design explicit statements reflecting the strategic nature of reading skill use--the skill process being learned, how to apply it, and when it would be useful when reading; and (3) how to organize these explicit statements into a lesson presentation. The eleven control teachers received no training beyond a presentation at the beginning of the study on effective classroom management techniques based on Anderson, Evertson A Brophy's First Grade Study (1979). The reading skill lessons of both Treatment and Control teachers were observed five times at evenly spaced intervals throughout the school year. Each lesson was audiotaped and subsequently transcribed to create an easily accessible record of verbal teacher-student discourse during the lesson. Additional data collected for each teacher included field notes of lesson events recorded by researchers trained as non-participant observers; audiotaped interviews with low group students following each of the final four observed 119 lessons about what they learned from the lesson; pre/post test measures of student achievement (using the QaL3z:MaQQ1n1L1fl_Bsafi1n£_Anhl£l£m§nL_I£§L§. Second Edition) to record reading growth; and audiotaped interviews with each teacher focused on their skill instruction. Bzcceduzes_nsed_tc_§elect_the_§amnle The twelve teachers used in this study were selected from the original teacher pool of twenty-two following completion of the parent study. The six most effective and the six least effective teachers were identified. Instruc- tional effectiveness criteria for selection were based on two kinds of student performance (see definition in Chapter One). The twelve teachers were selected on the basis of an overall rank score obtained for each teacher based on stu- dents' ranked outcomes in two categories: (1) a process measure--rated verbal reports of students' awareness follow- ing skill instruction; and (2) a product measure-- standardized reading achievement test scores measuring student growth in reading during the school year. Teachers' average student awareness ratings and achievement test scores were converted to z-scores and ranked separately. All twenty-two teachers were ranked from highest to lowest in each category. The two rank positions obtained by each teacher were then averaged to create an overall rank, called their "effectiveness ranking". The top six ranked teachers were considered more effective and the bottom six were 120 considered less effective. The results of the ranking are presented in Table 3.1. An asterisk (') identifies the teachers selected for this study's sample of twelve. The ranking differences were considered attributable to differences in the teachers' instruction, not differences in the student groups for the following reasons. First, although most of the teachers taught in different schools within the district, a district-wide busing policy equalized the demographic characteristics of the student populations across schools. Second, grouping decisions for reading instruction were made at the building level based on the district's practice of grouping students homogeneously. Student assignment to reading groups were made at the begin- ning of the school year based on 5tanfgzd_Aghie1emgnt_I§st scores from the previous year and the recommendations of previous teachers. Students were placed in the low groups if they scored more than one year below grade level in reading achievement. Was The characteristics of the sample are detailed in this section. First, the characteristics of the teachers and their reading groups are described. Second, the character- istics of the lessons they taught are provided. Teachezs The characteristics of the two teacher groups were relatively balanced following ranking by the selection 121 Table 3.1 9 ‘ ~ ‘- 0‘ ‘ '0"' {20, t' 33". 041—0. 0° (n = 22) Overall 2-Rank Student Student Rank 1 (2) Rank 2 (2) MW 18 (T) 01 (T) 19 (T) 04 (C) 14 (T) 22 (T) 1 2 3 5 5 5 13 (C) 7 16 (C) 8.5 06 (C) 8.5 10 (T) 05 (T) 03 (T) 10 11 12 09 (C) 13.5 12 (T) 13.5 23 (T) 15 11 (C) 02 (C) 21 (C) 15 (C) 17 17 17 19 07 (C) 20 3.0 4.5 5.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 8.5 10.0 10.5 11.5 13.0 13.0 14.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 16 17 3 ( 1.418) 3 ( 1.145) 8 ( .306) 1 ( 1.973) 2 ( 1.614) 8 ( .491) 5 ( 1.135) 10 ( .318) 10 ( .095) 5 ( .725) 11 (- .016) 4 ( .845) 7 ( .346) 9 ( .339) 1 ( 1.735) 16 (- .716) 6 ( .735) 11 ( .092) 13 (- .412) 7 ( .544) 19 (-1.066) 2 ( 1.822) 17 (- .699) 6 ( .707) 4 ( 1.318) 22 (-1.889) 14 (- .432) 12 (- .016) 9 ( .234) 20 (-1.161) 16 (- .614) 15 (- .570) 18 (- .830) 13 (- .359) 12 (- .189) 19 (- .904) 15 (- .466) 17 (- .737) 20 (-1.072) 14 (- .528) 08 (T) 21 19.5 21 (-1.289) 18 (- .748) 20 (C) 22 21.5 22 (-1.850) 21 (-1.375) Teachers' group membership in Teacher Explanation Study indicated as follows: (T) = Treatment; (C) = Control. Teacher 15 was not included in the sample of less effective teachers because only two of her five lessons were comparable in skill topic to the lessons taught as skill lessons by the other twelve teachers. The cut-off of lessons per teacher needed for transcript analysis to reflect overall instruction was set at three. I . . % . . . D ( 122 criteria. The twelve teachers taught in nine schools in the urban district. There were five different schools repre- sented in each group. Each group contained a pair of teach- ers who taught in the same building. In terms of classroom management, the variable of interest for this study was the student engagement rating. Table 3.2 shows the student task engagement ratings obtained by the twelve teachers at the beginning and ending points in the observation cycle. Table 3.2 WWM W O Q'_ 1'. ‘ ' ‘ 2.0 . "‘ ' ‘ ‘2 Q“ Teacher Lesson Observations. N945 4 2 3 5 More effective teachers 18 01 19 on M 22 J — L — N d d d Less effective teachers 11 02 21 07 08 20 3 2 2 2 3 1 . . . 4 4 ‘ 5 — . . . 2 1 1 2 3 3 s _ n = . n g a _ a . . a _ 1 1 1 1 NA 3 . . . a h — N A J 1 1 1 1 1 3 *Management ratings were not obtained for the fourth observation. Although the teachers ranked as more effective began the year with higher student engagement ratings than those in the less effective group, the ratings of both groups at the 123 end of the year were similar (with the exceptions of Teacher 04's average rating in the more effective group and Teacher 20's low rating in the less effective group). Table 3.3 describes the reading group characteristics of the six more effective and six less effective teachers. As can be seen, the overall make-up of both groups was similar. A11 teachers taught one of the low reading groups in the fifth grade at their respective schools. Reading group sizes ranged from 4 to 22 students. The average group size for the more effective group was 11.5; for the less effective group, 13.17. Decisions about which basal textbook series would be used were made at the building level, as were decisions about how students would be grouped with various teachers (i.e., self-contained with homogeneous small groups versus assigning teachers to teach particular ability groups grade-wide, called the "Joplin plan"). The Qate§:nagfiiniti§ pre-test scores for the twelve teachers indicated that the entering reading ability levels of the reading groups taught by teachers in the two effectiveness groups were roughly matched, although students of the more effective teachers scored slightly lower. Lessons The reading lessons of interest were those in which instruction in reading skills was provided to low group readers. The fifty-one analyzed lessons had been identified as "skill lessons" by each teacher (See definition in Chapter One). 124 Table 3.3 MW Group How Basal Text of Texts Mean Gr. Level Pre-Test: Used M W: 18 01 19 04 12 21 11 5 Joplin Joplin Ginn Ginn Joplin Ginn Self— Houghton- Contained Mifflin 3-4 5 3-4 2-3 27.25 45.76 25.73 25.20 3.6 4.7 2.8 2.7 14 12 Joplin Houghton- 3-4 38.00 3.9 22 8 Joplin Ginn 3-4 24.38 2.6 Mifflin Wm: 11 22 Joplin Harcourt- 3-4 30.14 3.3 02 13 Joplin Houghton- 4-5 37.46 3.8 21 13 Joplin Harcourt- 4-5 46.85 4.8 Mifflin Brace Brace 07 12 Joplin Houghton- 08 15 JOplin Houghton- Mifflin Mifflin 20 4 Self— Ginn Contained 3 4 4 24.67 2.7 40.87 4.2 41.75 4.3 The teachers selected the skill topics, usually based on the scope and sequence suggestions of the basal text program in use. The number of topics covered in a given skill lesson ranged from one to three or four. For lessons covering multiple topics, the one or two topics receiving instructional emphasis by the teacher were analyzed. If a lesson covered two topics, and both were included in the transcript analysis, then both topics are listed separately 125 in the appropriate category. Lessons excluded from analysis were those not considered skill lessons as defined for this study. An attempt was made to adhere within the sample to lesson topic similarity on the basis of four reading skill areas from which skill lessons are typically identified by basal text publishers. Including a category for multiple topic coverage, the five topical content categories for grouping lessons were the following: (1) Word Recognition: Decoding skills; (2) Word Recognition: Meaning skills; (3) Text Comprehension skills; (4) Study Skills; and (5) Multiple skill tasks from workbooks. The number of lessons analyzed per teacher ranged from three to five of the five lessons observed during the parent study. Seven lessons were omitted because of failure to meet topical criteria. Two lessons were unavailable for transcript analysis due to audio-tape equipment malfunction during the observations. The total number of lessons ana- lyzed was fifty-one of sixty observed during the school year--25 more effective teacher lessons and 26 less effec- tive teacher lessons. The tOpical characteristics of analyzed lessons for the more effective and less effective teacher groups are shown below. For each teacher, the number of lessons analyzed, the skill topics taught, and the categorical designations 126 are presented in Table 3.4. A categorical summary of lesson topics follows individual teacher information. W The sample had two kinds of characteristics which were described in this section. First, the six more effective and six less effective teachers were of similar background regarding characteristics of their reading groups and instructional setting. Second, the lessons which they taught were considered skill lessons and based on topics selected by the teachers as part of their regular instructional program. W This section described how the sample was obtained for the study. After providing background which described how this study was related to the Teacher Explanation Study through the teachers included for study, the procedures used to select from the parent study's sample were detailed. Finally, the teacher groups and lessons analyzed were char- acterized. Data Collection Procedures The data base for the descriptive analysis of teacher questioning behaviors consisted of the audiotapes and typed transcripts of taped classroom discourse of the fifty-one observed reading skill lessons taught by the twelve teachers. This section describes procedures used to prepare the transcript data for analysis. 127 Table 3.4 MW LW Lessons Lesson Number and Skill W Skill Tolnic 18 4 01 4 19 5 04 4 14 5 1--Omitted 2--Synonyms and Antonyms 3--The /f/ sound 4--Main Idea 5--Using the EncyclOpedia 1--Omitted 2--4 ways to decode unknown words 3--Suffixes: Meaning 4--The card catalog 5--The Table of Contents l--Main Idea 2--Guide Words--Dictionary 3--Homonyms 4--Dictionary Re-spellings 5--Letter combinations: the /sh/ sound l--Omitted 2--VCCV: Syllables; Base words and endings 3--Alphabetical Order 4--A1phabetical Order 5--The Glossary; Compound Words l--The apostrOphe: Contractions 2--Pronunciation key for Homonyms 3--Main Idea 4--Drawing conclusions 5--Pronouncing base words, prefixes and suffixes e d : 4 s — m a c w z m a d a — s — t - t B - N N : 4 W W 128 Table 3.4 (cont'd.) Lessons Lesson Number and Skill W Skill Tapic CW 22 1: 1--Omitted 2--Str- Words 3--Sequencing Events 4--Apostr0phe in possessives 5--Context Clues B.L_esLE££e.ctix_e_I_ea.c.h.e.L§mn 11 5 02 4 07 5 08 5 fi - W M W : 3 = - V I N U [ 2 2 2 1--Following Directions 2--Sequencing Directions 3--Suffixes for meaning 4--Prefixes for meaning 5--Root words A Affixes 1--No transcript available 2--Synonyms 3--Prefixes: Meaning 4--Plurals 5--3 uses of the apostrophe: 2 l--Short vowel sounds 2--Multiple comprehension skill topics 3--Long and short vowel sounds 4--Context Clues 5--Using the Dictionary l--Main Idea/Topic 2--3 uses of comma 3--Parts of speech: Noun, verb, adjective 4--Finding details 5--Sequencing events 1 5 P - N # ) U W N W O D 129 Table 3.4 (cont'd.) Igaghg: Analyzed Skill Topic Lessons Lesson Number and Skill 21 3 20 3 1--Omitted 2--Omitted 3--Homophones 4--Outlining; Noting details 5--Prefixes: Meaning 1--Omitted 2-—Omitted 3--Dictionary: meanings 3--Cause-Effect 4--Synonyms and Antonyms 5-- Action/feeling words N ‘ - f J W N = = 3 - J A J ( ) L ‘ I ’ L " §flMHABI_QE_LE§§Qfl_IQ£I£§_££B_§KILL_£AI£§QBI (1) flQLn_I12n51£123112n1__2££9n1n8 More Effective Group = Less Effective Group = 2 Total Lesson Topics = (2) MW; I I I I I I I I I I I I : . . . ) L J ( " 3 ( More Effective Group Less Effective Group Total Lesson Topics (3) Wm More Effective Group Less Effective Group Total Lesson Topics (4) Eind£_§klll§ More Effective Group Less Effective Group Total Lessons 130 Table 3.4 (cont'd) (5) W Less Effective Group Total Lessons l l I I W More Effective Group = Less Effective Group = Total Lessons = 3 . . 4 5 9 WWW MORE EFFECTIVE GROUP = 28 LESS EFFECTIVE GROUP = 27 TOTAL TOPICS = 55 IQIAL_LE§§QN§_ANALIZED MORE EFFECTIVE GROUP = 26 LESS EFFECTIVE GROUP = 25 TOTAL LESSONS 51 131 The data were prepared using qualitative transcript preparation procedures adapted from Mehan (1979a) for transcript format; Erickson A Schultz (1982) for identifying the event and participation structures of interactions, and those described by Mehan (1979a), and others (Bean, 1985; Cicourel, 1974; Green A Wallat, 1981; Gumperz A Herasimchuk, 1972; and Heap, 1980, 1982) for identifying teacher-student verbal interaction sequences and discourse events. 1 Teacher-student verbal interaction sequences and discourse elements were identified from the combined verbal record of the lesson available on audio-tape and in the written version rendered in transcript form. Each transcript data set was treated according to the four-step qualitative procedure developed as part of the pilot study described in Chapter I. The steps in data collection were the following: (1) Elicitation identification; (2) Reformatting the transcripts; (3) Lesson phase and sequence identification; and (4) Determination of lesson length: Real time and transcript lines. Each of these steps is described below. WW9” Questions and elicitations were identified while I simultaneously read each original transcript and listened to its audiotape. This listening-reading procedure made it possible to determine teacher utterances intended as 132 elicitations, as marked by intonation patterns and vocal inflections, which might otherwise not be discernable based on typed copy alone. Teacher initiations which function as questions in lesson discourse may not appear as such in print because of written punctuation conventions for marking statements versus interrogatives. Thus, the audiotape allowed identification of statements and directives in the typed transcript that functioned as questions on the basis of vocal inflections and if they demanded a student response. Additionally, the fidelity of the original trans- criber's copy was checked via the listening-reading proce- dure. During this step, I made additions and corrections to the typed teacher-student dialogue prior to reformatting the transcripts for subsequent sequence and elicitation analyses. -. ‘.- - . -. -~ . g- . u- ,. ,- -.- . After completing necessary corrections and additions to dialogue in the original transcript, I retyped each lesson transcript onto forms which followed the three column format suggested by Mehan (1979a) for organizing and highlighting initiations, responses and feedback discourse units. The form used is reproduced in Appendix 3A. Additionally, teacher elicitations were typed in upper case lettering to facilitate their identification during analysis. The revised transcript format made it easier to visually iden- tify lesson phases, teacher elicitations, and 133 teacher-student interaction sequences. The efficiency of this format for subsequently analyzing transcripts can be seen in the sample transcript provided in Appendix 3B.1. WWW Wanna In order to examine the positioning of various types of elicitations within the skill lessons, it was necessary to determine the structural format of instructional events for each lesson for each teacher. I read the reformatted trans- cripts to identify the primary discourse event episodes, called "phases", in each lesson (e.g., introduction, instructional presentation, guided practice, recitation practice, reviews, closure), and the teacher-student inter- action sequences within those episodes. Phase and sequence definitions were provided in Chapter I. Ehafififi Principal events identified in these skill lessons included an Opening or introduction; presentation of infor- mation--monologue or interactive; an interactive guided practice phase; an interactive recitation practice phase; independent student written practice; reviews; lesson clo- sure; and skill application. Each lesson was structurally characterized in the transcript for later transfer of this information to a visual lesson map during analysis. Phase boundaries were marked in red; sequence boundaries were marked with a penciled dashed line. Length of phases and sequences were recorded in time units (minutes/seconds) and 134 transcript line counts. The Roman numeral phase code desig- nations (used mainly for lesson mapping) and corresponding phase descriptions are shown in Table 3.5. Phase identifica- tion, and how phases were marked in transcripts, are illus- trated in the sample transcript provided in Appendix 33.1. W Instructional sequences and teacher-student interaction sequences (defined in Chapter I) were identified in each lesson transcript. The rule of thumb followed for sequence identification was that the beginning of a sequence was marked with a teacher statement and/or elicitation initiat- ing discourse about information relative to an identifiable skill subtopic or text example (i.e., word, sentence or passage) being used. The end of a sequence was marked by some kind of teacher closure to that particular subtopic, usually in the form of positive/negative feedback, an evalu- ative comment or an elaboration of information, indicating that the information from a student had been satisfactorily obtained after one or a series of teacher elicitation- student response turns. Figure 3.1 illustrates how I applied these conventions to sequence identification in transcripts. The excerpt was taken from a lesson on using context clues to determine word meaning. In this example, the first three instructional sequences of the lesson's Introduction phase are shown. [Text symbols: Uppercase text = elicitations; underlined words = intonational stress; slashes = pauses.) 135 Table 3.5 Was: IIA InLSLRLELALIQn Teacher verbally signals beginning of the lesson. Teacher initiates expository statements to inform students by providing information of some kind; verbal interactions with students do not occur. IIB WM. Teacher primarily initiates expository statements to inform students but does so in a verbally interactive format that involves student partici- pation in the provision of information needed to perform subsequent lesson tasks; these sequences lack the systematic use of the initiation- response-feedback sequence structure; may include teacher's presentation of information in response to a student question or remark. III W: Teacher initiates a series of interactions designed to allow for student use of the skill or strategy in text-based (word, sentence, passage) examples; teacher talk is characterized by extensive use of elaborations following student responses to elicita- tions in conjunction with evaluating response correct- ness. 136 Table 3.5 (cont'd.) Code IV Win Teacher initiates a series of interactions designed to allow for repeated opportunities to use the skill or strategy in text-based examples usually associated with group comple- tion of a worksheet or board- work prior to individual com- pletion of same or similar task; focused on correct ans- wer-getting characterized by simple feedback certifying answers, minimal elaborations following student responses and sequences which are typi- cally extended only if the lesson task requires more than a single answer to be correct. Wine. Students work individually on an assigned task associated with the lesson; these were not numerically labelled as instructional sequences in the study, but are denoted by a "P" which interrupts another phase, typically verbal guided or recitation practice because it allows students to do a task individually prior to group processing of answers. Teacher initiates statements or elicits responses signal- ling the official end of the lesson; typically occurs through a major change in academic topic, dismissal of the group, or directives to complete assigned independent seatwork. VI 137 Table 3.5 (cont'd) GOO: W VII Teacher initiates statements or elicits responses, either as a transition to another phase (i.e., guided or recita- tion practice prior to con- cluding lesson) or brief interruption of a practice phase, that explicitly intend to refocus attention on the task and/or skill topic of the lesson, not the informational content of examples being used for practice. This phase is intended to assess student understanding of aspects related to the skill tOpic. 138 W W T: The main ones that I want Sennan22_l: to work with you today on Teacher is sole are making sense of words / speaker making and how to figure out words statements to using nnnlfixi. We talked introduce the about this. lesson tOpic. WHAT IS CONTEXT FIRST OF ALL? Seguenne_2: Context. / Teacher initiates 3: Oh, oh (hand up) the lesson tOpic new sequence about by eliciting T: ONE PERSON KNOWS WHAT CONTEXT information from MEANS? // WHAT DOES CONTEXT students to define MEAN, WAYNE? the term ‘context'. S: (inaudible response) T: OKAY, WAYNE, THINK ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. / "Find the meaning of the word by using context clues." WHAT DO I MEAN? / DOES THAT MEAN TO GO AND ASK THE TEACHER? S: No. T: OKAY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? / / Cone on, we just did this last week. S: It means like the meaning of something. T: True, BUT HOW? / Find the meaning of the word by using QQnL£XL_an£§. REMEMBER, CONTEXT AND ANOTHER WORD ALMOST SOUND THE SAME? // S: (Inaudible) T: Alright, you're trying to figure out how to sound out. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE MEANING OF IT IS. I don't have a dictionary, and I can't ask an adult Figure 3.1 Inanscnint_Examnla_cf_Senial_Seauence_ldsnti£ication 139 Figure 3.1 (cont'd.) S: (Inaudible) T: Alright, SO YOU LOOKED AT.../ 8: Context. T: WHAT IS THE CONTEXT? S: (Inaudible) T: Good. You looked at the context. BUT WHAT IS THE CONTEXT, JASON? Picking out words around the sentence / to make it. Okay. / Teacher closes the sequence by signal- ling acceptance of student's answer. HOW IS THIS WORD BEING USED? (writes on board) Remember if Teacher shifts focus we had a word, let's say to new subtopic, ‘snicklefress', and I told you an example of "I denuded a nail into a board context use. with my snicklefress." Now, you have no idea what a snicklefress is, by: by the way I used it, the other words in the sentence that I used it in, YOU CAN SORT OF GUESS THAT IT MIGHT BE A WHAT? 83: Hammer. A hammer or some type of tool. Teacher certifies Centext or the eentent students' answer always being contained in the by repeating it sentence it is being put into. and elaborating. REMEMBER THAT? // We worked on This ends the these. example sequence. Alright, today we are going The teacher con- to do some work figuring tinues the lesson. out the meaning of words by She again shifts the way they are used. the subtopic focus (lesson continues) to a different aspect of the tOpic. 140 Student-initiated interaction sequences were identi- fied, marked and numbered sequentially with other sequences within a lesson. However, these interaction sequences were generally not included in the analysis because of their overall scarcity in the transcript data and the absence of teacher elicitations within them. Wigwam W This section described the data collection procedures used to identify lesson phases and instructional sequences in the skill lesson transcripts used as the data base for the study. Principal phases identified included an intro- duction; presentation of information--monolOgue or interac- tive; an interactive guided practice phase; an interactive recitation practice phase; independent student written practice; reviews; lesson closure; and skill application. The conventions guiding the identification of instructional sequences were described and examples of actual sequences were provided to illustrate. W W. Following completion of the phase and sequence identi- fication process, I measured the total length of the lesson, phase length and sequence length, in real time, as well as by counting total transcript lines and lines of teacher talk. 141 To determine the length of the lesson and its struc- tural components in real time required once again listening to the audio-tape of the lesson while simultaneously record- ing time notations at roughly five to ten second intervals, or at phase and sequence boundaries in the typed transcript. A hand-held digital stopwatch was used to time the lessons. It was necessary to develOp summing procedures to determine total time allocated to particular phases because in several lessons, phases of a particular kind recurred. For example, presentation or practice phases might be inter- rupted by review phases; or additional presentation phases might be embedded in practice phases. Thus, after phases were marked on a transcript and timed, I examined the trans- cript for recurrence of phases. All segments of a lesson identified as presentation phases were considered together for purposes of determining time spent during the lesson in that phase. Likewise, all guided practice, recitation practice, independent practice, or review phase segments were considered together to represent the total lesson time spent in a particular phase. To determine lesson, phase and sequence length in transcript lines, conventions governing the length of a line were established. A full transcript line consisted of 75-80 elite type characters (the equivalent of one line of origi- nal transcript OOpy or 2.5-3 lines of reformatted transcript column copy). A new line was counted each time the speaker changed. For example, if a student spoke one word as a 11:2 response to the teacher's elicitation, the student's turn counted as a line Of transcript. I recorded line counts of total discourse and teacher talk, specifically, on the reformatted typed transcript. Length designations are included on the left side of the sample transcript in Appen- dix 38.1. The record keeping form shown in Appendix 3C was used to record summative information for each teacher's lessons regarding phase and total lesson length in real time and transcript lines (total lines and lines of teacher talk). While the form orders phases in a particular sequence, it is important to note that phases did not necessarily occur in a lesson in that order. This form was used only for recording length information. Positioning information was reported on visual lesson maps, described later as part of data analysis Steps Four and Five. Wen: This section described the procedures used to collect data from lesson transcripts. The data were prepared for analysis in a series of four steps. First, the original transcripts were read while listening to the audiotapes to identify elicitations. Second, the original trans- cripts were reformatted using the transcript structure developed by Mehan (1979a). Third, lesson phases and indi- vidual instructional sequences were identified. Fourth, real time and transcript line metrics were used to determine the length of lesson phases and individual sequences. 143 Data Analysis Procedures This section describes how the transcript data were analyzed following use Of the collection procedures detailed in the previous section. The transcript data were analyzed using a series of procedures that combined both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative interaction analysis procedures were adapted from those suggested elsewhere (Cicourel, 1974; Erickson A Shultz, 1981; 1982; Green A Wallat, 1981; Gumperz A Herasimchuk, 1972; Heap, 1980, 1982; Mehan, 1979a). Quantification procedures were employed in the form of frequencies and computed percentages of coded lesson discourse events, and statistical tests performed on aggregated data during the comparison of the more and less effective teacher groups. Discourse analysis strategies, developed and used by Mehan (1974, 1979a, 1979b, 1982) in his ethnographic work analyzing classroom interactions, were particularly instructive for determining how to proceed with the analysis of lesson transcripts once lesson phases, interaction sequences, elicitations, and feedback elements were located. Of paramount importance was developing an analytic scheme that would permit coding of lesson events involving questioning behaviors while, at the same time, preserving how those behaviors occurred in the overall interactional flow of the lesson. 11m According to Mehan (1979a), coding can be useful in a descriptive analytic scheme if it is viewed as a heuristic device for temporarily "stopping the action" within the on-going lesson interaction. On this point, he observed: Classroom interaction, like other forms of interaction, has a unitary character; its seams are tightly woven. The purpose of analysis is to make the unitary discrete by exposing its seams and dividing the whole into parts. This act of analysis, when applied to [our] classroom materials, requires the assignment of status . . . to portions of the interactional flow. As talk and gestures are coded as instances of categories, the integrity Of this flow is disturbed. The very act of coding requires that materials be treated as conforming to the law of the excluded middle, that is, each instance can be placed in only one category at a time. This coding activity is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. We recognize at the outset that the boundaries between events are not discrete, that speech acts perform multiple tasks simultaneously, that the meaning of an action is not necessarily shared among participants or between participants and observers. We code our materials into discrete categories because we do no want to be overwhelmed by the very flux that we are trying to comprehend. Interaction is too massive to be addressed in its entirety all at once. Our structural analysis facilitates a closer examination of representative instance of certain categories or all instances of particularly interesting categories. (p. 29) Thus, for this study it was important that information obtained from the use of coding schemes, classifying various discrete dimensions of teachers' questioning in skill lesson interactions, be viewed in combination with information about where categorized elements Occurred within the overall structure of the lesson. 145 Preliminary descriptions to characterize identified lesson discourse elements were developed during the pilot study. I identified salient features based on repeated occurrences primarily in the pilot data from four teachers' transcripts. For the full study, the categorical schemes used to capture various descriptive aspects of discourse features were those developed during the pilot study, or those adapted or modified whenever it became apparent that exist- ing systems would not accommodate emerging patterns. For example, late additions to the analytical descriptions included sequence codes for cognitive knowledge type, evalu- ation element content, and instructional purpose. I included these codes to provide a more in-depth character- ization of instructional interactions. Their inclusion reflects the on-going process of conceptualizing the instructional functions of interactive discourse elements as data were analyzed and interpreted. When new codes were added, transcripts which had already been rated were reexamined and recoded according to the updated analytical scheme (Erickson A Shultz, 1981; Mehan, 1979a). Descriptive features identified as salient for contrib- uting to characterizations of interactive sequence functions included sequence structural form; sequence topical content; (evaluation information content; knowledge focus; and .instructional purpose. Elicitations were characterized in t:erms of the content focus of information embedded in the 146 request for a student response. Feedback elements were characterized by their topical content focus and structural form as an evaluative remark, probe or more extensive elaboration. Categorical terms used within each descriptive coding scheme are listed and defined below. I reread each transcript several times to code sequences, elicitations and feedback elements for each of the classification schemes. The data analysis proceeded through the following eight steps: (1) for each of the 51 lessons, elicitations within interaction sequences were identified and classi- fied according to content information categories; (2) for each of the 51 lessons, the evaluation ele- ments within interaction sequences were identified and classified based on topical content focus and structural form categories; (3) for each of the 51 lessons, sequences were identi- fied and classified into categories of structural form, topical information content focus, knowledge type, and instructional purpose; (4) for each of the 51 lessons, the coded informa- tion from the transcript was transferred onto a lesson map which showed the positioning of sequence categorical data within lesson phases; (5) for each of the 51 lessons, visual profiles depicting discourse characteristics of principal (phase) and secondary (sequence) lesson events, 147 and their positioning and duration were con- structed; (6) for each teacher data set, the coded data were quantified by tallying frequency information and computing percentages of lesson elements; (7) the questioning patterns for the more effective and less effective teacher groups were character- ized according to the following procedures: (a) the reduction of teacher-level quantified data to create an overall group lesson profile; and (b) the development of lists of questioning practices characteristic of each teacher as observed across lessons; and (8) the questioning practices of the two teacher groups were compared through the following proce- dures: (a) the use of statistical tests for dif- ferences in teacher level findings; and (b) the qualitative description of differences by appeal to phase level findings and example instances of recurring questioning practices. Each of the eight steps are described in the following sections. WW Elieitetiens_nithin_lnteneetien_Seenenees Descriptive categories and conventions for coding e r u s o l C s w e i v e R ) d e u n i t n o c ( 1 1 . 4 E L B A T c i m e d a c A r e h t O t n e m e g a n a M s s e n l u f e s U s s e c o r P _ g t c u d o r P e s a h P % % ) D S ( X % ) D S ( X % ) D S ( X ) D S ( X ) D S ( X % 266 frequent during interactive Review phases for the more effective teachers, probably because these reviews were heavily focused on information about skills (i.e., features and procedural steps for their use). The same pattern held for usefulness elicitations which focused in reviews on assessing students' knowledge of conditional information about skills. Thus, these findings suggest a pattern of differences in how teachers in the more and less effective groups dis- tributed kinds of elicitations throughout the average skill lesson. Also, it appears possible to infer that perhaps teachers favored the use of different kinds of elicitations depending on the lesson phase task being pursued. The dis- tributional differences are graphically suggested in Figure 4.18 which allows comparison of the percentages of sequences and elicitations for the two groups. The phase distribution of elicitation types in both groups' average lessons is shown in Figure 4.19. The pat- terns of product elicitation distribution for both groups resembles the overall elicitation distribution reported above. The more effective teacher group posed product eli- citations with relatively equal frequency in Guided and Recitation Practice phases. The less effective teacher group concentrated product elicitations in Recitation Prac- tice (which often constituted the bulk of the lesson) prob- ably reflecting heavy reliance on the use of practice sheets with numerous items to cover as part of the lesson. 2(57 s w e i v e R e r u s o l C - a t i c e R n o i t e c i t c a r P d e d i u G e c i t c a r P - n e s e r P n o i t a t t n e m e g a n a M c i m e d a c A d n a - o r t n I n o i t c u d . e s a h P n o s s e L 9 1 . 4 E R U G I F s s e L d n a e r o M e h t n i ) e c n e r r u c c O e p y T f o e g a t n e c r e P ( s e p y T n o i t a t i c i l E s n o s s e L e g a r e v A ' s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E . s s e n l u f e s U . s s e c o r P . t c u d o r P f o n o i t u b i r t s i D e s a h P e h t f o n o s i r a m C A s w e i v e R e r u s o l C - a t i c e R d e d i u G - n e s e r P e c i t c a r P n o i t e c i t c a r P n o i t a t . ° . x - . 0 9 - « 0 7 - 0 6 641139313 ssai I t n e m e g a n a M c i m e d a c A O - - O . ' s s e c o r P 0 - — D s s e n l u f e s U x . . . . . . . x t c u d o r P H n o i t c u d - o r t n I 0 7 ' 0 4 0 3 0 2 ' 0 1 “1433133 NOW aGasuaoJad 268 When viewing distributions of process elicitations, the negligible amounts of elicitations of this kind for the less effective teacher group, reported in Table 4.11, should be borne in mind. Process elicitations were most frequently posed by more effective teachers as part of Review phases (39.6 per cent), followed by use in Guided Practice (26.9 per cent). The lower frequency of process elicitations in the more effective teacher presentations was observed during the qualitative analysis to reflect greater use of exposi- tory monologues to convey procedural information about skills. To the extent that process elicitations were posed by the less effective teachers, they occurred most often during either practice phase, as well as during presentations. Usefulness elicitations, a subcategory of process eli- citations focused specifically on conditional knowledge about skills, were rarely found in less effective teacher group lessons except occasionally as part of presentations or within simple sequences in guided practice phases as shown in Figure 4.19. This kind of elicitation appeared to be posed relatively frequently by the more effective teachers (shown in Figure 4.19) during the Presentation phase (30.5 per cent), probably reflecting attempts to involve students in identification of relevant reading situations when skill use would apply. This finding most probably reflects a pattern found in the lessons of those teachers in this sample who were part of the Treatment group 269 in the Teacher Explanation Study (Duffy 3 Roehler, et al., 1986c). Treatment group training for that study included emphasis on including explicit expository statements about skill usefulness as part of lesson presentations. Interestingly, although teachers were encouraged to state this information for students as part of an explicit explanation, many chose to elicit it from students instead. Usefulness elicitations were a major portion of Review phases (60.0 per cent) in the average lesson of the more effective teacher group. This may reflect the general lack of compatibility of this kind of skill information in the overall flow of practicing skill use when using practice examples. For both teacher groups academic management elicita- tions occurred most frequently during Recitation Practice as would be expected given the reliance here on prepared prac- tice materials. Also, the more effective teacher group showed more elicitations of this type during Closure (13.6 per cent) compared to Introductions (5.2 per cent), while the less effective teacher group showed greater use during Introductions (11.0 per cent) versus Closure (6.8 per cent). In other words, the average lesson of teachers in the more effective group de-emphasized academic tasks at the outset, saving information about directions for practice until the end of the lesson. Instead, these teachers spent the initial phase of the lesson stating or discussing opening remarks related to the lesson's skill topic. 270 In contrast, less effective group teachers opened the lesson with greater focus on the nature of the practice tasks that would be performed as part of the lesson. This finding suggests that students of teachers in each group received distinctly different introductory mental sets about what was likely to occur during the lesson. The implications of this finding for low group skill instruction will be considered in Chapter V. W W Research Question 3 asked if there were differences in the structural form of sequences in different lesson phases. Table 4.12 shows the breakdown of sequence structural forms by lesson phases for each teacher group in terms of total sequence frequency, mean sequence frequency, standard devia- tions, percentage of phase sequences and percentage of total form type in each group's average lesson. Findings will be reported in terms of the mean frequencies and percentages. Mean sequence frequencies indicate that the more effec- tive teacher groups generally balanced the structural forms of interaction sequences throughout the phases of the aver- age lesson. For the less effective teacher group the use of simple sequence form during Recitation Practice stands out (6.68 mean sequences). The findings for structural forms (as percent- ages of the number of phase sequences) show that the early lesson phases (Introduction and Presentation) for the more 271 4 . 8 6 . 4 2 . 4 7 . 0 1 2 . 2 1 8 . 6 2 3 . 3 1 3 . 3 6 . 5 3 . 3 3 . 1 3 3 . 7 1 9 . 3 1 2 1 3 5 9 4 3 6 1 7 1 ) 1 0 . l ( ) 3 3 . ( ) 5 . ( ) 3 3 . ( ) 6 1 . 2 ( ) 6 7 . ( ) 3 6 . ( 2 5 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 6 3 . 1 4 6 . 8 6 . 9 . 4 2 1 . 7 1 . 7 2 8 . 4 2 4 . 5 1 9 . 1 2 8 . 5 4 . 7 3 7 . 8 1 0 . 9 4 3 3 8 9 8 5 9 2 4 1 7 . 3 2 6 . 7 1 . 7 4 . 3 2 4 . 7 2 5 . 7 2 7 . 7 1 7 . 2 2 . 7 1 s a s u z n i m a 3 3 5 2 3 9 0 5 2 3 5 2 7 2 . 1 9 1 . 3 2 . 1 5 3 . 2 9 . 1 3 2 . 1 6 9 . ) 4 5 . 1 ( ) 3 6 . ( ) 6 5 . 1 ( ) 6 5 . ( ) 7 7 . 2 ( ) 7 7 . 1 ( ) 0 . 1 ( 6 3 . 1 2 1 . 2 3 . 2 6 1 . 1 6 5 . ) 0 2 . 2 ( ) 4 4 . ( ) 8 4 . ( ) 1 7 . ( ) 6 5 . 2 ( ) 3 4 L ( ) 0 1 . 1 ( 8 . 0 1 . 5 2 . 6 1 9 . 0 2 3 . 5 0 . 7 8 . 1 3 . 9 1 3 . 3 3 3 . 3 3 3 - 5 4 1 1 1 9 1 9 1 ) 3 3 ~ ( ) 4 5 L ) 0 2 ( ) 0 .7 i ) 8 7 L ) 8 7 L 2 4 . 3 7 . 4 . 2 3 9 . 5 4 1 . 7 2 4 . 9 2 8 . 7 1 4 . 5 1 1 . 2 1 4 . 0 2 6 . 3 1 0 0 9 ‘ 7 . 6 1 2 . 7 1 1 . 8 0 . 5 5 4 0 3 2 4 7 3 8 3 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 5 . 1 5 1 . 1 2 6 . 1 2 4 . 1 6 4 . 1 9 6 . 2 4 . ) 8 6 . 1 ( ) 7 8 . 1 ( ) 8 8 . 1 ( ) 5 4 . 1 ( ) 7 3 . 2 ( ) 7 9 . ( ) 0 7 . ( 7 . 7 1 9 . 6 9 . 3 1 9 . 9 2 . 6 1 6 . 8 1 ‘ 0 5 9 . 3 1 . 4 3 1 . 0 1 8 . 7 4 2 7 6 2 I 6 4 4 3 1 0 1 9 2 1 6 9 . 8 2 . 6 7 L 2 5 . ) 1 5 L ( ) 9 7 . ( ) 3 2 L ( ) 8 .5 ( ) 1 7 . 2 ( ) 6 1 L ( ) 6 .7 ( 4 . 6 3 4 . 8 2 2 . 5 4 4 . 0 3 4 . 5 1 6 . 1 1 5 . 2 1 7 . 7 1 9 . 2 2 1 . 6 2 2 . 7 0 . 4 1 3 4 2 4 4 7 5 5 6 8 1 0 1 9 4 2 9 1 L 2 9 . 9 6 L 9 1 L 0 5 L 9 6 . ) 4 7 L ( ) 0 6 L ( ) 0 7 L ( ) 2 . 4 ( ) 7 5 . 3 ( ) 6 2 L ( ) 4 6 L . C “ 4 . 9 4 6 . 0 8 7 . 2 5 4 . 7 3 7 . 9 1 6 . 4 1 2 . 3 1 0 . 8 3 2 . 1 1 0 . 3 4 6 5 4 3 4 8 5 7 6 1 9 4 3 1 9 3 4 6 5 L 0 8 . 1 2 7 L 2 8 6 . 6 6 9 L 2 5 . ) 0 4 . 2 ( ) 0 8 . 2 ( ) 7 7 . 1 ( ) 1 6 .3 3 ( ) 9 8 . 7 ( ) 8 6 . 3 ( ) 7 7 L 1 . 5 1 ‘ 0 ‘ 8 . 6 1 7 . 2 1 3 . 7 1 1 . 5 6 . 6 3 . 8 1 6 . 2 2 9 . 3 1 2 . 2 3 2 . 5 2 . 5 1 2 3 ‘ 6 2 1 6 1 7 3 6 6 5 1 1 9 . 4 1 . 3 - 8 . 2 6 . 4 5 . 1 0 . 5 2 1 . 7 7 . 0 1 - ' 0 2 3 ‘ . ‘ 2 6 0 3 ) 0 .9 ( ) 3 .3 ( ) 0 2 L ( ) 4 9 . ( ) 7 4 L ( ) 5 6 . ( ) 3 4 L 2 6 . 2 4 . 1 3 2 . 3 2 . 7 2 i 8 2 . 8 0 . 3 2 1 . - - 9 6 1 4 2 . ) 1 6 . ( ) 0 4 . ( ) 3 3 . ( ) 7 7 L ) 6 6 . ( ) 0 .2 ( 1 E 1 i 1 E 1 E 1 e c i t c a r P . . . . . . n o i t a t i c e R e c i t c a r P ) . v e d . d t s ( n o s s e l / e g a r e v a : y c n e u q e r f l a t o T ' r m i i d i f m r m — m m l a t o T f o S e p y T m r o F F y c n e u q e r e c n e u q e S f o 2 1 . 4 E L B A T l l i k S e g a r e v A e h t r o f s e s a h P n i h t i w s e c n e u q e S l a n o i t c u r t s n I f o e r u t c u r t S e h T ) s n o s s e l 5 2 - p u o r G E L : s n o s s e l 6 2 - p u o r G E M ( s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M e h t f o s n o s s e L 272 y c n e u q e r F e c n e u q e S l l s r e v O ; s n o s s e l 6 2 s n o s s e l 5 2 - 0 E H E L n o s s e l r e p e g a r e v A - - n o i t a i v e D d r a d n a t S - h c a e n i s r e b m u n p u o r g h c a e r o F : e r a y r o g e t a c t n e d u t S t n e r e f i i o - e s n o p s e A t c e r r o c n i : d e d n e t x E t n e d u t S e n a S - e s n o p s e l t c e r r o c n i : d e d n e t x E t n e d u t S t n e r e f f i 0 - d e t p e c c A : d e d n e t x E t n e d u t S e l e S - d e t p e c c A : d e d n e t x E e u g o i o n o H e v i t c a r e t n i e u g o l o n o M r e h c a e T e c n e u q e S e i p n i S . - - - - - - l T 5 8 T J S s s l E s d A E s s l E s d i E : s g n i d a e h 2 1 . 4 e l b a T o t y e K n o s s e L n i . 0 0 5 O 3 . 4 6 . 4 5 . 4 8 . 4 1 . 6 7 . 9 1 2 . 4 2 5 . 7 8 . 3 8 . 8 5 . 7 3 . 6 1 8 . 8 2 5 . 7 2 6 3 3 2 . 2 1 . 7 7 2 . 3 2 . 0 5 . 9 8 . 5 8 . 6 3 1 3 2 2 2 0 8 E 1 . 2 1 . 3 2 . 1 - 9 . 1 0 . 3 1 7 . 6 1 4 . 7 0 . 5 5 . 2 - 0 . 5 1 5 . 2 4 5 . 7 2 ) 3 4 . ( ) 3 3 . ( ) 5 4 . ( ) 9 5 . ( ) 9 5 . ( ) 6 8 . ( ) 3 8 . ( 3 2 1 . 2 0 0 . 1 s o . ) 3 3 . ( ) 0 4 . ( ) 0 2 . ( - 6 4 2 . 7 1 : 5 . 1 1 u . ) z s . ( ) 5 5 . ( ) 8 5 . ( 0 4 i E e r u s o l C e p y T - n o F f o 1 l a t o T F y c n e u q e r e c n e u q e S f o ) d e u n i t n o c ( 2 1 . 4 E L B A T 273 effective teachers were characterized by more teacher monologue sequences than for the less effective teachers. Also, teachers in both groups engaged in fewer interaction sequences during lesson closure. The more effective teacher group's use of interaction sequence forms was balanced during Guided and Recitation Practice phases. During Reviews, the more effective teachers tended to use simple sequence form most often. On the other hand, the less effective teacher group showed consistent reliance on simple sequence form (compared to extended forms) in all lesson phases except for Closure. Regarding overall use of a particular kind of sequence form in lesson phases, the percentages of total form type reported in Table 4.12 (and shown in Figure 4.20) suggest that the teacher groups structured sequences in different ways relative to the task focus of the phase. The more effective teachers employed most of their monologue and interactive monologue sequences during the Introduction and Presentation phases. Monologue sequence use was more evenly distributed throughout lesson phases for the less effective teacher group (except for Review phases). When instances of monologues were examined qualitatively, those of the less effective teachers seemed to occur in conjunction with the introduction of worksheet materials. Regarding use of interaction sequence forms, the simple sequence form was used most often during the Recitation Practice phase by both groups (30.4 per cent for the more 274 “ . . . 9 e L o s w e i v e R e r u s o l C - a t i c e R d e d i u G - n e s e r P e c i t c a r P n o i t e c i t c a r P n o i t a t n o i t c u d - o r t n i - 0 8 0 6 s t n e d u t S t n e d u t S e m a S - t c e J e R : d e d n e t x E t n e r e f f i D - t c e J e R : d e d n e t x E 0 s e - - t A , ¢ s t n e d u t S t n e d u t S e m a S - t p e c c A : d e d n e t x E A - L t n e r e f f i D - t p e c c A : d e d n e t x E t l - V . - L A e u g o l o n o M e v i t c a r e t n i x . . t a e u g o l o n o M r e h c a e T Q - a h a e l p m i S fl — m l fi 0 2 . 4 E R U G I F e s a h P n o s s e L e c i t c a r P - 0 4 en;qsa;;3 ssa1 0 " - — e s w e i v e R — r 1 L a n o i t - a t i c e R e r u s o l C n - n e s e r P e c i t c a r P n o i t a t d e d i u G L ; - o r t n i o i t c u d - 0 7 - 0 6 ; o 4 aniaaassa PJOH abesuaaaad - 0 2 s n o s s e L e g a r e v A ' s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M n i s m r o F l a r u t c u r t S t n e r e f f i D h t i w s e c n e u q e S f o g n i n o i t i s o P e s a h P 275 effective group and 52.7 per cent for the less effective group). Although teachers in both groups most often extended sequences with the same student during Recitation Practice (”5.2 per cent for the more effective group and 80.6 per cent for the less effective group), the more effective teachers also used this form of extension during Guided Practice (29.“ per cent versus 6.9 per cent for the less effective group). Extensions with multiple student participants were relatively evenly distributed across presentations and practice phases for the more effective teacher group and highest for the less effective teachers during Recitation Practice. Interestingly, extensions based on incorrect or unaccepted student responses were most frequent for the more effective teacher group during Guided Practice and for the less effective teacher group during Recitation Practice. WW lnfezmatien_&entsnt_£oci Research Question 3 asked if there were differences in the topical information content foci of instructional sequences within different lesson phases. Table u.13(a) reports number of sequences distributed across lesson phases by total phase frequency, mean phase frequency, standard deviation, percentage of phase sequences, and percentage of total sequences per content category in the average lesson. The results support the observation that the topical content of focus in a particular phase appeared to be related to the 276 8 . 5 1 5 . 0 2 3 . 7 7 . 6 4 6 . 3 1 - 9 . 1 2 . 4 3 7 . 0 2 3 . 1 4 9 . 1 ' 0 . 5 2 . 9 1 2 . 7 3 4 . 7 8 . 7 1 - 4 . 1 9 . 4 1 9 . 2 7 0 . 9 8 . 1 ' 3 . 5 1 . 5 1 5 . 7 1 3 7 1 1 . 9 5 . 0 2 . 0 3 7 . 9 5 5 . 7 5 . 1 . 2 . 9 1 5 0 8 . ! . 1 ‘ a ‘ - 3 . 3 l 3 . 4 8 0 . 2 4 . 0 - - - - 3 . 3 3 2 . 2 1 0 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 0 4 ) 8 . 1 ( 5 . 3 8 . 6 3 8 . 8 3 . 3 3 8 . 5 1 ) 1 ( 3 . 6 2 3 . 6 1 0 . 7 2 6 . 4 1 5 . 5 4 ) 1 . 1 ( 6 . 5 7 . 6 4 3 . 3 1 2 . 2 2 1 . 1 1 ) 1 ( - 7 . 5 1 3 . 8 8 . 1 4 9 . 8 2 ) 6 . 1 ( - 3 . 4 1 4 . 9 1 0 . 1 6 5 . 3 ) 3 ( 2 8 0 . 1 2 1 8 . 5 9 1 . 9 1 9 3 7 . 5 3 . ) 7 2 . ( ) 4 1 . 1 ( ) 8 . ( ) 2 9 . ( ) 9 6 . ( 5 2 . 2 4 8 4 . 1 2 1 8 4 . 0 2 8 . 0 1 4 . ) 5 . ( ) 2 3 . 1 ( ) 0 . 2 ( ) 8 6 . 1 ( ) 8 0 . 1 ( e r o M ) 7 5 ( s s e L ) 0 9 ( . o r t n i - ‘ ) 3 0 . 2 ( ) 9 1 . 2 ( ) 5 4 . 3 ( ) 7 7 . ( 9 3 L 7 3 . 4 5 2 . ) 6 8 1 ( 7 2 6 3 3 1 1 5 6 e r o M . t n e s e r P ) 3 3 . ( ) 3 . 3 ( ) 8 2 . 2 ( ) 4 1 . 3 ( ) 6 . ( 3 3 5 2 3 4 6 3 2 1 . 2 1 . 2 8 2 . 1 6 5 . 2 2 1 . ) 5 5 1 ( s s e L ) 8 .3 ( ) 3 7 l ( ) 3 5 4 ( ) 9 .9 i ) 6 4 i ) 2 i ) 8 3 2 ( ) 9 7 4 ( ) 1 9 ( ) a z ( 1 1 0 . 5 5 . 1 5 0 . 3 9 3 7 7 0 1 2 ) 9 2 1 ( s s e L 3 3 3 1 6 1 0 2 4 I e r o l d e d i u G 1 2 . 1 9 1 . 6 ) 1 2 2 ( e c i t c a r P ) 9 6 . 1 ( ) 6 4 . 8 ( ) 9 4 . ( ) .2 ( - 3 3 0 l 2 " 5 l e r o l n o i t a t i c e R 7 2 . l 8 0 . 8 9 1 . ) 9 4 2 ( e c i t c a r P ) 4 . 1 1 ( 8 . 6 3 0 . 3 8 0 . 1 7 2 . 1 2 8 . 1 3 ) 1 . 1 ( 6 . 1 2 . 8 1 8 . 0 7 6 . 6 6 . 1 ) 5 ( 7 0 8 3 1 1 3 9 2 I 7 8 2 . 3 3 . 2 1 ) 2 .8 ( ) 2 0 . 1 ( ) 3 6 . 3 ( ) 1 5 . 2 1 ( ) 9 6 . 2 ( ) 4 0 . 1 ( 1 9 3 4 ( s s e L n o i t a m r o f n i ) s e c n e u q e S n i h t i w ( ' s t n e m e t a t S n o i t a u l a v E ) 8 ( d n a s u c o F t n e t n o C n o i t a m r o f n i l a c i p o T e c n e u q e S ) 3 ( l l a r e v O g n i r a p m o C s n o s s e L e g a r e v A ' s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M e h t n i h t i w s e s a h P n i s c i t s i r e t c a r a h C s u c o F t n e t n o C ) s n o s s e l 5 2 - p u o r g E L ; s n o s s e l 6 2 - p u o r g E H ( 3 1 . 4 E L 8 A T r o i r P r o i r P r o i r P ’ n o s s e L n i . t a C t n e t n o C 1 1 ( 0 1 f o I s e c n e u q e S e s a h P ff o S ‘ s e i r g o e t a C ’ t n e t n o C f o y c n e u q e r F n o s s e L . t S k s a T n i e s U l l i k S . t S n o s s e L . t S k s a T n i e s U l l i k S . t S n o s s e L . t S k s a T n i e s U l l i k S . t S 0 s e s a h P n i h t i w s u c o F t n e t n o C A e c n e u q e S . h e 8 . x E . x E . h e 8 . d e c o r P n e t n o C t n e t n o C . d e c o r P . o f n i . p x E t t n e t n o C . h e 8 . d e c o r P . o f n i . p x E s e c n e u q e S . x E . o f n i . p x E e s a h P ) 3 . 4 1 ( - 2 . 1 1 4 . 1 9 . 2 - ) 5 . 2 ( - 5 . 2 7 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 1 - 4 0 ( 7 . 6 1 7 . 1 7 . 7 2 5 . 6 3 - - 1 . 3 1 . 1 o . 1 1 - . . 6 . 2 3 9 . 1 2 . 5 9 . 8 - - - - - 9 . 0 6 . 2 4 . 0 1 1 . 6 8 - 5 . 0 2 9 . 7 1 5 . 3 5 - 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 1 5 . 7 1 4 . 2 ) 2 ( - - - - - 1 3 1 2 1 9 9 6 4 . 1 8 . 2 ) 2 0 .. ( ) 3 .4 ( ) 5 4 . 1 ( ) 2 4 . 3 ( a 2 3 . 5 5 5 . 1 ) 3 5 . ( ) 1 .7 ( ) 9 2 . 1 ( - - ) 5 1 1 ( ) 5 5 ( L e r b fi s w e i v e R 6 9 1 2 . 1 6 ‘ 2 ' 6 4 1 . - ; 3 : ( L ) 1 9 . 1 ( ) 7 4 . ( ) 1 8 . ( ) 9 3 . ( 6 5 8 5 1 . 2 1 3 . 4 1 4 5 . 2 8 0 . ! P D " ) 0 8 ( e r u s o 1 C ) 2 . ( ( 5 7 . ( ) 6 6 . ( ) 7 3 . ( ) . v e d . d t s ( n o s s e l / e g a r e v a : y c n e u q e r f l a t o T * 277 5 . 7 0 . 1 1 1 . 7 1 7 . 0 1 3 . 2 0 . 4 1 7 . 2 5 1 . 0 1 . 3 . 3 1 4 . 2 2 7 . 3 3 6 . 5 6 . 1 6 . 7 3 . 2 7 0 . 8 0 . 0 4 6 . 6 3 4 . 1 7 3 . 1 2 6 . 3 7 . 3 1 7 . 4 6 9 . 5 . . 0 . 0 1 4 . 2 0 . 2 6 . 9 2 6 . 2 7 . 1 1 . 6 3 . 8 7 3 2 1 . 8 1 2 7 . 8 6 2 7 . 2 3 1 2 5 . ) 3 3 . ( ) 4 5 . 1 ( ) 7 3 . 4 ( ) 2 1 . 1 ( 4 5 1 . 9 1 3 7 . 0 8 1 2 9 . 6 0 2 7 7 . ) 4 5 . ( ) 5 2 . 1 ( ) 6 6 . 7 ( ) 3 6 . 1 ( 6 1 4 6 . 0 6 9 8 2 6 2 0 4 . 2 6 5 . 1 1 4 0 . 1 ) 4 1 . 1 ( ) 8 3 . 3 ( ) 0 0 . 3 1 ( ) 5 0 . 2 ( 3 2 1 . 2 8 0 . 7 7 2 . 0 9 6 4 . 3 ) 3 4 . ( ) 7 2 . ( ) 7 8 . ( ) 7 3 . 3 ( - 5 . 1 5 . 0 7 . 0 1 - 7 . 0 1 7 . 0 1 4 . 5 4 - ' 3 2 1 . 3 2 1 . 3 1 2 5 . 0 . 0 2 6 . 0 3 6 . 0 3 . 5 5 . 1 6 . 2 3 5 . 3 0 . 0 2 4 . 2 7 . 5 5 . 0 5 . 1 7 . 2 5 . 7 2 0 . 5 0 . 5 6 3 2 . 6 2 2 0 0 . 1 6 0 . 6 1 2 6 . ) 2 8 . ( ) 3 1 . 1 ( ) 7 2 . ( 1 0 8 . ( 1 4 0 . 1 1 4 4 . 2 a 0 . 2 5 0 . ) 0 2 . ( ) 5 7 . ( ) 0 4 . ( ) 0 4 . ( ) 3 3 L ) 3 3 . ( ) 5 0 . 1 ( ) ; 2 1 ( L ) 9 3 : ( . l ) 9 4 2 ( e c i t c a r P e r b I n o i t a t i c a I ) 5 1 1 ( e r b fi s w e i v e R s s e L ) 5 2 ( e r o l ) 0 6 ( s s e L ) 0 4 ( e r u s o l C 0 . 0 2 1 . 7 1 . 1 9 . 4 5 . 0 1 5 . 0 1 0 . 7 3 . 6 2 0 . 5 3 7 . 5 5 . 2 9 . 3 1 5 . 5 1 5 . 5 2 2 . 2 1 9 . 5 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 2 3 . 5 5 . 4 3 5 . 1 1 . 9 5 . 1 1 0 . 7 5 0 . 0 2 4 . 9 4 6 . 6 1 . 6 1 9 . 3 1 . 7 2 8 . 4 1 6 . 1 3 6 7 2 . 6 3 2 . 4 5 1 . 5 1 8 5 . ) 3 5 . ( ) 1 5 . ( ) 8 7 . ( ) 5 9 . ( 4 1 5 5 . 3 2 1 1 2 9 . 7 1 ) 9 2 . 1 ( ) 5 3 . 1 ( ) 5 5 . 1 ( ) 7 5 . 1 ( 3 2 1 . 7 1 5 5 . 2 2 5 5 . 5 0 1 ) 3 3 . ( ) 5 1 . 2 ( ) 2 2 . 1 ( ) 4 5 . 3 ( 6 4 2 . 2 4 ‘ 3 2 9 4 2 9 . 6 9 . 1 ) 2 5 . ( ) 9 0 . 3 ( ) 4 9 . 1 ( ) 1 5 . 2 ( e r b I ) 7 5 ( s s e L ) 0 9 ( . o r t n I 1 6 0 1 ( ) 5 5 1 ( s s e L e r o i l . t n e s e r P 0 . 0 2 5 . 6 1 3 . 7 3 9 . 7 1 7 . 2 3 . 6 5 . 4 2 ) 3 4 . ( ) 6 8 . ( ) 4 1 . 4 ( ) 4 8 . 1 ( 6 3 2 . 4 1 4 5 . 8 . 4 1 . 2 6 . 9 2 1 6 . 4 5 I ) 1 2 2 ( e c i t c a r P a r b d e d i u G n o s s e n a t o 0 s e r o g e t a t n e t n o . f o y c n e u r 5 . s e s a h P n i h t i w s e c n e e S n i s n o i t a r o b a l E n o i t a u l a v E f o s u c o F t n e t n o t I . 8 ) d e u n i t n o c ( 3 1 . 4 E L B A T 5 s a l e l p m a x E l l l E S k s a T ‘ e p m a R [ r e h t O . d e c o r P t n e t n o C . o f n I r e h t O . d e c o r P t n e t n o C . o f n I r e h t O . d e c o r P t n e t n o C . o f n I 4 s e c n e u q e S e s a h P : 0 0 1 t o n y b g n i l a t o t s e g a t n e c r e p . d e t a c i d n i c i t s i r e t c a r a h c s a w k c a h d e e F ° s e c n e u q e s s a s e s a h p n i h t i w l l a n i t o n 278 nature of the instructional task of focus during the phase. Also, when viewed as percentages of the overall occurrence of a particular content focus, sequences with different content were more likely to appear in particular phases depending upon the teacher group. The means and percentages in Table u.13(a) for the two groups suggest the following patterns of similarities and differences in content foci. During the Introduction phase, the more effective teacher group balanced content focus on information about skill features and academic task proce- dures and directions (33.3 per cent and 36.8 per cent, respectively). The less effective teacher group focused on task procedures in Introduction sequences ("6.7 per cent). During the Presentation phase, the more effective group stressed skill information content (61.0 per cent), while the less effective group emphasized both skill information (U1.3 per cent) and task procedures (34.2 per cent). For both groups most of the phase sequences in Guided Practice and Recitation Practice focused on the content of the examples used to practice skills. The Review phases for the more effective teacher group focused heavily on skill information content (86.1per cent). Closure for teachers in both groups was heavily focused on task procedures. Figure H.21 shows the patterning of sequences with different content as percentages of the total sequences in a given phase within the average lessons for the two teacher groups. Overall, the results suggest that while skill 6 s w e i v e F e s a h P n o s s e L e c i t c a r P e c i t c a r P n o i t a t n o i t c u d e i u G - n e s e r P - o r t n I s w e i v e R e r u s o l C n o i t a t i c e R d e d i u G - n e s e r P - o r t n I e c i t c a r P e c i t c a r P n o i t a t n o i t c u d e s a h P n o s s e L n o i t a m r o f n I l l i k S o b * a e a . ‘ . . e e e a a e e * . . ' s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M e h T n i s e c n e u q e S f o i c o F t n e t n o C n o i t a m r o f n I ) s e c n e u q e S e s a h P f o e g a t n e c r e P a s a ( s e s a h P n o s s e L e g a r e v A 1 2 . 4 5 1 1 0 0 1 5 s e r u d e c o r P k s a T c i m e d a c A o - o - o s e c n e i r e p x E t n e d u t S . . . “ t " 9 ‘ " 0 : ( 9 1 P M E ’ 4 - - * - 6 f N l " 6 O ‘0 9 O m 1 8 V 6 O ("3 s3ou3nbas 353144 30 :u33334 dnous 331.3531 “ma“; s531 1 ' / 0’. / 0‘ ” 3’ \ ’ )3 3" ’ 0‘ s ~“ ‘ ‘~~‘ “ ’ - 1 3 x * . \ ‘ \ ‘ ' 4 I " - 0 8 \ S O In 3 0 4'3 s33u3nbes 3seqd 30 1033.13.) dnoag 33113331 34113333 33051 H r o 0 1 280 information was important topically during lesson presentations, the more effective teacher group emphasized its importance by incorporating reviews of that information following its initial presentation. For the less effective teacher group, practice example content and task procedures were equally stressed during Recitation practice. For the more effective teacher group, sequences focused on practice example content were roughly balanced between the two practice phases with much less emphasis (relative to the less effective teacher group) on task procedures. muwmmmnmmmummmm WWW Research Question 3 asked of there were differences in the kinds of evaluation responses more and less effective teachers provide to student responses in different lesson phases. Evaluations were examined in terms of information content foci (i.e., skill information, practice example content, and task procedures) and structural form (i.e., simple statements, elaborations and elicitation probes). E1aluaLign_lnfecmatian_flgntent Table 4.13(b) reports the phase placement of inter- action sequences with different evaluation information content foci. The findings were very similar in distri- bution to the sequence topical information content findings reported in the previous section. In lesson presentations and reviews, the more effective teachers primarily provided evaluations focused on skill information 281 (34.8 per cent of this category). By comparison, the less effective teachers focused evaluations in presentations on task procedures and directions (49.0 per cent). Review phases were rarely included in their lessons. For the more effective teacher group, evaluations during lesson closure focused on task procedures (30.6 per cent). Figure 4.22 illustrates the similarity in distribution of evaluation content to overall sequence topical information content when compared to Figure 4.21. There was, however, an interesting exception in terms of task procedure content. Although only 20.5 per cent of the task procedure-focused sequences for the less effective teacher group occurred during the Presentation Phase, 49.8 per cent of task procedure-focused evaluations of student responses were used in that phase. This result suggests that perhaps the main task of a presentation from the point of view of a teacher in the less effective group was to reinforce student responses that demonstrated understanding of how to perform up-coming practice tasks. For the more effective teacher group, the phase during which task-procedure evaluations most frequently occurred was Closure--corresponding to the overall focus of their sequences in this phase. WW Table ”.14 repbrts the results (mean sequences, standard deviations, and percentage of total verbal evaluations) of the phase analysis of interaction sequence 2 82 l ~ D N < O l 0 s w e i v e R e r u s o l - o r t n l c i t c a r P d e d i u G - n e s e r P n o i t a t n o i t c u d e c i t c a r P n o i t a t i c e R . . . . o I . . . A ' O O O ' o o o . - . o o e o e O " A . e C I n o i t a t i c e R e c i t c a r P e c i t c a r P n o i t c u d w e i v e R e r u s o l C d e d i u G - n e s e r P - o r t n n o i t a t | i N - , 0 1 D e s a h P n o s s e L 2 2 . 4 E R U G I F e h t n i s e s n o p s e R t n e d u t S g n i w o l l o F s n o i t a u l a v E r e h c a e T f o i c o F t n e t n o C l a n o i t a m r o f n I e h T s e s a h P n o s s e L e g a r e v A ' s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M n o i t a m r o f n I l l i k S H t n e t n o C e l p m a x E r fi u — fi s e r u d e c o r P k s a T c i m e d a c A o — . . - o t n e t n o C r e h t O 5 " “ - v u L L 0 8 - 0 7 3 O to a D In a O Q .l O n $3303 nbas aseqd [2:01 ;o afieiuaaaad dnoag Jauoeal angioaiia ssa1 - 0 8 - Q 7 v D 0 I C In C U I? 1 c5 ('3 saauanbas aseud [9101 lo abtiuaoaad dnoug Jauoval anlioai;3 auou ..__‘, X ... - 283 9 . 6 3 9 . 9 1 4 . 6 3 2 . 6 3 7 2 . 3 1 5 . 6 2 5 1 . 7 7 . 2 3 8 0 . 3 1 ) 0 5 . 7 1 ( ) 1 8 . 7 ( ) 9 3 . 5 1 ( n o i t a t i c e R e c i t c a r P 6 . 3 2 3 . 2 2 9 . 1 3 9 . 3 2 4 . 1 0 . 5 5 3 . 1 8 . 4 2 9 . 1 e r u s o 1 C ) 5 4 . 2 ( ) 2 9 . 1 ( ) 6 9 . 1 ( 3 . 6 2 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 3 1 . 9 5 3 . 3 7 . 5 1 3 2 . 4 3 . 0 1 2 1 . 4 s w e i v e R ) 0 7 . 3 ( ) 4 5 . 4 ( ) 5 0 . 5 ( 9 . 7 2 0 . 5 2 7 . 9 3 0 . 2 3 7 . 4 . 2 5 6 . 7 . 2 4 0 . 1 n o i t c u d o r t n I ) 6 6 . 1 ( ) 3 0 . 1 ( ) 6 7 . 1 ( 9 . 3 2 5 . 1 1 5 . 7 3 0 . 3 1 7 7 . 4 2 . 2 2 0 0 . 6 8 . 8 1 0 5 . 7 s n o i t a t n e s e r P ) 0 2 . 5 ( ) 0 0 . 5 ( ) 9 3 . 6 ( 1 . 6 3 4 . 2 2 4 . 7 3 5 . 5 3 0 . 3 1 9 . 9 2 8 0 . 8 7 . 3 3 6 4 . 3 1 d e d i u G e r o M ) 2 2 . 7 1 ( ) 0 0 . 7 ( ) 9 2 . 1 1 ( e c i t c a r P e v i t c e f f E 4 1 . 4 E L B A T s m r o F l a r u t c u r t S n o i t a u l a v E e h t f o s e g a t n e c r e P d n a ) s n o i t a i v e D d r a d n a t S ( s n a e M s p u o r G r e h c a e T e v i t c e f f E s s e L d n a e r o M e h t r o f s e s a h P n o s s e L e g a r e v A n i d e s U s n o i t a u l a v E e s a h P l a t o T f o % s n o i t a u l a v E s n o i t a u l a v E s n o i t a u l a v E e s a h P n o i t a r o b a l E n o i t a t i c i l E S e l p m i . b a l E % % ) 0 5 ( 7 ) 0 5 ( 7 t i c i l E e l p m i S . % ) D S ( X s n o i t a u 1 a v E e s a h P l a t o T f o % . t i c i l E . 6 3 1 5 e 1 p m i S s n o i t a u l a v E s n o i t a u a v s n o 1 a u a v % ) D S ( X % ) D S ( X % ) D S ( X ° 1 3 3 ' 7 3 3 0 6 2 3 . 2 3 0 . 7 8 6 . 1 7 . 6 2 3 . 1 9 . 5 4 6 . 1 n o i t c u d o r t n I ) 2 1 . 3 ( ) 3 6 . 1 ( ) 3 2 . 3 ( 5 5 2 0 . 5 3 3 . 0 1 2 1 . 4 1 . 1 1 2 1 . 3 3 . 0 1 8 2 . 4 s n o i t a t n e s e r P ) 6 1 . 7 ( ) 3 0 . 5 ( ) 6 0 . 6 ( 6 . 5 3 9 . 2 3 1 . 9 2 6 . 5 3 4 8 . 4 6 . 5 2 8 4 . 4 4 . 4 1 6 9 . 3 ) 0 3 . 6 ( ) 9 4 . 6 ( ) 7 2 . 6 ( e c i t c a r P d e d i u G 284 7 . 0 3 5 . 0 2 8 . 2 4 5 . 9 4 2 9 . 1 1 4 . 5 4 6 9 . 7 3 . 0 6 4 6 . 6 1 n o i t a t i c e R s s e L ) 3 6 . 1 1 ( ) 7 7 . 6 ( ) 2 5 . 5 1 ( e c i t c a r P e v i t c e f f E 3 . 2 4 . 8 . 0 3 9 . 6 2 8 . 1 4 4 . 3 . 1 2 3 . 0 . 1 . 8 2 . e r u s o l C ) 9 1 . 1 ( ) 3 6 . ( ) 1 6 . ( 7 . 3 4 9 . 6 1 8 . 3 3 2 . 5 4 2 . 1 7 . 2 8 4 . 5 . 3 6 9 . s w e i v e R ) 8 8 . 2 ( ) 7 8 . ( ) 4 7 . 1 ( n o i t a t i c i l E n o i t a r o b a l E P e s a h e l p m i S E ) d e u n i t n o c ( 4 1 . 4 E L B A T 285 evaluation form. The results indicated differences in the format of evaluation responses teachers gave student responses during different lesson phases. The findings show more variety in evaluation form used by the more effective teachers during the two practice phases. The more effective group's use of elaboration responses also appeared balanced across Presentations, Guided Practice and Recitation Practice phases. For the less effective teachers, verbal evaluation responses were centered in Recitation Practice and tended to favor simple statements. Figure 4.23 visually displays these differences as percentages of total verbal evaluations. Similarity in the shape of the profiles for both groups to other areas of findings reinforce the pattern of greater lesson balance shown by the more effective teachers. These results lend support to the possibility that the more effective teacher group were more sensitive to tailor- ing their evaluation feedback to the needs of a particular situation during interactions. The trends in the less effective teacher group's profile, seen in Figure 4.23. suggest greater interest in perhaps establishing a smooth, brisk flow to the Recitation Practice phase, evidenced by the sharp rise in the use of simple evaluation forms. It is important to reiterate for interpretation of percentage information, however, that the number of verbal evaluations provided by the more effective teacher group were consistently higher for the average lesson as a whole. 286 H Simple Statements M Elaborations 0....0 Elicitations as Eva1uations 7Q”- 60-- m 50~- > E g 40- q. u.) Q1 3 30 - Z 201- 10%- e g a t n e c r e P 604- 50 - o 3 +340‘L o L “J 304 .- a? s .3 0 204- 10«- 4 P. . 5?. / / \‘ ‘ . I \\ 9’ / l / fl ./. a’ . / a’ 1‘ \\ \ \ I. "o . _ ._,,fl”4: I 1 1 >" -' " ..f . Intro- Presen- Guided Recitation osure ReViéWs duction tation- Practice Practice Lesson Phase FIGURE 4.23 A Comparison of the Phase Distribution of Evaluation Structural Forms (Simple Statement, Elaboration, and Elicitations as Eva1uations) in the More and Less Effective Teacher Groups' Average Lessons 287 Want We: Research Question 3 asked if the lesson phases in the average more and less effective teacher groups' lesson could be distinguished according to differences in cognitive knowledge type (i.e., declarative, procedural, conditional, task procedures). For this analysis, general characteriza- tions of the kind of cognitive knowledge type receiving focus were described for each lesson phase in each teacher's skill lessons. Teacher patterns were then aggregated into group descriptions of the general phase focus within the average more and less effective teacher skill lesson. Figure 4.24 shows the characterizations of phase knowl- edge foci for each teacher and the overall characterizations for the average lessons of the more and less effective teacher groups. The results indicate that there were simi- larities in the kind of cognitive knowledge receiving focus in lesson introductions, closure and recitation practice. Skill lessons typically began and ended with teachers focus- ing on knowledge about task procedures (D). The teacher- student interactions in the Recitation Practice Phase were generally focused on declarative knowledge (A), reflecting the teacher's assessment of students' ability to use skills to obtain answers to practice examples. The findings suggest differences between groups in the cognitive knowledge foci of lesson presentations, guided practice and reviews. The lesson presentation in the 288 Intro- Presenta- Guided Reception duction tion Practice Practice Closure Reviews 1 2 l 2 l _ 2 5 1 2 1 2 18 D A B B / D 0 AIR 2 19 0 MB A A A/D NB 01 g; q. E 04 0) ‘5 2 14 M A A. D A c A/B A A 22 A A B A A A A 0 M D No Phase 0 8 D M 11 D A A A A/D D 02 MD A 0 A A A A A 0 A- A No Phase 0 0 No Phase 0 A A 20 D D No Phase A. A 0 A 0 A No Phase jg H 33 '3 m .‘i.’ 07 21 08 A A A ME Group / D Focus A B A B 3 A A D Focus D D D A A D D LE Group 1 = Assessment A = Declarative = Task Procedures 2 = Assistance 8 = Procedural = Mixed C = Conditional FIGURE 4.24 Description of within Phase Sequence Focus for More and Less Effective Teacher Groups: Instructional Purpose and Cognitive Knowledge Type 289 average more effective teacher lesson focused on declarative and procedural skill knowledge while the average less effective teacher lesson focused on declarative and task procedure knowledge. The more effective teachers also appeared to structure the Guided Practice Phase to focus on procedural, as well as declarative, skill information. The average Review Phase for the more effective teachers indi- cated refocusing on declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge about the skill compared to focus on task pro— cedures when the less effective teachers conducted reviews. W W Research Question 3 asked if there were differences in the characterizations that could be given to various lesson phases on the basis of the perceived instructional purposes of interaction sequences. Figure 4.24 summarizes the phase instructional purpose characterizations as either assessment- or assistance-focused for the average more and less effec- tive teacher groups' lessons. By combining instructional purpose with cognitive knowledge type foci, Figure 4.24 depicts how teachers instructionally processed different kinds of knowledge about skills in different lesson phases. As would be inferred from the lesson level findings reported in Table 4.9, the results for both groups indicate that the main purpose of elicitations in most lesson phases was assessment. The more effective teacher group did, however, appear to use elicitations for assistance purposes 290 more often in both Introduction and Presentation phases. When the various subcategories of assessment and assistance were examined to determine the phases in which they occurred most often, the following trends were noted. (1) The more effective teachers used the Review Phase to assess student understanding of strategic skill knowledge. (2) The more effective teachers included interaction sequences in both Guided and Recitation Practice phases in which elicitations were posed in patterns according to how teachers wanted students to reason through skill use to obtain answers to practice examples. (3) Sequences in which teachers used elicitations to guide assistance interactions with students were most often those which were extended because students responded incorrectly. These were scattered throughout all lesson phases, particularly Guided and Recitation Practice. WW Research Question 3 compared how the more and less effective teacher groups structured skill lessons into phases and then positioned sequences, elicitations and eval- uation elements with the various characteristics of interest to this study within those phases. As clearly shown by the complexity of the tables and figures included in this sec- tion and visually illustrated by the lesson profiles con- structed for each lesson (see samples in Appendix F), this analysis represented consideration of skill lessons at a level of depth and specificity not tapped when frequency information was aggregated at the overall lesson level. 291 The results of the positioning analysis will be summa- rized by highlighting five characterizations of lesson phases for the two teacher groups. Each characterization summarized below integrates patterns in the frequency data reported for the component questions of Research Question 3 with patterns observed during the qualitative profile analysis described in Chapter III. First, the lessons of all twelve teachers contained distinct lesson sections for teacher-led practice with feed- back statements, usually in the second half of each lesson, during which high numbers of elicitations were posed. The six more effective teachers, however, preceded this with a more in-depth opportunity for teacher-assisted practice that included elaborations of how successfully students were using strategies to construct their answers, as well as simple feedback certifying correctness. There was an over- all absence of in-depth practice with process elaboration in the lessons of less effective teachers. Interestingly, some of the lessons of several less effective teachers did include a phase identified as Guided Practice but the inclu- sion of an identifiable phase of this kind lack the consis- tency shown in the more effective teacher lessons. For the six less effective teachers, elaborations generally con- sisted of repetitions of student responses, comments on example content and/or restatements of rules and defini- tions. 292 Second, the interaction sequences in the Guided Prac- tice and Recitation Practice phases of the lessons of the six more effective teachers were more varied in their func- tional focus than those of the less effective teachers in four ways: (a) The more effective teachers appeared to more directly elicit process information about how students were using the skill to answer example items than the less effective teachers. Lengthy extended sequences of ques- tions, student responses and teacher elaborations charac- terized the guided practice for these teachers. They asked students to explain how they arrived at product answers regardless of whether a given product answer was correct or incorrect, thus communicating accountability for being consciously aware of how to perform the skill. (b) Another interesting pattern in the Guided Practice interaction sequence data was that the more effective teachers were more likely to initiate extended interaction sequences regardless of correctness or incorrectness of student responses, while extended sequences in the less effective teachers' lessons tended to occur when a student response was incorrect and in need of repair. Extended sequences occurred most often in the lessons of less effec- tive teachers when a student incorrectly responded to a product question. Otherwise, practice interaction sequences tended to be evenly paced series of teacher question-student response-teacher feedback sequences emphasizing the accuracy 293 of product responses or use of procedures for recording answers. (c) The teachers in both groups varied the student respondent composition of extended sequences between interactions with a single student and interaction with multiple students. There was some evidence to suggest greater tendency on the part of the six more effective teachers to conduct extended interaction sequences following acceptance of a student's response with that individual student during guided practice, while the extended sequences of the six less effective teachers tended to involve several students per single extended sequence. (d) The lessons of the more effective teachers con- tained extended sequences, mainly during presentations and reviews, that focused on the usefulness of the skill in real text reading situations students encountered daily. Teacher questions in these sequences focused students on conditional knowledge about the skill-~the kinds of reading experiences they would encounter where knowing how to use the skill would help them solve text blockage problems. The more effective teachers seemed to include sequences reviewing skill usefulness at transition points in the lesson, most often coupled with reviews of important procedural skill information. Questions about skill usefulness were randomly inserted, if at all, in the lessons of the less effective teachers. 294 Third, the six effective teachers tended to spend the first few minutes of lessons firmly introducing the topic of the lesson and how the lesson would proceed (with minimal questioning of students) compared to later stages of the lesson. They also used this phase to question students about prior skills they had learned which related to the current lesson topic. The less effective teachers typically used introductory time to manage the logistics of dis- tributing materials or locating workbook pages. Fourth, five of the six more effective teachers included a monologue (or interactive monologue) presentation phase in their lessons in which they modeled a strategy for performing the skill prior to initiating questioning of students. The information about the skill and an explan- ation of how to do it gave the effective teachers a basis for asking students process questions about how they used the skill for answering practice examples, for posing elicitations in sequences asking how students figured out their answers, and for reiterating key concepts about the skill in elaborations after student responses. Lesson phases for the less effective teachers generally were associated with changes in tasks on worksheets. The focus on prepared practice tasks seemed to influence the content of informational presentations: that is, presentations in the less effective teacher lessons centered around defining skill terms encountered in practice activities or clarifying the task directions associated with practice activities. 295 Fifth, the more effective teachers appeared to more often initiate reviews, either between phases and/or during lesson closure, of the skill concepts being taught. These reviews were consistently structured as extended interaction sequences and provided the opportunity to refocus students on the skill concepts while assessing understanding usually following guided practice or recitation practice segments, or as part of lesson closure. Review segments were infre- quently identified in the lessons of the less effective teachers. Summary of Chapter IV The purpose of this chapter was to present the major findings of the study in order to illuminate the role of teacher questioning behaviors during reading instruction, especially that intended to teach reading skills. Kinds of questioning-response-feedback sequences characterizing read- ing skill lessons were identified and compared for six more effective and six less effective fifth grade teachers of low reading groups. Interaction sequences in twenty-six more effective teachers' skill lessons and twenty-five less effective teachers' lessons were examined to characterize teachers' questioning patterns according to the following: (1) elicitation type (process-, product- or academic proce- dure-orientation); (2) the informational content focus of sequences, including what the teacher initiated as topic for the sequence as well as the content focus of evaluative 296 responses to student responses; (3) the instructional sequences' content knowledge orientation--declarative, con- ditional, and procedural, or knowledge about the skill in terms of "what", nwhy", and nhow to"; (4) the structural organization of instructional sequences, particularly focused on those involving the teachers' verbal interactions with students; (5) the inferred instructional purpose (i.e., assessment or assistance) of elicitations within sequences; and (6) positioning of interaction sequences and component discourse elements within identified skill lesson phases. Statistical tests of significance were performed on the lesson-level frequency data as a means of examining the strength of differences observed between the two teacher groups. For overall lesson variables, significant differ- ences between groups were found for amount of teacher talk and frequency of evaluations to student responses. Trends toward significance were reported for lesson length (in real time and transcript lines). Differences in overall sequence and elicitation frequencies were not significant. Tests for significant differences between groups on the coded vari- ables indicated that there were strong significant within subjects main effects for categories on the different coded dimensions. There were few statistically significant main effect differences between teacher groups or Group x Category interactions. There were, however, trends reported for some of the analyses suggesting possible differences given a larger 297 sample size. Trends were noted in the following areas: (a) a Group by Category interaction for sequence topical information content; (b) a Group by Category interaction for the informational content of teachers' evaluations of student responses; and (c) a between groups main effect for differences in evaluation structural forms. While frequency data were used to examine the position- ing of variables within lesson phases, it was beyond the scOpe of this study to apply statistical tests for differences at this level of specificity at this time. The phase analysis was successful in pinpointing areas which would be important within-lesson sites for future quantita- tive analyses of questioning variables. Findings reported for positioning reflected the combined support of frequency information with qualitatively-identified recurring interac- tion patterns in sequences in the lesson transcripts. The combined qualitative and quantitative results of the study support the following observations about the role of questioning in low group skill lessons. Questioning seems instructionally more effective when it explicitly focuses on surfacing reading processes and less on academic management concerns. To be more effective in positively affecting student metacognitive awareness and achievement, it appears that teacher elicitations in interaction sequences are frequent 298 but multidimensional in terms of content, form and purpose characteristics. The study demonstrated that elicitations appear to take on different lesson functions depending on what the teacher is trying to accomplish within a lesson phase. These data indicated much greater elicitation multidimensionality within the skill lesson's phases of the more effective teachers. This was particularly notable in terms of how they conducted guided practice, recitation practice and periodic reviews. The transcript analysis of more and less effective teachers' skill lessons revealed characteristics of interaction patterns that converge to suggest that elicitations may be used more effectively as instructional devices when teachers of low reading groups accomplish the following: (a) combine elicitations with assessment and assist- ance functions explicitly focused on procedural and conditional knowledge, as well as declarative knowledge of skill information; (b) directly request student responses that describe information about the skill, its usefulness and its features, as well as show ability to use skill knowledge in practice examples; (c) follow up requests for correct use of the skill (i.e., product outcomes) with probes directing them to explain those outcomes via strategies used (i.e., process outcomes); and 299 (d) provide gradually diminishing, structured guidance to students in extended interaction sequences to help then in achieve eventual self-regulation of strategic thinking to use when employing skill knowledge for text-related problem solving. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This dissertation investigated the teacher questioning element of teacher-student instructional interactions in the reading skill lessons of more effective and less effective fifth grade teachers of low reading groups. This chapter summarizes the study; offers conclusions and recommen- dations about the role of teacher questioning based on the findings; suggests implications for researchers, teacher educators and practitioners; and closes with a final word about questioning. Summary of the Study This study was designed to provide greater understand- ing of the role of teacher questioning during reading instruction. It was based on the premise that teacher ques- tioning has a crucial role in building a concept of instruc- tional interaction that centers on the importance of assisting young readers in developing awareness of them- selves as strategists. The goal was to gain insight into the functional role of teacher questioning practices in skill instruction by descriptively comparing the elicitation patterns of interaction sequences in lessons taught by two contrasting teacher groups. The research examined questioning patterns in the context of fifty-one 300 301 low-group skill lessons taught by six more effective and six less effective fifth grade teachers. The twelve teachers selected for this study were chosen from the twenty-two classroom teachers who participated in the Teacher Explanation Study at Michigan State University during the 1982-83 academic year. Criteria for teacher selection consisted of ranked effectiveness in producing student reading achievement growth and awareness of instruc- tional outcomes. The study used descriptive methods which combined quan- titative and qualitative procedures for data collection and analysis to identify and characterize similarities and dif- ferences in the characteristics of instructional interaction sequences and their component discourse elements, i.e., teacher elicitations and evaluations. The data examined were prepared transcripts and audiotapes of twenty-six more effective teacher lessons and twenty-five less effective teacher lessons. Data collected from each teacher's lesson transcripts were analyzed in terms of the overall lesson frequency and lesson phase placement of sequence and discourse elements according to categories developed for informational content, structural form, cognitive knowledge focus, and instruc- tional purpose. The findings for teachers in each effec- tiveness group were aggregated into an average lesson pro- file for each group. These profiles were compared using 302 statistical tests for differences and descriptions of observed qualitative group patterns. While tests for differences showed few between group significant differences, there were trends in the compara- tive data approaching significance. Moreover, when quanti- tative findings were examined in conjunction with group patterns established from qualitative transcript analyses, systematic differences were indicated in how teachers in the two groups conducted skill instruction in terms of sequence positioning within lesson phases, interaction sequence structural formats, and content foci. Elicitation frequency supported the numerous studies indicating teachers' reliance on questioning during reading lessons. Further, emphasis on eliciting answers to practice examples and responses to academic management ques- tions and directions was high for both groups, particularly for the less effective teachers. However, when frequency was combined with positioning to characterize lesson inter- actions, potentially important differences in how question- ing was used to elicit student responses emerged from the data. The differences indicate four major areas of findings from the study. First, the phase positioning of sequences with elicitations of different types is a cue to the function of questioning in skill lessons. Second, elicitation sequences, providing practice opportunities to use the skill, were preceded in more effective lessons by an 303 explicit presentation of information. This presentation was often in the form of a modeled explanation. Third, although assessment is their main instructional purpose, elicitations do perform an assistance role in modeling how to use skills strategically and in redirecting student attention to important skill task features. Assistance of this kind particularly occurs in a guided practice phase following an explicit presentation. Finally, more effective assessment questioning goes beyond declarative knowledge in periodic review phases by focusing on procedural and conditional skill knowledge. Combined findings indicated that the more effective teachers did the following in their skill lessons: (1) gave lesson phases more definite focus on the skill being taught by showing planful positioning of elicitation sequences that were structured differentially to serve a variety of assessment and assistance purposes; (2) elicited many student responses and kept them focused primarily on the intended learning outcome in terms of skill information needed to use the skill as a strategy for solving text-based reading problems; 7 (3) elicited process information from students follow- ing product responses to keep student attention focused on "how to do it" versus simply "getting the correct answer"; these teachers created 304 Opportunities for students to gain procedural, as well as declarative, skill knowledge; (4) were more likely to extend sequences with indi- vidual students following their provision of a correct response to probe for procedural informa- tion about how answers were obtained; (5) involved students in systematic, extended sequences of elicitations, student responses and evaluation, following accepted as well as incor- rect responses, which allowed students to verbally practice ways of logically thinking their way through using skills to solve text-based problems; (6) incorporated periodic review phases to assess student understanding of declarative, procedural and conditional skill knowledge and refocus stu- dents' attention on important skill features; and (7) presented information and reviewed students' con- ceptualizations of skill usefulness in real read- ing situations as a way of establishing lesson relevancy. Conclusions and Recommendations This section presents the major conclusions drawn from the findings and offers recommendations for further analyses of this kind. Based on the findings described in Chapter IV, conclusions focus on combining those results to 305 answer the study's major question, "What is the functional role of teacher questioning during reading skill instruction?" General observations about teacher question- ing and the success of the study's design in surfacing characteristics of questioning relative to its instructional role are offered. The findings indicated several areas of distinct and potential differences in how the more effective and less effective teachers used questioning during reading skill lessons when teaching low group readers. These are considered below, first as conclusions based on overall lesson characteristics and then as conclusions based on specific characteristics of sequence discourse elements. WWW Questioning The first research question investigated overall lesson characteristics (i.e., length measures, amount of teacher talk; frequency of sequences, elicitations and evaluations) for similarities and differences between the more effective and less effective teacher groups. The results indicate support for the conclusions repeatedly reached by other researchers (e.g., Durkin, 1978-79; Duffy & McIntyre, 1982; Guszak, 1967; Rare & Pulliam, 1980) that teachers question frequently during reading lessons. This appears to apply to skill lessons, as well as story comprehension lessons. The comparison of mean sequence and elicitation frequencies for the two groups did not reach significance although the more 306 effective teachers elicited student responses more often in slightly less numbers of instructional sequences. When sequence and elicitation frequency data are com- pared to lesson length information, both in terms of average timed lesson length and number of lesson transcript lines, it appears that there is "something" going on in the lessons of the more effective teachers that indicates differences in discourse patterns. The higher mean number of elicitations posed by the more effective teachers could be viewed as I logical given the longer average lesson length as compared to the less effective teacher group. Yet the data showed that the less effective teachers engaged students in more instructional sequences despite shorter lessons and less teacher talk. This suggests that the more effective teachers engaged students in more sustained interactions for processing particular topical information during the lesson. The significant difference between groups in frequency of evaluation elements may be the most visible indicator of more sustained teacher-student interactions in lesson sequences. The more effective teachers were more verbal in terms of supplying feedback to student responses to elicita- tions in extended sequences. Evidence available in the findings related to general lesson characteristics suggests that even at a global level there may be noteworthy indicators of how teachers conduct their skill instruction. Useful global metrics in this study were elicitations and sequences per minute, 307 elicitations per transcript line and per line of teacher talk, and elicitations per sequence. Additionally, the importance of considering "both ends" of the teacher talk in interactions--i.e., evaluations as well as elicitations, as components of questioning behaviors in sequences received support at the overall lesson level. Simply viewing questioning in terms of overall elicitation frequency was not, however, sufficient to characterize between group differences. WWW WW The second major question investigated by this research compared the sequences, elicitations and evaluation elements in the average skill lessons of the two teacher groups on several descriptive dimensions. The third major question explored the placement of sequences, elicitations and evalu- ations with different characteristics within the lesson phase structure. The purpose here was to obtain information that could be combined to characterize teacher questioning in terms of aspects related to the following: (1) how elicitations were structurally combined to produce interaction sequences; (2) the kinds of content information conveyed through elicitations during those sequences; and (3) how the nature of the instructional activity being pursued by the teacher, through elicitations during an interaction sequence positioned during a particular phase of 308 the lesson, might potentially affect messages communicated to student participants about reading skills. The results of the analyses for kinds of elicitations showed a significant main effect for categorical differences. Although several categories of elicitations were "hidden" in the Other category, the four elicitation types selected for investigation seemed to capture similari- ties and differences in skill lesson elicitation use by teachers in the two groups. Product elicitations were by far most often employed by teachers in both groups--a finding that supports the empha- sis attributed to lower levels of questions found in prior studies (Durkin, 1978-79; Guszak, 1967). The high rate of academic management elicitations supports Duffy 6 McIntyre's (1982) observation that direction-giving is a prevalent role for questioning in reading lessons. The more effective group's lesser emphasis on academic management seemed to be counter balanced by a trend for greater inclusion of process and usefulness elicitations in lessons. The inclusion of the last two kinds of elicitations added important variety to the more effective teachers' questioning repertoire in terms of signalling to students additional aspects of skill knowledge that were important. Interestingly, the qualitative patterns of information stressed by the more effective teacher group in various lesson phases indicated that the use of process and useful- ness elicitations was more likely if the teacher modeled 309 procedures for how to use the skill during the Presentation phase(s) of the lesson. Process elicitations were often employed as follow-ups to product questions during practice phases and often directly used to elicit student explana- tions of how to perform skill strategies during review phases. Usefulness elicitations seemed to stand out in interaction sequences devoted exclusively to assessing students' understanding of the relevancy of skill information to their own reading. Despite proportionally small numbers of these elicita- tions in more effective teacher lessons, it remains to be seen how many is "enough" to allow adequate attention to procedural and conditional knowledge about reading skills. Some teachers in the less effective group did employ process questioning, but on an intermittent basis. Although not systematically investigated by this study, the kinds of responses less effective teachers received from students to process elicitations were "right answer" oriented. Perhaps the expectations established over time for responding to teacher elicitations that vary from established patterns is not easily accomplished without repeated exposure that creates new response expectations. As noted by Dillon (1982a), cognitive correspondence between teacher questions and student responses cannot be assumed. Usefulness elicitations were the elicitation type that distinguished the two teacher groups for its presence or absence. Although the need to include conditional 310 information about reading skills is receiving current theoretical attention (cf., Duffy 3 Roehler, et. al., 1986b; Johnston, 1985; Paris, et al., 1983; Winne, 1985), how this is can be most effectively done in reading lessons remains to be firmly established. In these lessons, it appears that addressing usefulness through elicitations, which actively involve students in thinking of relevant situations in their own experiences for skill use, was an important means of justification for why it was worth it to pay attention during the lesson. The topical information content analyses (for both overall sequence and evaluation element content) suggest that use of a broader variety of elicitation types was associated with greater overall explicit content focus on skill information versus the kind of indirect skill content focus implied through conducting practice with examples. Perhaps more importantly, it appears that even when the more effective teachers elicited responses focused on answers to practice examples, there was a trend in their evaluations to explicitly redirect student attention to skill information in addition to certifying correctness of the student's ability to demonstrate skill use. This was particularly likely if the teacher had previously provided an explicit presentation about how to perform the skill (i.e., procedural knowledge). This finding suggests that one role of teacher elicitations may be to set up opportunities in lessons subsequent to explicit presentations in order to 311 provide reinforcement, elaborating information about how to perform skills. In this sense, elicitations may be the major mediator in the gradual transfer of responsibility (Pearson, 1984) for procedural knowledge from teacher to students. Additionally, in terms of the structural form of evalu- ations, both teacher groups were roughly even in their use of elicitations as feedback in the form of probes for more information. The qualitative analysis of patterns suggested that these probes often served as substitutes for what would otherwise be negative feedback when a student answered incorrectly or inappropriately. Thus, although often neutral in content, elicitations as evaluations were usually clear signals to students that they had somehow "missed the mark." When the results obtained for sequence structural form are figured in to the differential characterization of interaction sequences for the two teacher groups, it is possible to understand how content foci would influence the structuring of teacher-student interaction sequences. The findings of the structural form analysis were strongly suggestive of systematic differences between teacher groups and support qualitative patterns observed in the data that show the more effective teachers extending interactions beyond answers to practice examples to assess student understanding of how those answers were procedurally obtained. In these situations probes for skill-process 312 information tended to follow example-product elicitations in extended sequences. Farrar (1983) also observed that aspects of question form in literature lessons seem to affect sequence length. How patterns of elicitation types that might be associated with particular sequence forms appears to offer another site for follow-up research. A teacher's plan to focus student attention on skill information throughout the lesson would seem to necessitate increased use of sequence extensions beyond the basic three-part interaction form. This conclusion seems to be borne out in the trend shown by the more effective teachers to extend interactions following acceptance of a student's response, as well as when responses were not accepted. The finding that teachers in both groups favored sequence extensions involving multiple student participants is probably more reflective of the need to sustain the active involvement of all group members in the lesson for management reasons. Interestingly, single student exten- sions were most prevalent for both groups during the Recita- tion Practice phase—-that point in the lesson where rhythmic lesson pacing had typically been established because there was greater likelihood that students would respond correctly to practice examples. At this point, extending sequences with a single student would not be as costly in terms of time and attention as it appeared to be when extensions followed incorrect responses. Clearly, teachers face trade- offs during skill lessons between allowing individuals 313 Opportunities to demonstrate understanding and maintaining group attention. This study supports the need for addi- tional study in the area of extended interaction sequences in lesson practice phases. The picture of skill instruction questioning practices that begins to emerge after accounting for sequence informa- tional content and structural form, coupled with elicitation types, suggests two prevalent patterns to teacher-student interaction. 0n the one hand, the less effective teachers relied more on product elicitations to establish smooth pacing during answer recitation. In fact, the practice of "telegraphing" elicitations (i.e., communicating elicitation content by simply calling a student by name or verbally signalling elicitations with rising intonation on a single word) after response expectations were established was a device found with greater regularity in less effective teachers' lessons. In these lessons, incorrect student responses requiring sequence extensions were clearly disrup- tive of lesson flow. While the more effective teachers also employed the recitation format to cover large numbers of practice examples efficiently, the transition between teacher-guided practice and recitation practice was less clear-cut. The reason for this seemed to lie in the kinds of elaborated evaluations favored by the more effective teachers. Recita- tions were regularly preceded by irregularly paced, extended interactions that showed more overt guidance in 314 understanding how answers were obtained. Recitations in the more effective teacher group's lessons were also mixed with extensions initiated by teachers following correct student responses, as well as when incorrect student responses required extensions for answer clarification. When extensions were initiated by these teachers following correct responses, the content focus of evaluations seemed to shift from the informational content Of the practice example to skill information. For example, if a practice example in a main idea lesson focused on animals that hibernate, the teacher's evaluative comment would focus on some aspect of information about finding main ideas rather than on hibernating animals. Rosenshine (1983) noted that the inclusion of "guided practice" was an important attribute of effective skill instruction. His description of what constitutes guidance, however, corresponded to what was identified in this study as recitation--i.e., fast-paced eliciting of correct student responses. From the evidence provided by this study, it appears that there are subtle nuances that distinguish teacher guidance during skill practice that warrant further investigation. Simply telling teachers to provide guided practice does not clarify what effective guidance might entail especially when they must resolve the instructional tension created by trying to balance smoothly-paced interac- tions with Opportunities for in-depth student responses. 315 Regarding the analysis of instructional purpose categories, the findings overall clearly supported assess- ment as a primary role of teacher questioning in skill lessons. The breakdown of assessment and assistance pur- poses into distinctive subcategories suggested two patterns of differences between how teachers in the more and less effective groups fulfilled those purposes when eliciting responses from students. First, the findings suggest that the more effective teachers do more in their instructional assessment than simply monitor students' ability to produce correct answers to example items or memorized definitions of skill terms. They also directly assess students' abilities to explain how they used skill information to get those answers. In other words, the more effective teachers in this study appeared equally interested in assessing students' procedural knowledge, as well as declarative knowledge. In the context of teacher-student interactions, one must consider how the topics chosen by teachers for assess- ment may in fact provide a form of instructional assistance by conveying to students information about what the teacher sees as important about learning reading skills. Although certainly an indirect form of assistance, teacher elicita- tions seemed to communicate important focusing information to students about what they should be listening to when the teacher presents information or elaborates upon student responses. This finding is consistent with Wixson's (l983b) 316 findings about questioning in text-based comprehension lessons. In these data, there was a great deal of consistency observed among teachers in both groups in terms of the focus of their explanatory monologues and the kind of information they subsequently assessed. The less effective teachers focused monologue sequences on defining terms, as well as the logistics of academic task management. Their elicitations subsequently supported these foci by assessing students' memory for definitions and knowledge of how to complete independent practice tasks. The more effective teachers focused monologue sequence content on procedural and conditional information about skills and then assessed students' ability to not only use that information, but to explain how they used it. These teachers appeared interested in gauging their success at transferring both kinds of skill knowledge by directly assessing student awareness. Second, the patterns of differences between the two teacher groups in assistance categories encourage specu- lation about when teacher questioning provides students with assistance. For both groups the largest single use of elicitations for assistance was in the area of directing students in how to complete tasks and practice activities. The more effective teachers also provided small amounts of assistance through elicitations in two additional ways. They helped bring to awareness students' prior knowledge of 317 skill information in preparation for acquiring new information during the lesson. And they arranged elicitations during guided practice in an order that matched their explanation of information about how to perform the skill. The kind of assistance provided by teachers who registered sequences in the latter category was use of elicitations as a model students could follow to develOp a systematic, self-questioning strategy for how to perform skills independently. Evidence for this conclusion is provided by teachers' elaborations during these interactions which translated student product responses into character- izations of the process they demonstrated to obtain those answers. The findings from this study indicate that disentang- ling the assessment and assistance roles of teacher questioning is not easy. The issue of teacher intention- ality clearly is a factor here--one not addressed within the scope of the present research. Nevertheless, this study identified a number of different ways that both more and less effective teachers used elicitations for assistance, as well as assessment. The instructional uses of elicitations are not cleanly categorized into compartments of isolated function (Heap, 1982). While this study attempted to explore multifunctionality by characterizing multiple dimensions of discourse elements, much work clearly remains to be done in developing research procedures for this purpose. For example, it is likely that to really get at 318 aspects of multifunctionality, use of video-taped lesson records would allow greater examination of the nonverbal behaviors accompanying teacher questioning (Erickson G Shultz, 1982). Importantly, the sequence, rather than the individual elicitation, conveyed instructional function in this study. Mehan's (1979a) characterization of the basic, simple three-part sequence unit provided a helpful starting point for this investigation, and the results of this study basically supported its use in skill lessons, particularly in assessment-focused recitations. However, in the lessons analyzed here, extended sequences were structurally distinct forms of interaction where elicitations and evaluation elements worked together to do more than string simple sequences together. Sequence extensions were the structural form needed for elicitations to provide assistance focused on the processes of skill use. An important next step in this research will be to identify and analyze simple and extended sequences in other kinds of reading lessons and compare them to the kinds of sequence patterns observed here for skill lessons. W W Based on the results of this investigation, the following list synthesizes the conclusions about roles of questioning during low-group skill lessons. These characterizations primarily reflect the combined importance 319 of positioning and instructional purpose when distinguishing more from less effective skill instruction. In low group skill instruction, teacher questioning --conveys and reinforces important lesson content; --communicates expectations for acceptable responses; --establishes routines for practice; --structures practice; --focuses student attention on salient information about reading skills; --conveys a model for self-questioning; --sets up meaningful Opportunities for elaborating student responses; --softens negative teacher criticism of incorrect student responses; --assesses student understanding as well as correct answers; --mediates the transfer of responsibility for procedural and conditional skill knowledge; --establishes across lesson phases a "lesson history" that either communicates to students "I'm here to help you and then let you try it" or "I'm here to test you and see what you know". In other words, teacher questioning has many roles that can contribute importantly to the provision of more effective skill instruction. In this study, the more effective teachers demonstrated that to develop students who are strategists when they read requires teachers who are strategists when they use questions. 320 Implications In this study, the roles of teacher questioning during reading skill instruction highlight the complexity of effective questioning behaviors during instructional episodes in reading. The findings suggest implications for researchers, and teacher educators and teachers. Wuhan: This study has two major implications for researchers interested in investigations of instructional processes in reading. First, this study demonstrates that researchers need to be careful in generalizing the role of teacher questioning behaviors in reading instruction across types of lessons. The classification systems developed and used to study teacher questioning during story-based comprehension lessons focus on describing cognitive levels of content extracted from the text. This represents a different task orientation than that intended in skill lessons. By definition, skill lessons intend for teachers to more directly and selectively teach readers the process information related to the many skills needed to read text successfully. Elicitations function to allow for students' demonstrations of understanding of how a particular skill works and how to manipulate it in a variety of structured examples. Rarely are these kinds of lessons conducted within the context of a single, unified piece of text. 321 Rather, the object is to provide the learner with multiple and varied practice Opportunities to directly manipulate a reading skill prior to text application. When used effectively, teachers' elicitations in skill lessons can facilitate student access to procedural, declarative and conditional information about the component skills of reading. When taught effectively, skill lessons present unique opportunities to directly help students become consciously aware of how they perform the skills they use when reading continuous text and how to use skills as strategies for solving comprehension problems. Thus, while ultimately both kinds of lessons are designed to promote better reading comprehension, they use teacher questioning in distinctly different ways. It is important that researchers be able to characterize those differences as precisely as possible to better understand how skill lessons and story-based lessons work together in classroom reading instruction. At a more practical level, instructional researchers within the reading research community need to acknowledge that, regardless of whether they are preferred as the means of teaching students the intricacies of reading processes, skill lessons appear to be here to stay--particularly for low group readers. Much as the basal story lesson format has become the ritualistic group lesson for average and above average readers, so has the isolated skills lesson become the ritualistic group lesson for low group readers. 322 At present these lessons function as settings where teachers use questioning mostly to monitor answers to workbook practice exercises. An on-going focus of reading research should be to better understand the pedagogy Of skill instruction with an eye toward designing lessons to better serve low group readers by incorporating questioning that encourages cognitive mediation. Second, researchers interested in understanding how instructional interactions promote student learning should broaden the commonly accepted definition of the term, "ques- tion," from interrogatives to include the variety of lin- guistic discourse forms used by teachers to elicit responses from students during instructional interactions. This would allow instructional processes research to better character- ize the role of questioning as it occurs for actual teachers in naturally occurring classroom situations. Broadening classroom questioning to include declarative and imperative, as well as interrogative, discourse structures when examining elicitations would allow for greater flexibility in considering the functions of the possible variations of teacher question-student response-teacher feedback extended sequences. Teasing out the multiple functions of inter- action sequences would aid in refining and sharpening conceptions of what constitutes assessment versus assistance questioning during instruction. Broadening definitions has methodological implications, however. Modifications in how lesson data for questioning 323 studies are collected and analyzed continue to be problem- atic. At present the study of classroom questioning seems to be an either/or proposition in terms of choosing between the use of quantitative collection and analysis methods with larger teacher samples and the use of more contextually sensitive qualitative methods with limited numbers of teach- ers. This study tried to demonstrate how aspects from both sides of the methodological coin could be used together to simultaneously consider frequency, content and positioning factors of questioning practices for a moderately-sized teacher sample. The results suggest that adaptations of the sociolinguistic, ethnographic methodological models developed by Mehan (1979a) and others (e.g., Erickson & Shultz, 1982; Green a Wallat, 1981) for studying classroom interactions cam be made which allow for study of larger sample sizes than those traditionally associated with ethnographic research. W In the area of teacher education and teaching, this study provides comparisons of how teachers, selected on the basis of their effectiveness in promoting growth in student reading achievement and awareness, differentially used eli- citations to conduct instructional interactions when the outcome is acquisitions of basic skills. The findings sug- gest that there are important context-specific influences that necessitate caution in recommending prescriptions for better questioning based on recent process-product findings 324 (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1985). While elicitation frequency may be important, the differences between the two teacher groups in terms of sequence content foci and phase positioning indicate that there are many subtle, qualitative complexities to teacher questioning that temper the decep- tive simplicity of implementing more effective instructional practices. Four implications of these findings for teacher education and classroom practices are offered. First, rather than focusing on training perspective and in-service teachers to ask both higher and lower level cog- nitive questions, teacher educators should be assisting teachers in monitoring the overall sequences of elicitations and responses they construct in interactions with students. The lesson profiles of the more effective teachers in this study suggested teacher awareness of what Guthrie (1985) referred to as lesson "orchestration" in terms of having a "plan" for how skill lessons could accomplish goals related to the gradual transfer of responsibility for skill knowledge from teacher to student. In the lessons of these teachers, interaction sequences with different content foci, positioned in different lesson phases, seemed to be more balanced to serve diverse instructional purposes. Creating heightened teacher awareness of how to be instructionally strategic in the positioning of their elicitations in lessons and within sequences seems to be an important complement to asking lots of questions. 325 Second, prospective teachers need to be educated to effectively combine assessment and assistance roles for questioning, as well as to use elicitations to assess for strategic understanding, as well as correct answers. They should be encouraged to broaden their conceptions about what kind of student outcomes are desirable in reading skill instruction and be shown how to organize extended inter- action sequences with students that integrate product, process and academic management elements. These findings suggest that more effective teachers do use questioning to assist students in making links between their prior knowledge of how skills are used and new information presented in the lesson. Third, university courses in reading for pre-service teachers should include instruction in how to task analyze reading skills to develOp strategies that are process focused, and then develOp kinds of questions that will be successful in surfacing those strategies once they are taught. Strategy-centered reviews, using elicitations to direct student thinking about their role as active rather than passive readers, appear to be an important component of an effective skill lesson based of the findings of this study. Reviews, when interspersed with guided practice opportunities to use the skill, can help teachers sustain the lesson focus on important skill information. Learning how to place interactive reviews in lessons would assist teachers in developing an understanding Of how their 326 questioning behaviors help establish student accountability for thinking about skills and how to use them. Finally, the importance of eliciting responses from children that encourage extended verbalizations (rather than single word answers) should be stressed in preparing teachers to provide strategy instruction in reading. All questions ask for answers. Thoughtful answers can be provided, but only if a relevant schema exists, is rich enough, and can be accessed. In the case of low group readers, all three conditions are problematic. They may not have a schema, or the schema may be narrow or inaccurate. If they do possess the appropriate schema, they may not be aware of how to access it in the service of problem-solving. Both situations place responsibility on the teacher to provide assistance in the form of explicit verbal guidance to help students learn new information or develop process skills which can be used as needed to acquire knowledge from text. The content and extent of that assistance is, in part, determined by what the teacher finds out about the state of students' existing schema through assessment. Thus, it follows that lesson effectiveness can be improved through the orchestrated interplay of instructional assistance and assessment. Developing more effective questioning patterns in reading lessons is one way to serve both of these com- ponents. This study represents a start in one promising direction in which research can move to enhance knowledge 327 and understanding of the instructional role of teacher questioning behaviors. A Final Word This dissertation was undertaken to investigate whether teacher questioning in reading instructional interactions consists merely of assessing informational content. The findings suggest it is unlikely that readers (particularly low group readers) learn to make sense out of text solely by interactions that assess their ability to recall passage content or that focus on the accuracy of their answers in practice materials. The results of this study indicate that questioning patterns associated with more effective skill instruction involve much more than eliciting accurate answers to practice examples. In particular, more effective instruc- tional assessment involves three elements--namely, deter- mining students' awareness of what cognitive skills they are employing, how they are employing these skills, and any. Despite the predominance of assessment questioning, the evidence suggests that more effective teachers position elicitations, strategically, in the flow of instructional interactions, to assist students' acquisition of procedural knowledge. More effective teachers thus help students become more metacognitively aware of skill knowledge--which leads to improved comprehension. In sum, findings from this 328 research support a view of effective instruction such that teacher elicitations function as pedagogical devices to both directly and indirectly assist as well as assess student learning. REFERENCES REFERENCES Allington, R. L. (1983). Reading instruction provided readers of different abilities. Elgmentanx_§ghggl flannel. 8.3. 548-553- Anderson, L. M. (1981a). Short-term student responses to classroom instruction. WI. 8.2. Anderson, L. M. (1981b). Wm WWW pngggsslng (Research Series No. 102). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M. & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. W. 1.9. 193-223. Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), W221: (pp. 255—291). New York: Longman. Andre, T. (1984). Classroom reviews: Questions and reading. WM. 5. 3-5. Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Beyigw W. 5.9. 280-318. Atwell, M. A. and Rhodes, L. K. (1984). Strategy lessons as alternatives to skill lessons in reading. lgnnnal_gf Reading. 21. 700-705. Au, K. H. (1979). Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children. Ih§_Beading_Ieagh§L, 3.2, 677-679. Au, K. H. a Mason, J. M. (1983). Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights. W. 6. 145-168. 329 330 AU. K H. & Mason. J. M. (1982). A_micccethnoz£anhic -oo o- g o q o *‘ can ‘._0 o o.’ Rational§_and_nzcccduces. (Tech. Report No. 237) Urbana-Champaign, Ill: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Au, K. H. G Mason (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Raadins_ficseanch_fluaztcnlx. 11. 115-152. Baker, L. G Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil G P. Mosenthal (Eds.). flandbook_cf_neadins_neseanch (PP. 353-394). New York: Longman. Barrett, T. C. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In R. Smith G T. C. Barrett (Eds. ), Lh§_middlc_snadss (pp 47- 60). Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Bean, T. W. (1985). Classroom questioning strategies: Directions for applied research. In A. C. Graesser G J. 8. Black (Eds.), (pp. 335-358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged--What we have learned from field research. flaLiand_fiducational_ficxicn. 41. 518-543. Becker, W. C. G Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of Follow Through: The later effects of the direct instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades. Amenigan Educaticnal.ficseanch_lcunnal..19. 75-92. Bereiter, C. (1986). The reading comprehension lesson: A commentary on Heap's ethnomethodological analysis. Curriculum_lnguirx. 16. 65-74. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. G Krahwohl, D. R. (Eds.), (1956). Iaxcncmx_cf New York: David McKay. Bloome, D. (1984). A socio-communicative perspective of formal and informal classroom reading events. In J. A. Niles G L. A. Harris(Eds.), Ghanging_penspegtiye_gn LescaLch_in_ncadinsl_lansuazs_nnocesslns_and . _ I I l’ ° (pp. 117-123). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. 331 Bloome, D. G Argumedo, B. (1985, March). leachen_auesticns ann_classLacm_tasks_in_a_finst_szade_zeadins_££2un lssssn. Paper presented at the Michigan Reading Association Annual Meeting, Grand Rapids, MI. Bloome, D. G Green, J. L. (1984). Directions in the sociolinguistic study of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil G P. Mosenthal (Eds.),.flandh22k_2£ Isadin3_zsssazsh (pp.395-421). New York: Longman. Borg, W. R. G Gall, M. D. (1979). Educational_zsssanchl_An introduction (3rd Ed.). New York: Longman. Bozsik, B. E. (1983, April). An_analxsis_of_zcsnonscs at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. . Paper presented Bourque, M. L. (1980). Specification and validation of reading skills hierarchies. Bssding_fissssnsn Quantezlx..l§. 237-267. Brainin, S. S. (1985). Mediating learning: Pedagogic issues in the improvement of cognitive functioning. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.)..Re1isw_of_nescanch_in_educaiion. Yoll_12. (pp.12l-155). Washington, D. 0.: American Educational Research Association. BrOphy, J. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. lounnal_O£_Educaticnal_£sxchclo£1. ll. 733-750. Brophy, J. (1982). How teachers influence what is taught and learned in classrooms. Ins_£1smsnssntx_§snssl Journal. 83. 1-13. BrOphy, J. G Good, T. (1972). Teacher-child dyadic interaction: A manual for coding classroom behavior. MiLLcLs_fcL_beha1iOLl_An_anthclcsx_nf_ohscnxaticn inssnnmsnss. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc. Brophy, J. G Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Ihind_handbcck c£_nss§azch_cn_teaching (pp. 328-375). New York; Macmillan. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce G W. Brewer (Eds.), (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 332 Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C. G Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: 0n training students to learn from texts. Educational_fieseaccher. 19(2). 14-21. Carnine, D. G Gersten, R. (1983). Ihs_s££ss&1xsn§ss_gf dicect_instructign_in_teachins_selected_neadins ssmsnsnsnsisn_skills. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Carnine, D., Stevens, C., Clements, J. G Kameenui, E. J. (1982). Effects of facilitative questions and practice on intermediate students' understanding of character motives. IouLnal_cf_fleadins_flehaxicc. 15. 179-190. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan. Cazden, C. B. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the Zone of Proximal DevelOpment. G2mpacatixe_flumen_§23nition. 3(1). 5-7- Cazden, C., John, V G Hymes, D. (Eds.), (1972). Ennstisns_sf lansuege_in_the_classnccm. New York: Teachers College Press. Cicourel, A. V. (1974). Some basic theoretical issues in the assessment of the child's performance in testing and classroom settings. In A. V. Cicourel, K. H. Jennings, S. H. M. Jennings, K. C. W. Leiter, R. MacKay, H. Mehan G D. R. Roth (Eds.), Lsngnsgs_nss_snd school_perfecmance (pp. 300-351). New York: Academic Press. Clark, C. M., Marx, R. W., Stayrook, N. C., Gage, N. L., Peterson, P. L. G Winne, P. H. (1979). A factorial experiment on teacher structuring, soliciting, and reacting. J2uLnal_2f_Educational_£sxcholesx. 11. Collins, A. G Smith, E. (1980). ' neadins_£2mprehensisn (Technical Report No. 182). Champaign-Urbana, ILL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Dillon, J. T. (1982a). Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response. Research.lounnal. 19. 540-551. 333 Dillon, J. T. (1982b). The multidisciplinary study of questioning. I2unnal.of.£ducat1onal_£s1cholesx. 15. 147-165. Dillon, J. T. (19820). The effects of questions in educational and other enterprises. lsnnnsl_s£ Curriculum_§tudies. 13. 127-152- Dillon, J. T. (1981a). To question and not to question during discussion: I. Questioning and discussion. 1cuLnal_of_leachen_flducaticn 32(5). 51-55. Dillon, J. T. (1981b). To question and not to question during discussion: II. Non-questioning techniques. JouLnal_cf_IeacheL_Education. 32(6). 15-20. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Rexieu_o£;£duca112nal Reseaxcb. 53. 159-199. Doyle, W. (1982). Stalking the mythical student. Elementacx_fichocl_lcunnal. 82. 529-533. Doyle, W. (1981). Research on classroom contexts. lsnnnsl O£_Ieache£_fiduca112n..32(6), 3-6. Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and students' abilities. In P. Peterson G H. Walberg (Eds.), Rss£a£9h_9n Issshing (pp. 183—209). Berkely: McCutchan. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Rexlsu_9£ Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research . 1 1911—5. (pp. 163-198). Association. Duffy, G. G. (1982a). Commentary: Response to Borko, Shavelson G Stern: There's more to instructional decision-making than the "empty classroom". Reading Research_0uarterlx. 11. 295-300. Duffy, G. G. (1982b). Fighting Off the alligators: What research in real classrooms has to say about reading instruction. lounnal_cf_fiead1ns_flehaxicr. IA. 357- 373- Duffy, G. G. (1983). From turn taking to sense making: Broadening the concept of reading teacher effectiveness. 4IOuLnal_of_Educational_ReseaLch. 16(3). 134-1390 Duffy, G. G McIntyre, L. (1982). A naturalistic study of instructional assistance in primary grade reading. Elementacx_§chocl_loucnal. 83. 15-23. 334 Duffy, G. G. G Roehler, L. R. (1982a). An analysis of the instruction in reading: Instructional research In J. A. Niles G L. A. Harris (Eds.), Nsn_1ngnizlss_1n Lead1nz_LeseaLch_and_1nstzn2112n1__1h1111:£11s1 1eanbcck_cf_the_Naticnal_fieadins_flon£enence. Rochester. NY: National Reading Conference. Duffy, G. G Roehler, L. (1982b). Commentary: The illusion of instruction. Readins_fiesearch_9uarterlx. ll. Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Book, C., Meloth, M., G Vavrus, L. (1986a). ' - fitnny. Occasional Paper No. 98. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R. G Mason, J. (1984). Comanchensi2n_1nstLuc112n1_£ensnectixes_and snggssnisns. New York: Longman. Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M. G Vavrus, L. (1986b). Conceptualizing teacher explanation. Isssning_and leacher.§duca112n 2. 197-214. Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M., Polin, R., Rackliffe, G., Tracy, A. G Vavrus, L. (in press). Developing and evaluating measures associated with strategic reading. Jgunnal Qt Beading Bshayign. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J. G Wesselman, R. (1986c). The relationship between explicit verbal explanation during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement. Ihe_Read1ns_fieseanch_0uantezlx. 21. 237- 252. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C. L., Meloth, M. S., Putnam, J . G Wesselman, R (1984, April). A_stud1_of_the_nelationsh1n_betueen_dinect ‘-. 1‘ -..:.'. 010 ‘-_o o: ‘ —.‘ “-00‘ 0‘1 the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Paper presented at Duffy, G. G. G Sherman, G. B. (1977). Sistematic_zead1nz instnuctien (2nd ed.)- New York: Harper G Row. Dunkin, M J G Biddle, B. J. (1974). The_stud1_o£_teach1ns- New York: Holt, Rinehart G Winston. Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elementary teachers do and what basal reader manuals recommend? Ihe.Read1ns_Ieacher. 31. 739-747. 335 Durkin, D. (1983). A commentary on MacGinitie's critique of Durkin's studies: "What classroom observation reveals about reading comprehension instruction" and "Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series." In L. M. Gentile, M. L. Kamil G J. S. Blanchard (Eds.), (pp. 365- 366). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. fissding Research_9uactec1x. 13. 481-533. Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationship between academic task structure and social participation structures in lessons. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed. ). Gommunica11ng_1n_1he_classzcom. New York: Academic Press. Erickson, F. G Shultz, J. (1982). Ins_ssunsslsn_as aa1ekeepeL1_S6c1a1_1ntenaction_1n_1n1ezx1ens ’ , New . - ' York: Academic Press. Erickson, F. G Shultz, J. (1981). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In J. L. Green G C. Wallat (Eds.), o . (pp. 147-160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Engelmann, S. and Carnine, D. (1982). Inssn1_s£ ° ' . New York: Irvington Publishers. Farrar, M. T. (1984). Asking better questions. In: Beadins_leacher. 36. 10-15. Farrar, M. T. (1983). Another look at oral questions for comprehension. Ihe.Read1ns_Ieacher. 36. 370-75. Fitzgerald, J. (1983). Helping readers gain self-control over reading comprehension. Ins_fissding_lsashsn, 3.6, 2149-53. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analxzin£_teach1ns_behaxier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-develOpmental inquiry. American_£sxchclczist..33. 906-911- Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Bex1eu_6£_fiducaticnal Research. 39. 707-720. 336 Gall, M. D. (1972). WWW needing. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education G Welfare, Office of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 067 650). Gall, M. D. (1983, April). Comments prepared for critique of questioning symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Gall, M. D., Ward, B. A., Berliner, D. C., Cahen, L. S., Winne, P. M., Elashoff, J. D. G Stanton, G. C. (1978). Effects of questioning techniques and recitation on student learning. Amer1ean_Edueatiena1_Researeh dermal. 15. 175-199. Gambrill, L. B. (1983). The occurrence of think-time during reading comprehension instruction. isnrnal_s£ EducaiienaLBesearcL 11(2), 77- 80. Garner, R. G Taylor, N. (1982). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of attentional assistance needs at different grade and reading proficiency levels. Wm InternatienalJuarterlx. 3 (January-March), 1-5. Gibson, E. J. (1974). Trends in perceptual development: Implications for the reading process. In A. Pick (Ed. ). MW. 6. 24— 54. Good, T. L. (19833). Classroom research: A decade of PrOgress. WW.16(3L 127-144. Good, T. (l983b). Research on classroom teaching. In L. Shulman and G. Sykes (Eds.). fiandhaeLefJeaehinum nsliey. New York: Longman. Good, T. L. (1981). Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A decade of research. Ennssnisnal Leadership. 36. 415-422. Green, J. L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), W. 19.11 1.0 (pp. 151-252). Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association. [See also Green, J. L. G Smith, D. (1983). Teaching and learning: A linguistic perSPective. Elementarrjeheolieumal. 8.3. 353-391.] 337 Green, J. L. G Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations--A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. L. Green G C. Wallat (Eds.), educatiena1_aettinsa (99.161-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gumperz. J. J. (1981). Conversational inference and classroom learning. In J. L. Green G C. Wallat (Eds.), (pp. 3-23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gumperz, J. J. G Herasimchuk, E. (1973). The conversational analysis of social meaning: A study of classroom interaction. In R. W. Shuy (Ed. ), Sssislingnisjisss Carren1_1renda_and_ereaeeets (PP. 99-134). Georgetown University Monographs in Language and Linguistics. Georgetown, VA: Georgetown University Press. Guszak, F. J. (1983). Commentary on Pearson's critique of Guszak's study: "Teacher questioning and reading." In L. M. Gentile, M. L. Kamil G J. S. Blanchard (Eds.), (pp. 283- 286L Columbus, OH: Merrill. Guszak, F. J. (1967). Teacher questioning and reading. The_3eadlne_leaeher. 21. 227-234. Guthrie, J. T. (1983). Orchestration of lessons. Research views. 1he_Readlne_Ieaeher. 31. 204-205. Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's comprehension. Bssding Researeh_Quarter11. 16. 391-417. Hansen, J. G Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. anrnal_s£_fidneasisnal Eaxehelesx. 15(6). 821-829- Hargreaves, D. H. (1984). Teachers' questions: Open, closed and half-open. Educatienal_Reeeareh. 26(1). “6-51 0 Hare, V. C. G Pulliam, C. A. (1980). Teacher questioning: A verification and an extension. lsnnnsl_s£_fiead1ng Beharier. 12. 69-72. Haskins, R., Walden, T. G Ramey, C. T. (1983). Teacher and student behavior in high and low-ability groups. 1earna1_e£_Edueatiena1_£a1ehelesx. 15. 865-876. Hayes, W.L. (1973). ' (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart G Winston. 338 Heap, J. L. (1986). Cultural logic and schema theory: A reply to Bereiter. Curriculum_1nen1rx..16. 73-86. Heap, J. L. (1985). Discourse in the production of classroom knowledge: Reading lessons. Currienlnm lneulrx. 15. 245-279. Heap, J. L. (1982). Understanding classroom events: A critique of Durkin, with an alternative. Jennnel_ef Readins_6ehaxier. 11. 391-411. Heap, J. L. (1980). What counts as reading: Limits to certainty in assessment. .Qnrrienlnm_lnen1£x. 19. Hodges, C. A. (1980). Commentary: Toward a broader definition of comprehension instruction. Bending Reaeareh_Quarterlx. 15. 299-306. Holmes, B. C. (1983). A confirmation strategy for improving poor readers' ability to answer inferential questions. Ihe.Rea61ns_Ieaeher. 31. 144-148- Hyman, R. T. (1979). Strate21e_eueatien1ng. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hyman. R. T. (1974). Waxa_ef_teaeh1ns- 2nd Edition- Philadelphia: Lippincott. Johnston, P. (1985). Teaching students to apply strategies that improve reading comprehension. leurnal. 65. 635-645. LaBerge, D. G Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. cognitire_£s1ehelesx. 6. 293-323. Lehnert, W. G. (1979). eemeu1er_s1mu1atien_e£_eeznitien. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. MacGinitie, W. H. (1983). A critique of "What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction" and "Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series: Durkin's contribution to our understanding of current practice. In L. M. Gentile, M. L. Kamil G J. S. Blanchard (Eds.), Beeding_researeh 161151536 (pp.355-363). Columbus, OH: Merrill. MacGinitie, W. (1978). GateazMaeG1n111e_Rea61ne_Iests. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 339 McGrade, W. C. (1983). Probe questions during reading lessons: Informational content and teacher evaluation of student responses. In J. A. Niles and L. A. Harris (Eds.),WWW areeeaainwmelleLien. - IhLNatienaLfleedinueni‘erenee (PP. 320-322). The National Reading Conference. Mangano, N. G. (1983, December). The_ef£eets_e£_teaeher t a . Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, e TX. Mangano, N. G. (In press). Comparison of question response-feedback interactions during basal reader instruction. WW. Mangano, N. G., Palmer, D. G Goetz, E. T. (1982). Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive training. 3 (July-September), 365-374. Mehan, H. (1984). Language and schooling. Seeielegx_ef Eduaatien. 51. 174-183. Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of classroom events and their consequences for student performance. In P. Gilmore G A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children_1n_and_eu&_ef aeheel (pp.59-87). Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Mehan, H. (1979a). ' ° ' ' the_elessreem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1979b). What time is it, Denise? Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Ibeerx W! 1.89 285-29“. Mehan, H. (1974). Accomplishing classroom lessons. In A. V. Cicourel, K. H. Jennings, S. H. M. Jennings, Kenneth C. W. Leiter, R. MacKay, H. Mehan G D. R. Roth (Eds.), (pp. 76-142). New York: Academic Press. Palincsar, A. S. (1984). The quest for meaning from expository text: A teacher-guided journey. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler G J. Mason (Eds.), Cemnnenensien (pp. 251-264). New York: Longman. 340 Palincsar, A. S. G Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension- monitoring activities. Geenitien_and_1nstruetien. 1. 117-175. Paris, 8., Lipson, M. G Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Esxehelesx. 6. 293-316. Paris, 8. G. G Myers, M. II (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and :03; readers. 1eurna1_ef_Rea61ns_Beha11er. 13. Paris, S. G., Wixson, K. K. G Palincsar, A. M. (1986). Instructional approaches to reading comprehension. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), eeueatien. 1211.13 (pp. 91-128). Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association. Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. Ine_Beading_Ieaeher, 3.3, 7214-7380 Pearson, P. D. (1984). Direct explicit teaching of reading comprehension. In G. 0. Duffy, L. R. Roehler G J. Mason (Eds.), ' ' and_aeazeatiens (PP. 222-233). New York: Longman. Pearson, P. D. (1983). A critique of F. J. Guszak's study: "Teacher questioning and reading." In L. M. Gentile, M. L. Kamil G J. S. Blanchard (Eds.), reriaited (pp. 271-281). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Pearson, P. D. G Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Gentemeerarx.£6ueatiena1 1312661221. 6. 317-344. Pearson, P. D. G Johnson, D. D. (1978). Ieaeh1ne_rea61ns eemnnenensien. New York: Holt. Pearson, P. D. G Tierney, R. J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In A. C. Perves G O. Niles (Eds.), complex_aee1etl. (Eighty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). (pp. 144-173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 341 Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teacher explanations and students' understanding Of sources of information for answering questions. In J. A. Niles G L. A. Harris, Changing WW Ii . _ . 1 . ! Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. Weber. 36. 186-190. Raphael, T. E. G Gavelek, J. R. (1984). Question-related activities and their relationship to reading comprehension: Some instructional implications. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler G J. Mason (Eds.), WM §M£E£§£1Qn§ (pp. 234-250). New York: Longman. Raphael, T. E. G McKinney, J. (1983). An examination of fifth- and eighth-grade children's question-answering behavior: An instructional study in metacognition. MW. 15(3), 67- 86. Raphael, T. E. G Pearson, P. D. (1982). IheTeflfeeL_e£ I W. (Tech. Rep. No. 238). Champaign-Urbana, ILL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. Raphael, T. E. G Wonnnacott, C. A. (1985). Heightening fourth-grade students' sensitivity to sources of information for answering comprehension questions. ReaeLnsJesearehmarterlx. 29. 282-296. Redfield, D. L. G Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta- analysis of experimental research on teacher question behavior. W. 5.1. 237- 245. Reynolds, R. E. G Anderson, R. C. (1982). Influence of questions on the allocation of attention during reading. Laumeumdueatienalimheleu. 14(5), 623-632. Roehler L. G Duffy, G. (1981). Classroom teaching is more than Opportunity to learn. lenrnel_e£_1eaeher Educatien. 32(6). 7-13. Roehler, L. R. G Duffy,-G. G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler G J. Mason (Eds. ).W W (Po. 265- 280). New York: Longman. 342 Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G. G Meloth, M. S. (1986). What to be direct about in direct instruction in reading. In Raphael, T. (Ed.), Centexta_e£_aeheel:ha§£d 11121661 (pp. 79-96). New York: Random House. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G. G Meloth, M. S. (1984). The effects and some distinguishing characteristics of explicit teacher explanation during reading instruction. In J. A. Niles G L. A. Harris, Changing eerseeet11ea_en_reaeareh_1n_readinss_1aneuase nreeesa1ne_and_1netruetien. - ' ° (pp. 223-229). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Rosenshine, B. (1971). aehiexement. London: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales. Rosenshine, B. (1976). Classroom instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.). Ihe_ea1eheleex_ef_1eaeh1ns_metheds. (Seventy-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson G H. J. Walberg (Eds.), ' ° 1melieat1ens.(pp. 28-56). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional Procrams. Elamentarx_§eheel_ieurna1. 63. 335-351. Rosenshine, B. G Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), teaehing, (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan. Rosenshine, B. G Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil G P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handreek_ef_rea61ne_reaeareh (pp. 745-798). New York: Longman. Ruddell, R. B. (1974). Rea61rezLansuase_1natruetien1 Innelatixe_sreeiiees. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ruddell, R. B. (1978). Developing comprehension abilities: Implications from research for an instructional framework. In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), a (pp. 109-120). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 343 Ruddell, R. (1984). for publication. . Manuscript submitted Ruddell, R. B. G Haggard, M. R. (1982). Influential teachers: Characteristics and classroom performance. In J. A. Niles G L. A. Harris (Eds.), Neu_ingniries 1n_reaa1ns_researeh_and_1nstruetien. Th1r11=£1rst Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Samuels, S. J. (1983). A cognitive approach to factors influencing reading comprehension. lennnei_ef R Eduaatienal_fieaeareh. 16. 261-266. i 1 Sanacore, J. (1984). Metacognition and the improvement of reading: Some important links. Jenrnal_e£_fieedin£. 21. 706-712. Sanders, N. M. (1966). C1aaareem_aueatiensi_Wha1_k1nda2 New York: Harper G Row. Shake, M. C. G Allington, R. L. (1985). Where do teachers' questions come from? W. 3.6. "‘32-”380 Shultz, J. J., Florio, S. G Erickson, F. (1982). Where's the floor? Aspects of the cultural organization of social relationships in communication at home and in school. In P. Gilmore G A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children 1n_6nfl_QH&_Q£_§£hQQl (pp. 88-123). Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Sinclair, J. M. G Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Ieuerd_en end_nnniis. London: Oxford University Press. Stallings, J. (1975). Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in Follow Through classrooms. Dexeleement. 50. (7-8, Serial NO. 163). Stallings, J. G Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Eeiieu_Ihrengh e1aaareem_ebaerra11en_e1aluatien_1912:1913 (SRI Project URU-7370). Stanford, CA: Stanford Research Institute. Taba, H. (1965). The teaching of thinking. Elemenfierx Englifihv 529 534-542. 344 Tharp, R. G. (1982). The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and description of the Kamehameha Early Education Program. ,Reeeing_fieseereh Quarterlx. 11. 462-481. Tharp, R. G Gallimore, R. (1983, December). the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. e . Paper presented at Tierney, R. J. G Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil G P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handheek_e£ needing_nesesneh (pp. 609-655). New York: Longman. Tom, A. (1984). .Ieaehine_aa_a_mera1_eraft. New York: Longman. Vavrus, L. G. (1983, December). When .aaeat1ena_aar1ne_readine_sk111_1nstruetien1 ° . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Vavrus, L. G. G Meloth, M. S. (1984, November). The eaeat1an=ask1na_eatterna_dur1ns_1ne1ruetien_emelexed ' . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg Beach, FLA. Wallat, C. G Green, J. L. (1979). Social rules and communicative contexts in kindergarten. .Iheeh1_inie Erectiee. 16. 275-284. Wilen, W. W. (1984L Implications of research on questioning for the teacher educator. learna1_ef Reaeareh_ana_Dereleement_1n_fldueat1en,11(2), 31- 35. Winne, P. H. (1985). Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. E1emen1ar1_§ehee1_leurna1. 65. Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers' use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. .Re11ea_e£_£duea11ena1_Reaeareh. 39. 13-50. Winne, P. H. G Marx, R. W. (1982). Students and teachers' views of thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementar1_5eheel_1eurnal. 62. 493-518. Wixson, K. K. (l983a). Postreading question-answer interactions and children's learning from text. 1earna1_ef_Edueat1ena1_£srehelesx. 36. 413-423. 345 Wixson, K. K. (l983b). Questions about a text: What you ask about is what children learn. Ih§_fiead1ng_leacher, 3.1, 287.2930 Wixson, K. K. (1984). Level of importance of post-questions and childrens' learning from text. American Edneetignal_fieseazch_ignnnal. 21. 419-433. Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review. Re1iew_2£_£dncaticnal_fieseanch. 55, 227-268. THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF TEACHER ELICITATIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL SEQUENCE INTERACTIONS DURING THE LON GROUP READING SKILL LESSONS OF MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE FIFTH GRADE TEACHERS VOLUME II: APPENDICES By Linda Gire VavruS A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1987 APPENDICES 346 APPENDIX 3A FORM FOR TYPED REFORMATTED TRANSCRIPTION OF LESSONS This form was used to reformat standard audiotaped transcripts. It is based on the Initiation-Reply- Evaluation format developed by Mehan (1979) to depict classroom interactions. ‘ 3 X I D N E P P A S N O S S E L F O N O I T P I R C S N A R T O E T M N R O F E R O E P Y T R O F M R O F e g a P : c i p o t 1 1 1 : 3 l . n a : 3 ' . r h c T . t I ” ! M m “ I M o t n o - l a C ' ° " ' " . : : : : : : : : : : m - m W .3. dNHQGCKCOOQNHCBObCOO dun-anqaqdfi NNNNN NH NNH dun.“ .3 .06 uuncnono. nannnnnnn APPENDIX 38 SAMPLE DATA SET (Lesson 18R”, Main Idea) This Appendix includes materials from the data set for Lesson 18R4, "Main Idea," in the following order: 38.1 38.2 33.3 Reformatted Transcript Sample Completed Lesson Map Sample Worksheet for Elicitation Types, Sequence Structural Form, and Sequence Topical Information Content 38.4 Sample Evaluation Elements Worksheet 38.5 Sample Visual Lesson Profile APPENDIX 33.1 Reformatted Transcript (Lesson 18R4, Main Idea) APPENDIX 38.] REFORMATTED TRANSCRIPT 5 4 7 6 ’ ! Z F S . 6 — 3 7 ( 7 ' . d M 2 1 1 6 / 7 5 l - C E E L ( ” ? ‘ I ' H G I R L A . a e d i n i a m e h t d n i f o t w o h g n i r u g i f n e e b e v ' e w : T 2 g : r P g n i t t e g , e s i o n d n u o r g k c a b ( : o S ) d e l t t e s / R N / . m g I B E V ' E V ' I ‘ A H H E H L L E T N A C O H W / ? s a w m m L L A N O c m x n o v . ? ” 1 3 ? n a m M P O T w o n r u o G m R U G I F : ‘ 1 ’ Q g n i o d n e e b e v ‘ e w t a h w a u n i t n o c o t g n i o g e r a e w y a d o T . y a k O l T @ . m v m n o c m x n o v m E H E V A H T C E J B U S T A H W . k e e w l l a 12 . ? R E F I N N E J HNMQWOI‘OO 2 1 1 ) e l b i d u a n i ( : s ) / R N / l a S L L A O D O T G N I Y R T N E E B E H E V A H ’ ? G N O L m u Q A H V m m ? 0 E M A N E H T S ' T A H W : T “ ; § I ) s r e p a p g n i l t s u r f o d n u o a ( x a S g i g _ a _ i _ a i h T ) d r a o b n o a e t i r w ( n r a e l o t g n i o g e r ' e w / / e v a h e w . a e d i n i a M . y a d o t t c e j b u a ? R E P I P R U O Y N O E N O L A R E M U N m R A m E S A E L P U O Y : w o v : I 1 e g a P 4 R 8 1 ' 8 1 ’ . c n a r T . u m ) ” " 5 4 0 [ ( $ € W 7 5 / 4 5 ) ; 7 1 ’ 5 2 ; ? E ( ( 9 2 / 3 ? ; 3 4 ' fi fi ? 1 7 ’ 2 . 4 9 7 7 9 1 7 a e d I n i a M : c i p o T l l i k S 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R a t n a n o C 4 n o i t a r o b a l E n o i t a u l a v E é . r o / d n a y l p e R n o i t a i t i n I a ) e w e D 6 9 1 [ K P e a o a t a h t s i u o y o t g n i y a a n i a m e h t t a i l a h p a r g a r a p . e o n a t n e a a n i a e d i a i a d n e r P t a h w , t h g i r l A : T . ) e l b i d u a n i ( h p a r g a r a p a g n i d a e r e r ' u o y n e h w t a h T : 5 . a i h p a r g a r a p a n i a e d i n i a m e h t f o e n o y l b a b d r p a i a i h T e h t t a h w t u o g n i d n i f t u o b a h t t a e d r a h O H V O N ? A K A L L E T N A C U O Y F I E E S . K N I H T E H T | 0 ; W O N K Y D A E R L A E H T A H W @ A M R E . A E D I ! ] A H :34, “ t i 1 “ s \ s a P's Q: . _ , 2 3 , 3 38.1-2 2 e g a P 4 3 3 1 ’ . s n a r T ‘ 8 1 . r h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R a e d I n i a M : c i p o T l l i k S n a n o C 4 r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I e l i T 5 4 9 1 £ - a p s . A - m t 7 — e a n 2 — 1 ( 7 7 5 / r é / E e fi . e c n e t n e s t s r i f e h T : T . e c n e t n e s t s r i f e h T : S > ? E N I A L E , T A H W S I E I P T A K O O L U O Y T A R w D I A S E H S : T / 0 / 4 : A j P fi ( ? Y C , K O O L U O Y E C A L P T X E N E H T S ' T A H W . E R E H T T O N S ' T I ? I : T / 5 1 [ . e c n e 5 t ” n e ( t s a l e h T : T . e c n e t n e s t s a l e h t . . . d i n : S ! w o n k I , h O : S E P . g n i n n i g e b e h t t A : 5 . e l d d i m e h t n I : S Y o D E R E H W , m m : 0 : 1 S ' T I ! I m o m N A U J : m m T S O H T I S I D R 2 - r a w ' : T " ; 1 : T 7 6 ' - 1 3 ‘ 5 : ’ 5 ‘ 2 : I : 1 . , 1 : 1 1 7 7 - C F S 2 . . . 4 7 7 5 - 4 1 5 A — m K 9 - a M 6 f . a c e u S . t o n e r ' y e h t . o l : T L L - r u l s t o n . : u ; t _ _ L - _ . 2 . 4 9 1 1 0 t s o M . g n i n n i g e b e h t t A : T o n , a e a i t e a o a t a h t s i a e d i n i a I e d i n i a m e h t a e l i t e u o a , a 1 a e h t t u o b a w o n k e w t a h w o s , y a k O : . . o N ) n o s i n u ( : s S a e r a t , v a 0 ( 5 . r a p t a h t n i : 1 - 3 ‘ 3 / / . w o n k e w : E I g n I h t r e h t o n a ' 5 3 F " S T S I L S Y A W L A S A E D I . N I A M E R A @ : r e m m i S E H T 7 3 d i a s e v a h e w n a h t d n a , m 0 / / o t e r e h w . t s r i f k o o l o t e r e h w - m m s m u T S I / a e a u a p / . d r i h t k o o l o t e r e h w , d n o c e s k o o l : w o l s ( " . e c n e t n e s a n i d e t s i l s i a e d i n i a I e h t a e n i t e a o a ” ) d r a o b : I , ‘ 5 ’ n o a e t i r w ( / E S A E L P S I R T : P b . : 2 . 7 : : _ . ] a 4 . . . ’ . _ _ . / . e t i s o p p o e h t f o s e m i t e m o s t a h t w o n k e W . w o n k d e t s i l t o n s i a e d i n i a m e h t e w g n i h t r e h t o n a s ' t a h T . e c n e t n e s e h t n i ) g n i y p o c ( : s S / ) s d n o c e s 7 1 - e s u a p ( / . ) s e t i r w e w s g n i h t o w t W e r a e s o h T E E H T ? 0 E N O H C I H W . V O n k n i a m e h t s e m i t e m o S ” ) d r a o b n o s e t i r G ‘ M S I H T E T I R W . ” k 0 : - n e s a n i d e t s i l t o n s i a e d i e h s s a y l w o l s s d a e r ( " e c n e t . ) 3 ( { 9 : 4 R 8 1 ’ . s n a r T 8 1 . t h c T 3 3 . 5 2 . 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R 3 e g a P ; n I n i a p : c i p o T l l i k S s t n e - o C 4 r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I A 38.1-3 A N , A G N I O D ! B E D ! S W E N : ‘ 1 ' e h t s e t a t s t a h t e c n e t n e s e h t g n i d n i f n o g n i l l i r d l l i r d . g n i l l i . . . m U : a S L T 6 r 6 ) s e s n o p s e r e l b i d u a n i ( S S ? E M I T . 1 F O T S O M G N I S U N E E B E W E V A H d o r e p r e h t o e h t t o g r o f u o Y : S . ) e l b i d u a n i ( 7 I S I 9 1 0 2 2 2 . a n a D , u o y k n a h T . n o i t a u t c n u p o t n o i t n e t t a l a e r , t n a t r o p m i s ' t a h T g n i y a p e r a s a g u o y d a l g m ' I : T . d o i r e p e h t t o g r o f I : T o t W I . m g m 3 2 W E I V [ t a h w s ' t a h T / ? T I o D E W O D w o H ~ . e r e h t t o n s ' t i f i t a h w n o s t n i o p ( e n o s i h t n o e t a r t n e c n o c e t a t s t _ o _ n 2 2 t a h t s h p e p a r a p n O d r a o b n o e c n e t n e s d n o c e s o t o d o t g n i o g e r ' e w t a h w s ' t a h T . e c n e t n e s a n i a e d i n i a s e h t D N I F O T w o n : o n E H . y a d o t / ? E N T ' N O D . D E T S I L S ' T I F I t n e c n o c o t g n i o g e r ' e w y a d o T I O 6 ? s ' 7 1 3 2 3 3 3 : ! 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 ” fl / p r a w t i k o o l d n a k c a b t i S : ' 1 ' . t f . r e v o t i k o o l d n a k c a b t i S : 4 e g a P 4 3 8 1 ! . 3 - m a r T 3 1 . r h c T 5 6 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R : c i p o T l l i k S I t I E C I I I I O C r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E 7 ‘ . 1 . % 4 . y l p e R n o i t a i t i n I \ n _ a a r ’ w 1 ’ v d n I — # W V a m .5 . W W ' n a . . . 1 . g n i o g e r ' e w ? Y A K O 4 / . o d o t / M FAN ) 3 [ " L ; 1 1 ” : ’ a H E ’ ; A 5 2 - c / T S I - . M E 3 1 ' . d ' r K . a — . é P / M . t s r i f t i d a e r u o Y : T . r e v o t i d a e r u o Y : S S L % 2 ? < U O Y G N I H T D N O C E S E H T S ' T A H W : T / ' ’ fi n n fl d s fi fi v h l f u fi i b I ’ . y a ? 7 ? : 2 ( g 3 — " ? S F I ? O D . T S I L 3 - T O W S A S I E R E H T U O Y O D T A R w ? O D U O Y O D T A H W A E D I N I A M E H T D N I F o T _ d _ O R _ h n u z z i fi ' u m : £ ¥ : n n o g g j u r j : j t fl E H L L E T N A C O H w , N O N B G U O R M @ ( w o h ? 6 s i e c n e t n e s s ' t a h T e h t f I . A o d u o y . e s o o h c u o y d n A . c i d 4 1 A F E R E ’ n : k o o l u o Y : T . ) e l b i d u a n i ( e h t t a k o o L : T K P ) e l b i d u a n i ( . e l d d i n . . . ) y l t f o s ( ' : 5 ) : S e r e h t E 5 L O H W : 3 { . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . l < . 9 & a i l . . - c . g E I fl A E E T S I L T O N S ' T I ? I T A H W T U B : S I H T H G U O R H T 0 0 U O Y F I T A H W . l l e w " , Y A S U O Y D N A G N I H T 38.1-4 . : 2 6 , T U O B A R G A R A P S ' T A H W : T T H G I R s ' t a h t f i e e s d n a e c n e t n e s . t i - ! A P t s r i f e h t t a t o o l u o Y : T 1 ' ” . a e d i n i a m e h t s ' t a h w : S @ . R N I H T D N A ? T A H w D N A : r F . e c n e t n e s t s r i f e h t t A : S . k o o l u o Y : 8 . t h g i R : 8 U O Y G N I H T D R I H T E H T S ' T A H W 8 L ? E L L E H S I D ? K O O L U O Y O D E R E H W : T 7 0 : 4 N I H T D N O C E S E H T S ' T A H W N E H T ? N O M A L ? O D U O Y : T . 7 / 1 6 U O Y G N I H T D R I H T E H T S ' T A R V : T . 5 / 6 P: 0: R V: ? ? 5 010000800 1 NMQIfiOhDOO «nun—snare“ ’ A2 6 7 2 8 1 9 2 0 3 1 , 2 3 3 3 ; ’ 3 9 3 38.1-5 2 2 F d a e r u o Y . y a k O / . y l l u f e r a c . y l l u f e r a c h p a r g a r a p e h t d a e r o t e v a h l l i t s u o Y : T 5 ) e c n e t n e s a e b l l ' e w n e h t d n a , e r e h t n i ' t i ' n a t u p l l ‘ I n i d o i r e p a t u p l l ' I n e h t ” . y l l u f e r a c t i d a e R " . t i , y a k O . a c n e t n e / s A a t o n s ' t a h T : T . : a : - : D N A N I T I K A E N S N A c n é i é j e 1 t ( ( . y r r o w t ' n o D . d o i r e ! } a . r e v o t i d a e R : 5 @ ? O D W Y } N I H T T S R I F E H T ) e l b i d u a n i ( : S ) : 5 3 C E S E H T E B D L U O w T A E N , A I N O S : T 3 4 : 7 ? O D U O Y T A H T G N I H T ‘ 3 3 1 J s e a r ‘ i ' 3 1 . r h c T 5 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R 5 e g a P x I : c i p o T l l i k S J C s t n r o / d n a n o i t a r o b a l E n o i t a u l a v E é . n o i t a i t i n I y l l e M . r F ” HNMQIflONOOO" ) e l b i d u a n i ( . h p a r g a r a p ? E N N A X O R s e m i t e m o S 0 1 - 6 9 1 ' 6 e s i l a e r e c n e t n e s . d e t s i l s ' n a V ? ” e r e h t e r e h p u s ' t e L u o y t e l . 2 3 : 6 U O Y o D d r a o b e h t n o s g n i h t T S R I F E H T t o n s ' t i g n i o g a t ' n s i G N I H T a e v a h . n o g n i o g ) ! I U O Y o w t e r a t n a w u o Y e r e h t e b o t T A E H u o Y : T / ? O D e h t t u p s p e t s g o t ' 4 ( : s ' T A H W . a e d i n i a m e h t d n i f o t 7 4 : 4 NMQnOh «aqua—ended I : SR : ? 9 odd A 1 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 7 3 9 3 7 2 R 7 ' ( r e d l o f r u o y n i p e e k o T . u o r o f s e t o n e r a e s e h t / . . . f o e H . s e o d y o r T . s n o i s s u c s i d e r u t u f r u o n i o t r e e r . y d n a h s i h s a h + t t a n a t ' n s i t i o s . u o y m o r f s e g a p e t o n e s e h t g n i t c e l l o c ? Y A K O , E V A H I E K I L N I t o n . ' 1 , s l r i g d n a s y o B fl ” T A H W , m K . y l l u f e r a c t i d a e r u o y N I H T D W E S E H T E B I P P U S U O Y O D s i o d u o y g n i h t t s r i f , y a k O : T ? 3 7 38.1-6 ) . / 9 } n a c { o l t i s s i o d e w g n i h t d n o c e s t i r w ( t u o b a s i h p a r g a r a p e h t t a h w k n i h t d n a k c a b ? Y A K O . ) s k a e p s e h s s a Y L T C A X E S ' T A H T . t h g i r l A T I T ' N S I , A R O F O D E W T A H W e h T . y a k O . t u o b a s ' t i t a h W : T K M P K ” 1 . m : 2 1 5 . ' : T T ' N S I / / . s i t i . s e Y : T . t u o b a t i s ' t a h W : S . a e d i n i a m e h T : S . r e v o t i k o o L : 5 * . s e Y : a S a e " k 0 s e s u m 3 . 5 e b d l u o w t a h t o S . a e d i D I I I n o s e t i r w ( : p e t s d r i h t e h t e c n e t n e s a r o f k o o L ” ) d r a o b ” . a e d i n i a n e h t s e t a t s t a h t e h t s e t a t s t a h t e c n e t n e s a s ' e r e h t f i e e s s ' t e l ' , y a s d n a h g a g i C { o g d l u o w I : T p e t s e n o s e o g s i h t . r e v e w o H l i t ' t i a w 1 1 ' 1 / . r e h t r u f e s u a c ' g n i y p o c e n o d e r ' u o y , u o y f o d a e h a g n i t t e g m ' I / / . k n i h t I E N . y a k O . t e y e n o d t o n : ' 1 : T . . . t o g r o f u o Y : 8 ’ HNMQU‘ONOOS ed a“ ‘ 1 5 2 6 2 1 2 s 2 9 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 A 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 6 / 1 5 2 A . memo e-su-A-s—s I H 4 I § 5 E § 6 e g a P “ 8 1 ' s a I - a r . A . 8 ‘ . E I ‘ I C T e d I a n i P " : c i p o T l l i k S 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R n o i t a r o b a l E r o / d n a s t n a - n o C n o i t a u l a v E é n o i t a i t i n I y l p e R . Y @ ? O D U O / t s r i f e h t r o f k o o L : S o n I E S O P P U S m r o D : x a w : T O H S ? n a m u h - l l u H / 7 ' 00: e-ee-s Q e s e M K N I H T D N A S T ! 5 : 7 . n i a g a t a h t y a s n a c I . t h g i r l A ! “ P E T S T I I I S I R T T A E H K N I H T , g n i y p o c e n o d t e g u o y n e h w ? T I T ' N S I , E W ' R E o D I Y A W E H T Y L T C A X E % 4 0 . 9 . I . L A V I o z r O : T ‘ 5 7 3 9 » ‘ 3 5 9 0 3 9 3 38.1-7 - - . . 0 ! L - * ~ — — - - - - - _ _ _ . e c n e t n e s e h t g n i d n i f n a h t r e d r a h s i s i h T ? T I . D R A H S I S I H T : T m C e 5 4 ' E W ’ 0 4 . S H 7 . ¢ F 5 a - ; n 5 e ‘ M K f . . 4 / [ I I 7 l - * W / W W . t r a p t a h t t o g y d a e r l a I : S A e n o e s o o h c o t y r t d e t s i l t ' n s i t s e n n e t f o t s o h " . f l e s r u o y a e d i n i a n e h t t a h w t u o d n i f o t u o y k s a e l p o e p e h t . n e t f o u o y d n a t s i l a u o y e v i g s i u o y e v i g l l ' I . w o N / . f l e s r u o y a n e h t t s i l t a h t n u f e s o o h c e n o e e e o h C . . . : r u o / . a e d i i p o o t a h t t g g o t e r c a e t u n i n a » 4 @ ( ” ; ” 3 z : 7 $ 3 1 I , 3 3 3 3 ‘ 3 1 , 0 3 9 3 . ‘ s ' m u m e h t t a h w k n i h t . 1 : " 1 n e t n e s a d n i f t ' n a c u o y , t u o b a o s . a e d i n i a I e h t s e t a t s t a h t s a h e l l e m i D t a h w o d u o y e k a n o t t o g e v ' e W . d e t s e g g u s . " 7 0 5 . y a k O . t i t i f o t p u c e n o ‘ 3 2 7 7 : ” 5 3 6 2 ~ s i a e d i n i a I e h t f i . f I . r u o : T 7 1 : ” d n a k c a b t i s e h t e t a d e v ' u o y > , k c a b t i s u o y n e h t . d e t s i l t o n . \ s d n o c e s 9 . — m fl m i M ‘ ) 0 7 . 4 1 e-INMCUDOFCO O I l l 1 ‘ 3 1 5 1 u 7 1 7 e g a P ‘ 3 8 1 , ' 3 ’ - o r f a I . r h c T 1 8 - 5 2 - 2 . t m : N O S S E L L L I K S M I D A E R “ d 1 n i ” : c i p o T l l i k S ! ! ! " - 0 0 * n o i t a r o b a l E ff r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I 5 4 , E L L E I N A D e s u U O Y O D / / . m 1 . .3: S . d I 2 - - . O F S ; . . . 4 7 7 5 , . . 4 , 5 E N K r P 5 " e e P [ n i a n e h t u o y s l l e t t a h t a e d i e r e h t e c n e t n e s o n s i e r e h T : T M ” 2 , 9 " M P 1 : R E T A W d n i f t ' n o d I ? H O N O D I K N I H T . d n e e h t t a k o o L : 5 K ? O D O T G N I O G I n A T A E w m 7 3 . 9 ? Y A K O / . s i t i e r e h T . t h g i r l A : T P f l e s r u o y p u e n o e k a n s n a c u o Y : 8 38.1-8 7 — c l r s 3 - 1 W E 3 5 — ¢ F S ? t I ' . e W D - E T K s M - E - G F S . 2 - c / r s I - M E ~ 0 * “ — u c e . Q - _ . . . . . y e 8 e g a P 4 R 8 1 l . e n a r T 8 1 . r h c T . L J n i a J : c i p o T l l i k S 5 8 — 5 2 - 2 e t o D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R J r o / d n a . t l i W n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E é . n o i t a i t i n I y l p e R A j z j g g n o c e s 5 2 - e s u . . . e t i r w o t d e t r a t s t s u J I J _ _ 4 t s u J s ' t a h T ks a u v n i o t ( : T T S O T E M R O F Y D A E R U O Y ' E R A ] 0 : 1 [ E H T H T I W , g n i h t c s i h t g n i n o i t s e u q e r a e h t r e d n u t h g i r e b d l u o h s t I h g u o n e e v a h t ' n o d I t u B . D . e r e h r e v o s i . n e t i c d n a B . A . e n i l t u o n a s i s i h t . o d u o y k n i h t I . m o o r E N o h w u o y f o e s o h T . t h g i r l A : T ! o o o N ) t n e g r u d n a n o s i n u ( : I S P E ' “ . s e Y : S ! o N : S A v G ' I ’ A I — e r I . T I O D O T W O H E W , E R E H T S I L S ' T I E S U A C E B w o m m : ’ 7 : T H G I R . T I D N I r O T w o R . a e d i n i a I e h T . t h g i R : T 3 ’ T ' N O D . O . . . e c n e t n e s e h t t u o b A a e - “ ‘ 0 S I S : 8 e w . . . e r i h s e u q e . t u o b a g n i k l a t e r ' e w t a h w w o n k ? T U O B A G N I N L A T ‘ E W ‘ E R A T A R W ? Y O R T ? T A @ U O I fl : n a w " : 5 5 1 T I S : T y l t a e n ' 6 t u b , g n i h t y n a g n i d a e r m w y h ‘ W . t h g i r l A : 1 ' e r ' u o y n e h W . n o i t a u t a f n i r o f g n i d a e r e r ' u o y n e h w . g n i d a e r e r ' e w n e h W : 8 ) e l b i d u a n i ( : S @ * 0 7 3 9 3 ) : 0 T X A S O T G N I O G E N O E M O S S I H W ? L L I K S S I H T E S U O T } K I I O G W O H W O N K O T U O Y T C E P X E D N A U O Y N E H W ? A E D I N A I H E H T D N I F O T e e s . . 1 7 7 3 1 ‘ 1 ‘ > q / 1 ~ ‘ 0 1 2 ' 1 3 . 3 2 HNMsfllflONOO 38.1-9 ” I e t l a i r “ e l ‘ O l " . i e h t t o d o t t o g r o f u o Y : 8 6 . r r w a c a m , - t - t ' n s e o d t I . I : T s e t i r w ( g n i d a e r n e h w t i e s U " : ' 1 ; ] I H 3 2 0 2 ; : @ F E D A m E H T D N A . l l i k s s i h t e s u o t n e h W ) d r a o b n m ' e e t i r w : ‘ t i e s u " , s u d l o t y l l e K d n A ' 3 5 3 3 [ g n i d a e r n e h w E N y d o b m e d r a e h I ) e l b i d u a n i ( : r ' s e g a p e e r h t d a h y e h t y a s : P . y d a e r l a e n o d d n a s y o b d n A . y r o t s i h k c a l b n o s t r o p e r g n i k a e l e r ' y e h T . s t r o p e r g n i k s a e r ' y e h T : T ) e l b i d m n i ( : s . s t r o p e R : 5 w ' D , m r o n u o y g n i o d e r ' u o y , r e d l o t e g u o y . w o n t h g i r r o f s t r o p e r s n o s - : m m ? m r o n 0 0 1 : m m m , : 3 : " 5 3 4 I ” M \ 0 \ . s n o i t s e u Q : 8 n e h w - : m u , : m o n a w . m m a ) s k a e p s e h s a d n o b n o s v O T l ' k o o b t x e t ‘ 2 , 2 3 : . 2 , 2 0 , ’ 3 2 3 2 : 5 3 3 7 3 . 3 9 3 a ‘ 4 7 7 5 t a h t d a e r , y a s o t g n i o g / ‘ ¢ ’ E e h t e n l l e t d n a a fl a r g a r a p _ ‘ o g e r ' y e h t t u B . a e d i n i a m . . 3 ‘ ¢ F g . . . e h t e h t 1 1 ‘ o t . . C C ' T K o a i t e h t l l a o t g n i o g e r ' y e h T 7 ' " d P [ . k o o b t x e t a e v a h u o y f i ? I r o { r e i s a e e b l l ' t i , a e d i - 0 0 1 s e g a p d a e r n a l l ' y e h T - s e u q e s e h t r e w s n a d n a 5 0 1 e s u n a c u o y f i d n a , a n o i t n i a m e h t d n i f o t l l i k s s i h t 9 e g a P “ ] 8 1 . h g u o r T 8 1 . t h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R a e d I ” 1 ‘ " : c i p o T l l i k S s t n e - o C r o I " , : 2 2 ‘ . : 2 3 3 i d t y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n l .3. _ _ a g n i d a e e ' y d o b o n k o o b y r o t s '4 r J t n e n e c n u o m A . A . P [ ” . 3 ’ ' 6 1 - 3 3 1 n e 2 1 0 1 l l HNMQU‘ONUO 38.1-10 — ? " 9 1 « ! ? . 0 / 5 a s o c r s e - m c [ 7 - L M ’ ’ 5 1 . . . : 3 3 s ' " ” m ’ ° m ' “ ’ m fi z ‘ E g n i o g a ' I o t n k e W / . y a d o t ' . t m o t u o y k s a l l a s ' t a h T . y a k O : ‘ 1 ' e s u o t g n i o g e r ' e w n e h w w o n k e w h t n a o t t o n s i t a h t w o l . t i t ' n o w r e h c a e t g n i d a e r e r i u o y . g n i y d u t s e r ' e w s i t i t a h w d n A . t i e s u o t w o h w o n k e W a . y r o t s a d a e r o t u o y b r u o y s o r f y r o t s n o i t c i ? T H G I R , s n o i t s e u q k s a d n a O 1 e g a P “ 1 3 ‘ J c n o r ‘ . " 8 1 . r h c T d 1 “ n i a M : c i p o T l l i k S 1 6 - 5 2 - 2 . n o : n e s s a L . u m m o m . ” m c ‘ r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I ‘ M E O a F 5 r e w s n a o t k o o b t x e t a g n i d a e r / d n a o t u o y f . . u o Y . 7 0 m o r f s l r i g n e h W n e h t n w o d , l l i k s s i h t k c a b t i s r u o y d a e r n a c e s u u o y f i . k o o b a d r o w y p o c d r o w r o f : r u o d r o w r o f d r o w r o f ‘ ? 6 7 : e v a h t ' n o d e t i r w ¢ / / , y l l u f e r a c . n o i t a a r o f n i L ‘ C r K d n a t u o b a s ' t i t a h w k n i h t 5 P a : a s n o i t s e u q g n i r e w s n a e r a u o y n e h w l l i k s s i h t e s u l l i w u o y n e t f o t s o H : T . . . m : s 5 N I L D E k . J e l b i d u a n i ( o n s ' e r e h T . t r o p e r a g n i k a n r o k o o b t x e t ! h o - h U : S g n i h c a e r p n e e b e v ' e w t a h w _ Y “ . . . fl l . ' . ' ' . n ' I t a h w , w o n . k e e w a r o f . . . a u o y e v i g s i / o d o t g n i o g s n o s s a h t a h t r e p a p f o e c e i p m ' I d n A . t i n o s n x a r g a r a p o t g n i o g e r ' e w , k s a o t g n i o g g n i o g e r ' e W . r e h t e g o t t i d a e r s e m T O N H ' I e s s . ° 1 N W o t t a h w e c i t c a r p o t g n i o g e r ' e w e e s d n a g n i h c a e r p n e e b e v ' e w . ‘ c ’ . g A , . « i I / ' " “ . . . n a M ! A : T 38.1 H 4 - 6 7 7 $ 5 . _ . . - - - I I - o J " - m m ' T - > : e n o r u o r o n : n o o m r o m m n m s n u o r m n w s m m o m m S I . M P 2 1 1 1 D - d r K ) ! I s ? o n : ' 1 ' ) e l b i d u a n i ( : s 0 ' “ ' . \ ~ r s c u o n n n . n r ' s r n c o r ' ) s d n a h e s i a r w e f A ( : s 8 V \ H r , ” ! 7 D ' 6 7 7 5 " - 5 7 5 . K p - ¢ r K 3 , 3 ’ . % 5 J " " E 7 ' [ ‘ ’ i - 4 7 7 5 ‘ " r F ” m N A S ' T I " I I , M I J : T . . . “ 1 0 N ? I . E Y ) p u s t e g e n o e n o a ( : S . s i t i , o N : S 2 _ ) g n i l f f u h s r e p a p _ _ . d n a g n i k l a t d n u o r g k c a b ( : s S / O s r e p a p t u o s s a p o t s e e u a p ( / . t a h t r e t f a n o e c t c a ‘ z y t g g y m ? s e s i g r e : ; n o h ” I ” m m 5 ‘ . ' ° ' o ‘ . . . . h h T h d I 1 1 e g a P 4 3 8 1 ’ . n n o r ' i ' 8 1 . r h c T ! ! ! 1 m m : c i p o T l l i k S 3 6 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D “ ! 0 8 8 3 . 1 L L I K S G N I D A E R s t n e - o C . t n a r g i m m i y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I e n i T 1 . , , " 0 ? y M h t i w e s e h t o d o t t n a w I , w o n C e n o ” ” 2 . 3 2 " . m m C n o o t c s f i u q 2 ' " f I ’ 9 0 : 6 } e h t s ' m o m r i e h t s i h t e k i l t I / / o t e k a s r e b a u n g n i y a l p e n o d e v a h 1 “ . n i l o i v e r a y e h t e k i l s k o o l . y l l u f e r a c t i . d a e r e v ' I . e n o s k o o l t I . r e h t e g o t s g e l . ) e l b i d u a n i ( e r a y e h t r i e h t h t i w s d n u o s g n i p r i h c b u r t s u J y e h T . s e c i o v t ' n o d s t e k c i r C ” ) s d a e r ( n a d n a k c a b t i s I w o N s i t a h w . l l e w ' , f l e s y m r o o m S I s u n ‘ ? t u o b a : m O 7 / 3 ” 0 - 2 5 5 [ } : 9 { N ! 3 3 , , , ; ’ 3 g 3 1 , ) e l b i d u a n i ( : 8 % 1 3 : t fi ~ ; ” I 3 o d o t u o y g n i k s a t o n n ' I . m o : r ' . 2 5 ' t u n i s a n I . f l e s r u o y y b e s e h t t l d i R . f l e s r u o y y b e b l l ' u o y M 1 8 1 l . c : - o r ‘ . ' 8 1 , “ d I } 3 2 . 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S N I M 2 1 e g a P : c i p o T n u s 33.1-12 8 - . d r K 9 ' ¢ P / 0 2 . . r i _ : _ l c _ g P h c w o e p r i h c s r e p r i h C w o fl : 5 h t i w s d n u o s g n i p r i h c e k a l t ' n o d t a k o o l I n e h T . s e c i o v r i e h t . n i l o i v e h t g n i y l p e r a y e h t e k i l s k o o l t I . e n o t s a l e h t o s . a e d i n i a n e h t a e e t a t s t a h t J s g n i w r i e h t b u r t s u j y e h T e c n e t n e s o n s ' e r e h T / . r e h t e g o t 5 4 : 5 [ t a h t s e n o e h t . o r f e s o o h c I s g n i W . d e p r i h c s i g n i p r i h c w o B ) s d a e r ( . d e t s i l e v ' y e h t . S E C N I S S U M T I E ' M T S n i l o i v A r O . y l f t ' n o w t a h t ; I . : s o m r o m r a w . s p r i h c t a h t ’ . N : m m 8 o n J fl 7 I a m ' “ 1 7 $ ( / . m o , s s u m : m o m > § § l 5 i Q H ! M ' I “ I i ‘ n a s i o o b - o o b e h T “ ) s d a e r ( l l i H 2 , 6 , 5 e k a l y e h t w o h d n A . p r i h C : T . s d n u o s 3 - 6 7 7 5 ! L P . p r i h C : s a 5 m , a p S . s t e k c i r c e e s I d n a k o o l I n e h T : T fi f ’ I ‘ J ‘ r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v ) s t n a - n o C n o i t a r o b a l E é . A E n o i t a i t i n I ? T A H W y a m w o n D N y l p e R ' t u o b a s i s i h T . O . o o b - o o B : ' 1 ' e h t d e l l a c l a n i n a w n u f a / . o o b - o o b . o o b - o o B ) n o s i n u ( : s S ‘ , s g e l n e e t x i s s a h e H . s o o b - o o b f o a e s a n i s e v i l t a h t l a n i n a - o o b e h t . s e y . h O . o s e n d l o t I n e h T “ . o o t , k l a t n a c o o b e H . l l a f o t s e b s r e g r n b n a h s e k i l e H . n a f a e k i l s k o o l t a h t l i a t a d a . I I I e e r h t ’ ? t u o b a s i h t s i t a h w ' , y a k o . n a n a m A r o o m S I s x m - . m m , . . . E H T D E L L A C . I A H I I A 9 1 : 9 [ : ) 9 I 3 ) " 5 ’ ‘ 3 7 3 ' 3 9 ’ HNMQU‘OONOG C 1 d 1 2 ' 3 ' : l l 5 ' 6 : , 7 " 9 ‘ 0 , 1 2 3 1 u 5 3 6 2 7 3 . 1 9 1 o y 1 3 38.1-13 S H r , ‘ . ’ L F S ' 2 ' c [ E 3 “ 6 7 7 5 6 . . m K 7 n . ¢ F I K P . A : S E M R G A R A P S I H T W A I D I N I A M : " 6 l D II! 9 l n i a I e h t f I . r u o f r e b n u n o d I o t y r t I . d e t s i l t ' n s i a e d i y e h t d n a . f l e s u s r o f e n o e s o o h c A ) s d a e r ( . u o y o t - : e h t e v i g a e S e h T . l a n i n a m r a f y r e v t a h t l a n i n a e h T d n A . o o b - o o b e-O O" 0.610000 e-so-s-no-so-s m S I n o m m . . . p u s t a e 3 7 . 3 4 7 1 9 5 9 . t a h w s u s l l e t t s u J t I . e l d d i n . I ” n i ! 0 0 1 W ” . O N . h t ‘ f o J ‘ : l i a n e h t s e t a t s t a h t e c n e t n e s o l l t i ( / ? 0 n 1 o n r x a w . . . o o . a e d i . s e k i l e h t a h w d n a e k i l s k o o l e h E t n a s i o o b - o o b e h T ” . e c n e t n e s . . e m n : : I . : m / ‘ . o l l " . a e s h t 1 1 t h t l a n i n a k l a t n a c o o b - o o b e h t . s e y . h O " HNMQhOhomg . J ‘ r o / d n a a t n e - o C n o i t a u l a v n o i t a r o b a l E g . T E n o i t a i t i n I I . . . e e s t a k o o l t s r i f e h t s ' t e L : 7 1 9 3 R - : m a 1 , m a r T 1 3 e g a P 8 1 m W 3 3 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : I I O S S E L . u m : m o m a e d I m m : c i p o T l l i k S Z e . l n i n a v I ’ " ° " M m ‘ ' T . a . . . a ) . m m k z g + n a c I ? g n i d o c s i 1 1 . { w o n k u o y ' w s e k a t e e s u e s u a c e b l l e t a n i t i s t u p d n a t i u s g n i h t a b g n i t t e g s i r i a e h t e d i s t u O . x o b k c a b o g I k e e w t x e n d n a r e d l o c f o s n o s e r a e s e h T . l o o h c s o t . s r u c , m o ’ . l l a f . f o . n i t . r 0 2 ’ o M . 2 , 1 3 ‘ 2 5 2 5 3 4 £ . C F S " " 5 6 . - : n k ’ — 5 “ é I 3 . 5 7 1 $ : t u o b a s i h p a r g a r a p s i h t t a h w f h e s r u o y 2 [ o t k n i h t d n a k c a b t i S : T . t i t u o b a k n i h t d n a k c a b t i S : 5 / m / u s m n x o m l r n o m m r a n u ‘ . b ‘ o m o c i m n m a m s ? O D : 3 : 3 2 3 D C : m a c . m A s ' n a m : ! 0 : 1 8 : ; . m m m m m r o r m m U O Y T A H W E H L L E T . P E T S m r 4 3 J 0 , 38.1-14 s ' t i n e h w l l e t o t w o H . A : r ' , s m u s s ' n a r w n u ? r r T ' N S I 3 2 ” . y a k O : ' 1 ' . h a e Y : 5 ) g ( . L 7 9 A @ w o n s u L L E T o n : m o c s m o o r . m m 8 1 m u m u s u n . m : . c i e n o d e v a h u o y o D ' ) s d a e r ( / : r u o , n I o n D L U O W w o r f o n a e r c e n c a e v a h u o y o d t x e n y b g i b y r e v t e g o t d e e n I g n i m o c s i e o J y o b w o C . q d s r u h T d n e i r f m ? e r e h p u o s e f f a r i g t a h T . e n i t e h t l l a t i s t a e . l l a t o s e b o t t o g e h w o h s i e n o e s a s s d e e n e h d n a n w o t o t - e h t t a k o o q fl o d I . h o - h u . e c n e t n e s t s r i f : P , n a r : s c a m : " n o n . t l d i r l A E P . t a h t d i d t s u J e W . y a k O : n : T : T e e s d n a t i t a k c a b k o o l . h O . s i a e d i n i a m e h t t a h w . y l l u f e r a c r e v o t i d a e R e l b i d u a n i ) ( : 5 : s : S o n " . t a h t o d o t l l a t e b o t d e e n e m o c n a w o r m m m m n i u o Y . m i h r o f s e s r o h e p o r o t @ o n m o o r n o w 5 0 m . o n % 3 1 3 , n a : ° 1 “ ; 1 “ 5 1 s : 9 : 0 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 u 5 2 5 2 7 1 0 2 ! 1 o s ; 3 3 3 ‘ 3 3 3 6 3 7 3 . 3 9 3 : : 9 5 ‘ . 6 3 / 5 fl . m K - 2 . . Q P I I , . c / E " 6 7 7 5 ‘ / . A : S ) 6 ) e n a n e l b i d u a n i ( ? A E D I a l . o n : s ? S E C W S a m n S A E D I s n m r i o n x o o n 1 n w o s : n 7 0 . / 8 2 . y l l a e r t 0 n 2 T - R A R P e m : n o w m r a n a w m n m o o r m n m v m c 0 3 1 9 7 / 9 7 ‘ 4 3 8 1 I n : ' n r . ' . " O _ _ _ 1 _ . r h c T 4 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : “ 8 8 3 L L L I K S o n o m 4 , e g a P “ d 1 n i " : c i p o T l l i k S a t n e - c C J r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E I n o i t a r o b a l E ‘ ? 1 9 9 R . n o i t a i t i n I a n i T - — “ . . . 0 m 2 2 2 . l l a f t u o b a s ' t I : S L — r y m r W “ ' - - — - . L 4 3 7 " " l . . . 3 7 . 2 . 7 . 2 . 38.1-15 5 m k e b t s i l l a t w o r g o t d e e n I 3 - . d P / . a e d i n i a n , _ n i w u o y d l o t s a h e H . y a k O : ' 1 ‘ 5 5 1 £ . ' a F s E / . . . Y . m 3 3 0 ? T I D E T A T S T A H T m m 5 | @ ‘ 1 4 . l l o s m u s m m r o o r m o : 4 2 3 . 1 . 1 3 ' 5 / . s e s r o h s i h e p o r o t e u s s d e e n e h d n a n w o t o t n o c s i e o J y o b w o C e s u a c e B : S / , _ a [ E m e d i n i a n e h t n e s o h c y d a e r l a 3 ' - . d / f S s ' e H . l l a t w o r g o t d e e n I m e Q N O e s e I ' t I . ” k 0 S T . l l a t i t s o l e v ' u o y . t u o b a d n a k c a b t i s o t t o g e v ' u o Y g n i p p o t s f o p e t s t a h t e k a t s i g n i h t s i h t t a h w k n i h t o t 7 ‘ ? t a h w t u o b a s i s i h t ' , y a s w c ( 5 ’ [ . l l a t w o r g o t d e e n I y h W : S . e o J : S 5 1 0 : " “ d I “ 1 ‘ “ : c i p o T l l i k S 4 M 1 ’ , a g - n r ' a ' ° 1 . r h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 . C O D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R J t ' n o d u o y f I . S I R I G D ’ N A S Y O r o / d n a ! t n a n o C n o i t a u l a v n o i t a r o b a l E é . B E n o i t a i t i n I 7 1 9 2 3 - ” : 2 3 0 1 fiNfl'nOBOO Q 5 4 3 . n a t r o p n i s ' t a h T . T A H T T L S R O P w o n . s i n s d i n i a n e h t ’ 1 ‘ o t n e e s e w t a h w , s l r i g d n a l ‘ a h w e e s o t k o o l d n a k c a b t i s o t g n i t t e g r o f s i e r e h g n i o d a y i h . t d d i r l A . d o o g y r e V : T D 3 : 3 ¢ ¢ " k ' 5 5 - 7 , @ e m o t w f s o t z g b r h t n h t z c : T : ' 1 ' + 1 - p o c g n i l t s u r ) d n a g n i k l a t ( ! I S _ _ d n a , f e s e r o n e n o e v , : o n o u o y t u p o t g n i o g n ' I n e h t . n w o r u o y 38.1-16 - _ . . . . . . L ’ 7 — u " 9 ” 2 ” z I o t n e e s t ' n o d u o Y . N E H E L T R E G D R A . S E I D A L , E H E S U C X E g n i o g s ' t a h w o t n i d e n u t e b d a e r t s u J I l z m s a J . n o k c a b o g I n e h T . y l l u f e r a c t i . s i a e d i n i a n e h t t a h w t u o b a k n i h t d n a k c a b t i s , t h g i r l A : T t a h w k n i h t d n a k c a b t i s d n a . t u o b a s ' t i K A . a e d i n i a n e h t s e t a t s t a h t e c n e t n e s e h t r o f , t a k o o l I : T ) e l b i d u a n i ( : 3 ) e s i o n l a r e n e g ( : e S o : ; m o c s ' n e m s u n . m i J . g r o u o y : 1 ' ) s d a e r ( / . 0 0 : n o r I n a g n i h t e n o s o d o t n r a e l o t t n a w d r a h k r o w o t e v a h u o y , l l e w w o R . e n i t e h t l l a e c i t c a r p m m / / ? Y A J : FT it r e v o d a e r d n a n i k c a b o G : S . s e c n e t n e s e h t ) e l b i d u a n i ( a e d i n i a m e h T : c l h h c o o c o O : 8 ) e l b i d u a n i ( / t a k o o L / : 8 0 0 - 0 0 0 : 8 h t i w g n i k r o w s a w l l i n a B y h t o r o D o t g n i n r a e l s a w l l i m a H y h t o r o D h n e v e s d e c i t c a r p e h s , e t a k s n e h w r o e t a k s o t g n i n r a e l ? A E D I N I A R E H T D N I F O T O D O T O G U O Y E R A T A H W “ . s d n e - k e e w n o r e g n o l n e v e d n a y a d a 3 -E r o n o n m o c o o r E R A n a v : % 1 ” @ m n o n x o n n n w . m : : n 9? S 3% S E i ” ) V 4 3 8 1 ’ . c n n r T ‘ 8 1 . r h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : n o s s e L . m u s o m m a 6 1 c h c a e d I n i a M : c i p o T n u s ‘ r o / d n a “ “ 0 . 0 0 n o i t a u l a v E n o i t a r o b a l E a . n o i t a i t i n I y l p e R F — c fl s s % fl - Z F S ( @ t u o b a s u e k a t l l ' s i h fi y a k O : T E M A N R U O Y m u g . s e t u n i m o w t 'I HNMQnO O GO 0-! wfiagqnéfinqugfigyWfivumm 38.1-17 e c i t c a r p o t k r o w o t e v a h u o y , l l e w g n i h t e n o s o d o t n r a e l o t t n a w u o y f I " . t h g i r l A : T . ) e l b i d u a n i ( t u o 1 t h g u o h t I : r ' o t n r a e l o t e v a h l l ' u o Y . e n i t e h t l l a e c i t c a r p ! g P e e e C h t 1 1 I ) e l b i d u a n i ( : s 5 ’ @ W W , s o n n a w : : ’ 5 2 ) e l b i d u a n i ( e n o t s r i f e h T : S . 3 r , e P / . s d n e k e e w ® E L . O N S S . o m s a w n a v W Y . m r n a r s e o n ? ? ? ] C B A S A H M P n l ) ! ! ! a I " 6 / 5 : f 5 1 9 , 5 ‘ 4 ’ 5 y h t o r o D n e h W " . e l d d i m e h T : r ' 6 e t a k s ' o t g n i n r a e l s a w l l i m a H . . . a s r u o h n e v e s d e c i t c a r p e h s é r K : a r e g n o l n e v e d n a n d . e l d d i m e h T / / : S 0 ? r u o H C I H W : % 5 9 2 ? 1 e g a P 4 n o 1 , g n a y « 8 1 , “ m 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : R O S S E L . u m o m m a a e d I g g E : c i p o T l l i k S d s t n e - o C . " I " ; 2 3 3 2 3 3 i y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I e n i T 3 S 6 7 7 5 P ~ . m M : T . s e Y : 5 g 6 m m m m : r / t o _ . . . . . . . u o y r o f d o o G . - _ , : - — . — L A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 ’ e R . u o y f o d u o r p n ' I , e n y a W . l l e w g n i h t e n c s o d o t w o H n i d n a s a w e r e h t d e i f i t n e d i e c n e t n e s t a h t m o r f d n a a e d i . e c i o h c s i h e k a n d l u o c e h : T > E / ) e l b i d m n i ( . h a e Y : 5 ? T I E ‘ H I T S T A H T E M ( m P 0 0 7 ? E C I O H C A U O Y { E V I G Y E H T ) a c , m m n n o o n 0 0 : ! I : % 3 5 1 ; g n o e c i o v n w o r u o y r a e h u o y e n i t y r e v e b t h g i n u o y , e p a t e h t t ' n o w y l b a b o r p u o Y . d e s i r p - a t e t s r i f . h 1 " ) s d a e r ( . c w t r e b u H e h T . u o y s ' t i w o n k n e v e : ' 1 7 7 ” - * L H R B 2 3 0 3 1 3 HNM‘WONCO 1 1 2 1 3 1 : 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 0 2 1 2 , 2 1 : 5 , 6 3 7 , . 3 9 3 33.1-18 s . d I £ - . m 5 4 ) — - . 0 7 1 A 3 — M I S . 2 » M E / / . S L R I G , n a n s u c m ’ : r ' e m a l / A . o o o o N : T ' 5 ‘ . L 4 O ’ / w - r ; + . § E £ e h T . e p a t a n o g n i k l a T : T e n i r u e h , e c i o v r u o y f o d n u o s U O Y O D . g n i k l a t s d n e i r f N O G N I K L A T S ' E E R G A ? E P A T - A , a e d i n i a n e l o h w e h t e s u a c e B d n u o s e h t s i , e r e h , d r a h c i R a t e h t n o e c i o v n w o r u o y f o . . . n o r f t n e r e f f i d y r e v s i 9 5 P . e c i o v r u o y f o d n u o s e h T : T 2 P . a e d i n i a n e h t _ d n i f o t w o H : T u q o . f l e s r u o y g n i r a e h t u o b a s ' t I : S . n I “ e h t n o e h t t a h w k n i h t o t e v ' u o Y : S . t u o b a s ' h p a r g a r a p . e p a t a n o g n i k l a T : 5 ? T I . . o o o N : s S e B 3 8 > : : E L T I K N I H T U O Y O D E N O H C I : r m o o w n m m r o s s o m x a w : r f ' @ m o m , r - n o n r r S I m m : : 1 5 . 4 1 ) e l b i d u a n i ( : s ‘ ' 9 ‘ 4 n e h w e c i o v r u o y m o r f r a e h u o y h t m o r f t n e r e f f i d s i k l a t u o y ” ! r a e h s d n e i r f . r u o y d n u o s : m . T A H T o n , D R A H C I R , m u 3 1 ° 4 O T G N I O G M ' I G N I H T T S R I F E H T 3 : 4 3 : o n e m o c : m : : m m m m m : % 2 3 - 4 3 m u . o n 1 2 2 5 ‘ z 9 0 1 1 1 3 1 : 1 5 , 7 1 . 1 9 1 C n i a M : S . a e d i 3 ( " I fi , p o t s T A H W t n a w D I D k s a o t ; g n i h t e m o s n o ? n o o n 1 1 1 0 @ e w e r a e : 1 8 e g a P 4 3 8 1 J c n a r ‘ . ” 8 1 . r h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 e t a D : N O S S E L L L I K S G N I D A E R s t n e - o C r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E j J n o i t a r o b a l E y l p e R n o i t a i t i n I .3 38.1-19 e r a g n i k a n e r ' u o y n e h w r O : T y a s o t g n i o g s ' y d c h c s u s n e h w d n A . t i o d , e r e h , u o y o t s e m e h t e g p e e s h T . h a e Y : T - “ 0 3 . } 1 d o t e v a h l l ' u o y _ t a h g _ s _ ' _ t a h t _ A HNMQU‘ONOOO “side‘s-den L ’ : ' 1 x 7 , 6 ) 4 3 8 1 ’ , a a n - fl ' 9 1 e g a P 8 1 . r h c T 3 8 - 5 2 - 2 . t I ” : N O S S E L L L I ‘ S W I M m 1 m m : c i p o T l l i k S s t n e - c C 4 r o I w n g z t g g a g J d y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I s n i T 2 , L E A H C I M 7 5 : 7 N E H W D N I F O D E S U I : T ‘ . s n o i t s e u q r e w s n a o t e v a h Z _ ‘ e m u o y d n a g n i d a e r e r ' u o y n e h W : T e F r e w s n a o t e v a h u o y d n a k o o b - t r e t a g n i d a e r e r ' u o y n e h W : S ? s n o i t s e u q . a - m z . . , ¢ P / . . . h “ 3 2 2 : 2 2 1 ; 3 2 2 2 " 4 5 ' 4 “ u o y n s f W fl n a h t d i a s f f e i r T ) e l b i d u a n i ( : S t fi . w o n k t ' n o d I : s > 5 ? A E D I m u r E H T @ ? m n r ' m m s ' n a m . m x : ' 1 ' / d i ” . h a e Y : 5 A . . 6 A T : m a Y N A T I e s u I ! I A C : T @ : s n w : " m m n a w . n a c : r F I I ‘ . , , 3 ? E I H C I R : T @ ‘ g P . t r o p e r a g n i k a m e r ' u o y n e h W : 8 ® & r e h - e u r d ' u o y t h g u o h t I : T e t ‘ h t ” t “ K W . c c c N : T R P . h p a r g a r a p e h t d a e R : T : e m . e c n e t n e s t s r i f e h t t a k o o L ! w o n k I ! h o - h O . h p a r g a r a p e h t d a e R : : 8 8 : 8 : S . I . O D I : M I R T T S R I F E H T c a s E H T S ' T A H W , H I J , L L I B ? 0 D I m m r e v o k n i h t d n a k c a b t i S m : . W : 3 0 2 e g a P 4 3 8 1 l . a x - n r ‘ , " 8 1 . r h c T 3 8 . 5 2 . 2 . n o : 1 1 0 8 8 2 . 1 . m u s s m o m a e d I n i s E : c i p o T l l i k S n o i t a r o b a l E r o / d n a s t n e s n o C n o i t a u l a v E é n o i t a i t i n I y l p e R . ) . 4 1 ’ J N J L Z . 4 4 1 5 4 . e r a - . . - ¢ 5 1 8 - e c I . z - . 0 7 7 $ t a o l g 4? v i g s i t a h w m o r f e s o o h c d n A / 4 . y g k 0 f l e s r u o y E F e n o p u e k a m d n a y r T : T . f l e s r u o y e n o e k a m u o y n e h T : 8 . e n o t s r i f e h t t a k o o L : 5 z fl e h t t a h w k n i h t d n a k c a b t i S : T . t u o b a s ' h p a r g a r s p . t u o b a s ' h p a r g a r a p e h t i I L T O R S I E C N E T N E S E H T ? I T A H W U O Y O D T A H W ! E H T , L A T S Y R C : T 6% - h L on L z:- \ E g n i o g e v i g . w o N u o y o t s a : T a I 38.1-20 s m r - h c ’ I ‘ - c / r s I - c / E p - a r K l l ' . l l I ® a m n fi s u n : r ' _ L _ . u q ' é e K n i a m e h T : r ' v i t a g e n . s a e d i n i a M : e S . . . e t u n i m a t s u J : s s i M . e s e h t h t i w o d e w o d d n a e v i t i s o p d e r i m ( : e S I r f e s o o h c o t e v a h u o y t a h t e s ? M M m n e e s m c . . A . s r e n i a t r e t n e f o d l r o w e h t . . . s i a t l o v a r T n h a J , y d i s s a C n w a h S , n o t r u B r r a n a L t o g e v ' y e h T @ 9 3 t a h W 1 : § : r T 9 4 5 0 3 3 3 6 3 ) n o i t c a e r d e t i c x E ( : s S ! m m : 5 ' . s g n i h t n u f ! h a e y , h O : 8 . . . h c - h U : s S s e r u g i f s t r o p s f o s d n i k l l a n o . J , T S R I F E H O T N E T S I L “ 0 N 8 T . . . e r e h s d r a c e s o s e v a h I 6 1 3 , 1 1 ) L . A R O , R E W S N A E H T F O R E T T E L E E T l l i B , g n i v r E s u i l u J s ' e r e h T / h t e t i r w n a c u o y s r e p a p e s e h t R , S R E W S R A E H T T S U J . s r e w s n a O G E R ' U O Y E S O P P U S U O Y O D T A H W . . . t a h t l l a d n a , s r e g o R f o e n o f o k c a b e h t n o d n a . . . : T ? E S E H T N I R O F G N I D A E R E B O T " - l l I b a é h g % 2 m a 3 3 f H “ i HNnQnONOOS 6 «new Hues-nus 1 reuse-e 2 N 38.1-2] . _ _ _ . . . . . . . I ‘ “ . 0 7 7 $ 3 ' é l E " : 7 7 . , d r 5 D - m K / I — d P [ " 3 4 . ” . # m r a e v c n o t g g n i n n i g e b s i p u o r g t a h t s d n u o s , e c n o t a g n i k l a t l a r e v e s ( : s S A ' t 1 - n fi . : 1 d a e R x T : 9 . o c c o R : e S iet“t - t n a w u o y t a h t r e p a p e h t u o y » . n ? 1 E H T S ' T A H W / . y a w e h t : o n o n e m o c s m o o r ; m m { s r r n w U O Y o n o n . s n o I - m o c s m m m 0 0 : m K C A B ? m m n o n : a m n u o n m w o n E T I H W N I O D ' I K H V 8 n m a n o m v o n m o o r m u @ “ 4 3 8 1 ' . O ! ' O ’ I T 8 1 . r h c T 1 8 - 5 2 - 2 ! t I ” : R O S S E L L L I K S : K I I D A E R 2 1 e g a P “ d 1 b i l " : c i p o T n u s s t r o / d n a n o i t a u l a v E n e - n o C n o i t a r o b a l E y l p e R . n o i t a i t i n I é ) s e m a n 4 7 7 $ H s e s n o p s e r . r e l k n i W , W O N K U O Y O D e h t o t y r n e 3 , : H T ‘ C F $ p _ m g [ 6 . ¢ 7 1 / 0 . . d p E s a n e t s i l o t y d a e r e r ' u o y l i t n u n i g e b t ' n o d I . E R E S U C X E : ‘ 1 ' . e n o e F h T : T . h a e Y ) n o s i n u ( : e S . r r n n o y . y a k O . l i n s R k r a M : ' 1 ' o c U O Y r v u o n r a w , E L L E H C I M : 5 1 0 3 . ‘ ? S T T H H T O H W ) g n i k l a t f o t i b a e t i u q ( : s S ? T S R I F . D . r D ! m w “ l f - - - fl m w u m m - . - . - - - . . . . . . " - . . . . . - - . - e v i g s i o d l l ' I k n i h t } t a : I . - % ‘ 3 3 . / 3 HNMQIflONQO 2 ‘ 3 ‘ . 1 1 APPENDIX 38.2 Sample Completed Lesson Hap (Lesson 18R4, Main Idea) 2 . 8 3 X I D N E P P A P A H N O S S E L D E T E L P M O C E L P M A S " “ ) : 7 5 : 2 5 L — e g A a ( . , 2 I ) n c n K - t T é M E L L m o T a e d ?I ; 9 1 / . . . c f p i T — . ‘ 2 4 : M c L L i k s . i n o S s e L — . . g i w s h c « e T " z s : 7 2 / 5 5 . L — e g d o l 3 K - T M L L l K 5 a 1 3 L . _ ) n i n K - m s u E L . l n a T — a fl i d i [ — c i p E ! 5 “ 0 5 6 L g l ? " d n e T 33.2-2 APPENDIX 33.3 Sample Worksheet for Elicitation Types, Sequence Structural Form, and Sequence Topical Information Content (Lesson 18R4, Main Idea) SAMPLE NORKSHEET FOR ELICITATION TYPES, SEQUENCE STRUCTURAL FORM, AND SEQUENCE TOPICAL INFORMATION CONTENT APPENDIX 38.3 75.05er T0 P12. lid/51124 Ski/Md: a , 9 9va X0 JR ; 2?wa \t‘) “V .go Qe 9,: B 0} Q“ (6 4/ 7 757' A J 7 TMS \‘i’: ‘) d 5145: I 155 ’/ Produd' .3 M as: 5. eA/ 9': ‘II’I'; H4014:— E . l 3 3 4. BMW/2r Man. MW' marnccs5tn! IOS‘éakfl?tRx-S?. IL tikundflgéé ll. Vc rim/.450}: i l 11/. Main/trek“ lg! Paar/47'! . LEN TMT'M’” ll; ll 5' ., k& r 7'I | 1- APPENDIX 38.4 Sample Evaluation Elements Worksheet (Lesson 18Ru, Main Idea) APPENDIX 38.4 SAMPLE EVALUATION ELEMENTS NORKSHEET Eddafl 727/2 M4494. ' . sum—i— fun/udlah/E/ahmfion w ._-Dtln. Pres 6-! .RP 6/ Rev 7370:. Panval 1‘ 77 Y A' 5 3, 97 ”96%! - j 'a I 2. Pas E/alv Io J5; (, 2. .73 1244.746 . I / ' I 6’ flifisewl :L / . 3 I, :3 " 9' 11 I I 8’ Mgr/Ht J I 1 5 No 14d61ak 1 4—- Utaa‘wl rams 3 33 I7 15 5‘ /0 92- W ~ MW 34 7 2' IS 6% i I. 2- P”: (M I II 4 4‘. ‘f ; _5_._3_ 31 /A:__ I. 5: APPENDIX 38.5 Sample Visual Lesson Profile (Lesson 18RA, Main Idea) » m a h s e I ( ‘ s l - e i r e E 5 . 8 3 X I D N E P P A E L I F O R P N O S S E L L A U S I V E L P M A S s m u B u a u L . “ n a s u P i c s a a c t u D w m m a P h c n u m " APPENDIX 3C SAMPLE LESSON LENGTH RECORD FORM phase length in transcript lines and real time (minutes). This form was used to record lesson and d e d i u G . t n I n o s s e t g n e L L h P n o i t a t n e s e r 6 3 X I D N E P P A M R O F D R O C E R H T G N E L N O S S E L E L P M A S r e h c a e T a t o T w e i v e R e r u s o l C e c i t c a r P n o i t a t i c e R l n o i t c u d o r t n I . o n o M . o n o M ) s d n o c e s / s e t u n i m ( e m i T t p i r c s n a r T r e h c a e T s e n i L s e n i L t p i r c s n a r T l a t o T l A t p i r c s n a r T r e h c a e T s e n i L s e n i L t p i r c s n a r T l a t o T 2 # ) A s d n o c e s / s e t u n i m ( e m i T l a t o T - S t p i r c s n a r T s e n i L ) s d n o c e s / s e t u n i m ( e m i T t p i r c s n a r T r e h c a e T s e n i L t p i r c s n a r T r e h c a e T s e n i L t p i r c s n a r T l a t o T 4 # e m i T 5 ° ) ) # s d n o c e s / s e t u n i m ( s d n o c e s / s e t u n i m ( t p i r c s n a r T t p i r c s n a r T r e h c a e T s e n i L l a t o T s e n i L s e n i L e m i T APPENDIX 3D EXAMPLE SEQUENCES FROM LESSON TRANSCRIPTS TO ILLUSTRATE CLASSIFICATION CODES APPENDIX 3D.l Example Interaction Sequences Illustrating Elicitation and Evaluation Codes Sequence Examples show application of Elicitation and Evaluation Codes (Data Analysis Steps 1 and 2). Four examples are provided. Appendix 3D.1 Example Interaction Seguences illustrating Elicitation and Evaluation Qodes The following series of example interaction sequences taken from skill lessons on prefixes and suffixes illus- trates how two coding schemes were used to describe elicita- tions and fevaluation elements. The focus here is on illus- trating the kinds of elicitations and feedback that were of major interest in this analysis. Other types were, however, identified as noted. Examples are presented in the reformatted transcript style to show how sequences were constructed in terms of initiations. replies and evaluations. The codes from Tables 3.6 and 3.7 are listed in the column to the right of the text. positioned next to the text element being described. Additionally. the phase. sequence ordering, and start-end times of the sequence example in the lesson are provided. Example One. In her lesson on using suffixes to determine word meaning. Teacher 01 focuses student atten— tion (E-IS) then elicits product information (E-l) about the use of this skill. She evaluates the student response by providing single-word positive certification (FE—P) followed by a product elicitation (E—l) probing for addi- tional information (FE-PrM) about the meaning of the suffixed word. She positively certifies the student’s response to the probe by repeating (FE-PR) and elaborating 3D.1-E (FE-PE) how the answer was obtained. Example One: (Guided Practice. SEO. 12. TEP. 01R3. 2-83-83) Initiation 3 Reply 3 Evaluation {Comment 6:52 T: LET’S GO DOWN TO THE NEXT ONE. This is kind of hazy down there. BUT SUPPOSE YOU HAD -LY ADDED TO A BASE WORD: JASON? T: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? S: Greatly. T: Yes. S: In a way that is. E-lS E-l FB-P E-l T: In a way that is. FB-PR Alright. suppose FB-PE we take the word. the base word and add -ly. 50 therefore greatly would mean. ‘in a way that is great. / -ly add- 7:24 ed on. / Example Two. Product elicitations also initiate requests for information about the skill. In a lesson on using prefixes to determine word meaning. Teacher 02 elicits product information about the skill topic. She responds to the student’s incorrect reply with negative prompts (FB-NPr) and directs the bounds of acceptable reponse behavior with the rest of the class (E-B). She repeats the question (E-I. FB-NPr) to a new student after focusing student attention (E-IS) on the definition. Her elaboration (FE-PE) reinforces the response she seeks. 3D.1-3 Example Two: (Review, SEO. 28. TEP OERB, 8-22-83) Initiation i Reply i Evaluation {Comment 15:55 T: ALRIGHT, FOR THE LAST TIME TODAY WHERE DO WE FIND PREFIXES: HISS ANN R.? T: LOOK AT THE DEFINITION: CLASS. FROM THE DEFINITION, WHERE DO YOU THINK WE WOULD FIND A PREFIX: JUSTIN? S: /Long pause/ 5: At the end of a word. 8: /NR/ E-l T: TAKE A DEEP BREATH FB-NPr I KNOW YOU KNOW.// (To class) PUT E-B YOUR HANDS DOWN: PLEASE? Let’s give Ann a chance. T: Oh my goodness. FB-N IF WE FOUND PRE- E-l FIXES AT THE END FB—NPr OF A WORD: WHERE ON EARTH WOULD WE FIND A SUFFIX: ANN? T: You are telling FB-NR the class that we find a prefix at the end. E—lS E-l S: At the beginning of a word. T: At the beginning. FB-PE A prefix is a syllable added to the beginning / of a word to change its mean- ing. I want you to etch this in your brain, okay.. 17:06 learn it. 30.1-4 ExampI§_Thr§g. In her lesson on recognizing word pronunciation by using prefixes and suffixes, Teacher 14 illustrates the use of process elicitations (E-B) to (1) obtain information about how to perform the skill, as well as (E) asking a student to explain how they performed it with an example. In example (a) her evaluation consists of confirmation through repetition (FE-PR). Example Three (a): (Review, SEQ. 31. TEP IARS. 4-21-83) Initiation : Reply 3 Evaluation :Comment 20:49 T: EXPLAIN TO HE HOW YOU’RE GOING TO GO ABOUT USING THE SKILL THIS WAY? E—S S: Find the base word... S: Then you look for if it has a prefix and suffix. S: Then you put it all to- gether. S: Say the word. T: Find the base FB-PR word. T: Okay, prefix FB-PR and suffix. T: Put it all FB-PR together. T: Then say the FB-PR 21:15 word. In example (b) she responds to the student’s answer by seeking verfication (E-IE, FB-ESCT) and clarification (E-ll) before positively certifying the response. 3D.1-5 Example Three (b): (Guided Practice. SEQ. 15. TEP. IARS, 4-21-83) Initiation Reply : I : I Evaluation :Comment 9:31 T: [(Writes on board)/ This one’s hard. There’s some- thing different about this one than what we’ve done before today. CRAIG? S: The base word has than and the end has ful. so it’ll be unthankful. DID HE SKIP SOMETHING? T: WHAT’D HE SKIP 8: Yeah. JENNY? HOW WOULD YOU THINK THAT OUT AS YOU WERE TRYING TO FIGURE THE WORD OUT? S: Think is the base word. Ful is the suffix. Un is the prefix and put it togeth- er, thankful. E-l T: He said the base FB-PR word is thank and the part at the end is ful. So it will be unthankful. / E-18 FB-ES CT E-l E-3 T: THANKFUL? E-12 FB-NPr S: Unthankful. T: ARE YOU SAYING E-11 THINK? FB-PrR S: Unthankful. T: Oh, I didn’t hear you. 11:03 Unthankful, okay. FB-PR 30.1-6 gxémplg Four. In the same lesson, Teacher 14 also illustrates usefulness elicitations (E-S). The following sequence was part of her Interactive Presentation. in which she called upon students to assist in the initial presentation of information about the skill usefulness. xam I F r: (Interactive Presentation. SE0. 7. TEP 14R5. 4-21-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation TComment 4:88 T: Okay, we’ve talked about the what. We’ve talked about the up! WHAT ABOUT WHY? WHY SHOULD WE KNOW THIS? WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER DOING THIS, TOM? T: SOMEBODY ELSE? WHY DO YOU THINK WE’RE LEARNING THIS. LARRY? T: WHERE NIGHT THIS HAPPEN TO YOU? WHERE MIGHT YOU BE? 5:03 E-S S: So you know a word, the roots of the word, pro- nounce the words. Okay.../ S: When you come to a word in the book they don’t know. S: In the library. T: Okay... FB-Neut FE-PrM E-5 T: Alright. FB-P E-5 FB-PrM T: It might be FB-PE while you’re reading a book. 3D.l-7 Example Five. The following examples illustrate the two kinds of elicitations related to overseeing how stu- dents performed the academic tasks needed to complete the lesson or make it run smoothly. Although both were com- bined for this analysis into a single category represent- ing academic task management, each had its particular management focus. In Example Five (a), Teacher 01 directs students through the examples used during Guided Practice. Example Five (a): (Guided Practice, SEO. 10. TEP 01R3: 2-83-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 5:57 T: ALRIGHT: LOOK AT THE NEXT ONE DOWN, -IST. IF YOU SEE THAT WORD WHEN YOU ARE READING, WHAT WOULD -IST MEAN TO THE BASE WORD? // JUST READ ON YOUR PAGE; THAT’S ALL, E-15 E-1 E-é OKAY? 8: One who was.. (inaudible) 6:15 T: Alright. FB-P A x 3D.1-8 In Example Five (b), Teacher 11 manages the logistics of preparing students for participation in the lesson. Example Five (p): (Introduction, SE0. 2, TEP 11R4, 3-14-83) Initiation Reply T I T I Evaluation TComment I 0:09 T: DO YOU HAVE YOUR SHEETS WITH YOU? S: What sheets? E-G T: What sheets! ANYBODY KNOW FB-NPr WHAT SHEETS I’M TALKING 85: Yes.. ABOUT? /RILLA? S: The prefix list? T: The prefix FB-PR list. That’s right. 5: What does it look like? T: Uh, uh../Just relax a minute (goes to her desk and returns to front of class with a paper) / / It looks like this /(holds paper up)/. T: You’re supposed FB-NE to have that with you all the time. IJUST E-S FOLD IT UP AND SLIP IT IN YOUR READING BOOK; AND THEN IT WILL STAY WITH YOU. Your read- ing book makes a nice carrying place for these things. 0:47 APPENDIX 3D.2 Examples of Structural Form Codes Sequence Examples show application of Structural Form Codes (Data Analysis Step 3). Thirty-seven examples are provided. Codes represented (in order): Teacher Monologue (TM) -- Examples 1-2 Teacher Interactive Monologue (TMS) -- Examples 3-5 Simple Sequence ($3) -- Examples 6-16 Extended Sequences (ES) -- Examples 17-37 according to the following categories: Extended - Accepted - Same Student (EAss) Extended - Accepted - Different Students (EAds) Extended - Unaccepted - Same Student (3153) Extended - Unaccepted - Different Students (EIds) Appendix 30.2 Examples of structural form codes The following thirty-seven example sequences are illus— trative of the sequence structural form categories used to classify instructional sequences. These examples are num- bered consecutively, and classifications are presented in the order described in Table 3.8. (1) Teacher Monologue (TM). The following two examples illustrate sequences with the Teacher Monologue code. Example One is a Teacher Monologue sequence taken from Teacher 19’s skill lesson on how to use glossary and dictio— nary respellings to pronounce unknown words. The sequence occurs in the lesson Introduction phase and is a "gameplan" sequence overviewing how information will be presented in the lesson. 302.2-2 Example One: Teacher Monologue (TM) (SEO. 2, TEP 19R4, 2-28-83) Initiation Reply Evaluation 1:25 T: Now, STOP TALKING PLEASE AND LISTEN TO ME. I Remember that this is a new text- book. -The words are going to be more com- plicated. There’ll be in your vocabulary you’ll have, uh, words will be multisyllabic. That means they’ll be longer. They’ll be more difficult for you to pronounce. So today before we start in our new book, before we talk about the title, before we do anything with it, I’m going to give you your new words for today. Wes’re going to work on those new words. I’m going to teach you or help you to sound those words out. So that when you are reading the stories, it’ll be easier for you to read those stories. Okay. Today we’re going to work on how to use the respel- ling / (writes on board). Okay. This is what we’re going to talk about. I How to use the respelling in our glossary or our dictionaries. / Okay. 2:13 302.2-3 Example Two. This example from Teacher 14;s lesson on pronouncing words with prefixes and suffixes, illustrates the kind of Teacher Monologue sequence that was often used by teachers during a presentation phase to model how to perform the skill. Example Two: Teacher Monologue (TM) (SE0. 2, TEP 14R5, 4-21-83) Initiation T Reply Evaluation 2:12 T: For example, I had this word /(write on board)/ and I didn’t know it, first thing I do is look at that word and say, ‘Is there a part of that word I already know?’ / Sure, I know that word, shadow. And I know there are some letters in front of it that I know what they say. They say ’over’. So I put those two together and I know that word says 'over- shadow’. Three steps. 2:51 (2) Tgacher Interactive Monologue (TMS). In Exam le Three, Teacher 01 is the primary speaker as she models a skill strategy for decoding unknown words. However, she often pauses as she models and allows students to respond in unison ("Ss" indicates multiple students responding) with product responses that anticipate what she will say next. This type of interactive cuing during a monologue presentation was prevalent for some teachers in 302.2-4 the study and seemed designed to maintain student attention. Use of this type of cuing also seemed to occur with "low risk" declarative information which guaranteed student success with correct answer-getting. Example Threg: Teacher Interactive Monologue (TMS) (SE0. 5, TEP 01R2, 12-8-82) Initiation Evaluation 4:31 T: Now there is another way that we can do this. Well, suppose you see this word. / /(writes on overhead)/ Ss: (whispers) T: Shhh! Well, you look at that and you try the first way. Say, well, I know part of that word. But there’s also another part on that word that I knew before I knew the other paret. / I know what this is over here. This thing here is called a suffix, and it’s pronounced i-n-g. / SO WE TAKE OFF THE SUFFIX OR THE.../ prefixes on the word, AND THEN WE LOOK FOR WHAT WE’VE KNOWN AS THE... / root word, and then we put the root word with the suffix or the prefix and we pro- nounce the word. So that’s two ways. The first way, try to see if it is a compound word two whole words joined together. / If so, separate the words Ss: /ingf Ss: prefixes Ss: root 302.2-5 Example Three (cont’d) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation and then try to pro- nounce the word and if you pronounce it like 'everything’. 'Every- thing?’ ‘Everything.’ ‘Everything.’ So that’s everything. And . with this one, / IF THIS IS ‘-ING’, AND THIS IS.../ THEN TOGETHER THEY MUST BE.../ 5:50 Ss: teach Ss: teaching T: teaching. Teacher Interactive Monologue sequences were often associated in these skill lessons with providing students with directives (i.e., elicitation codes 6 and 8) when explaining task directions. As shown in the following two examples, the interaction was often the result of student requests for clarification. In EipmpleiFour, Teacher 04 is prompted by student confusion following her reading of the directions for an upcoming worksheet on base words and endings to clarify the independent practice task. 3D2.2-6 Example Four: Teacher Interactive Monologue (TMS) (SEQ. 33, TEP 04R2, 1-5-83) Initiation Reply Evaluation 22:06 T: Down at the bottom it says (reads) “Look at the letter from the ones below. In that row of letters, draw a line through the big word that you printed in box one each time it appears. The words on the left will be the ending to the first riddle." / Oh, good. CROSS OUT BEGIN. T: EVERY TIME YOU SEE BEGIN, CROSS IT OUT. / I know / / YOU SEE S: Begin? THEM? / / That makes Ss: Umhum... the answer. SO WHAT HAS NO END AND NO BEGINNING? S: A circle? 22:40 T: A circle, that’s the answer. Example Five also illustrates interaction occurring during a teacher’s monologue presentation in lesson closure of directives for doing the practice task which follows the group lesson. In this case, Teacher 19 is clearly less responsive to students’ interruptions. 302.2-7 Example Five: Teacher Interactive Monologue (TMS) (SEQ. 33, TEP 19R1, 10-22—82) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 31:47 T: READ THE PARAGRAPH AND 000 THE ASSIGNMENT. It’s like a test. YOU HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON IT, OKAY? T: PUT YOUR NAME ON THE TOP / and we are going to see if you pass this test.lf everybody passes the test, you wait and see what happens on Monday. S: What about (inaudible) S: We’re going to read this. ' T: I can’t tell you. / READ IT TO YOURSELF AND DO WHAT IT SAYS. 32:00 (3) Simple Seguence (53). Sequences with the three-part initiation-student response-teacher evaluation interaction form were very prevalent in the data. The example three-part sequences which follow have been selected from the skill lessons of several teachers to reflect the variety of elicitation types which might initiate an interaction of this kind, and dif- ferent feedback elements which could close it. The eleven examples below are also representative of recurring examples of similar simple sequences in the transcript data as a whole. 302.2-8 Example Six is an adjacent pair of simple sequences taken from Teacher 02’s lesson on uses of the apostrophe during the Introduction phase in which she asks students to provide information about their knowledge of punctuation marks. A product elicitation (E-l) initiates the first sedquence; a elicitation for skill knowledge background (E-lOS) initiates the second. Example Six: Simple Seguence (SB) (SEQ. 6—7, TEP OERS, 5—11-83). Initiation T Reply Evaluation 1:49 T: Authors or writers use signals. CAN YOU THINK OF A WORD THAT WOULD TELL US WHAT THOSE KINDS OF SIGNALS ARE CALLED? When you are writing your lesson, you use signals. There is a special name for those signals. LEMANS? 2:17 T: CHARLES, GO TO THE BOARD AND PUT A PUNC- TUATION MARK ON THE BOARD PLEASE. Any one that you use when you are writing. Well, maybe you don’t use just any one. I’M ASKING FOR A PUNCTU- ATION MARK. S: Punctuation marks. T: Punctuation marks, okay. S: (goes to board and writes) T: Alright, Charles put a period on the board. 302.2-9 In the pair of simple sequences taken from the Interac- tive Presentation phase of Teacher 04’s lesson on "Using the Glossary" (Example Seven), the teacher elicits different aspects of definitional information about the skill topic (E-1). The flow of the sequences is interrupted by a short behavior management sequence (E-9) directed to a student outside the group. Example Seven: Simple Sequences (53) (SEQ. 2—4, TEP 04R5, 4-27-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 0:05 T: WHO CAN TELL ME WHAT A GLOSSARY IS? R.J.? 0:18 T: GREG! IT’S YOUR SEAT- WORK TIME, RIGHT? 0:24 WHERE CAN YOU FIND A GLOSSARY, TERRY? S: A summary to look up words and find the definition. (Noise from outside the group lessens) S: Maybe from the back of a book. T: Good. Alright. 0:32 T: In the back of a book. Okay. The next series of example simple sequences illustrates how teachers elicit product information when asking students to figure out the answer to an example in which the skill 3D2.2-10 must be used in order to answer correctly. Example Eight is from Teacher 22’s lesson on "Using Context Clues to determine Word Meaning". In her Introduc- tion phase, she uses an example to remind students of what they already know about using the skill (E-l). This sequence was presented previously in Figure 3.1 using the more tradi— tional transcript lining format. Inclusion of this example allows the reader to compare formats for presenting class- room interaction data. Example Eight: Simple Sequence (53) (SEQ. S, TEKP 22R5, 4-18-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 2:33 T: HOW IS THAT WORD BEING USED? (NO PAUSE) Remember if we had a word, let’s say ‘snicklefriss’, and I told you ”I pounded a nail into a board with my snicklefriss.’ Now, you have no idea what a snicklefriss is, but by the way I use it, the other words in the sentence that I use it in, YOU CAN SORT OF GUESS THAT IT MIGHT BE A WHAT? Ss: Hammer. T: A hammer or some type of tool. Context or the content always being contained... sentence it is being put into. REMEMBER THAT? We worked on these. 3:23 3D2.2-11 In Example Nine, Teacher 02 asks a student to define a word by using the meaning of it’s prefix during the Recita- tion Practice phase of a "Prefixes" lesson. Exgmple Nine: Simple Sequence (SS) (SEQ. 27, TEP 02R3, 2-22-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 15:38 T: WHAT DOES ‘REAPPEAR’ MEAN, PATRICK? The star suddenly reap- peared in the sky. S: It came out again. 15:55 T: Alright, It came back again. good. No problem with that . You understand. Example Tep_illustrates how teachers often telegraph elicitations during practice phases by simply calling a student by name once the expectations for how to do examples are established. The following pair of simple sequences occurred during the Recitation Practice phase of Teacher 14’s lesson on "Pronouncing words with prefixes and suf- fixes" when students responded correctly. At the outset of the phase, the teacher asked students to "...PRETEND THAT YOU ARE READING ALONG AND YOU COME TO THIS WORD AND YOU DON’T KNOW IT. USE THE SKILL AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE WORD IS." (seq. 39). Although students were expected to demonstrate process understanding in their response (i.e., 302.2-12 procedural knowledge), the elicitations are posed to obtain the product answers for the examples. Expmple Ten: Simple Sequence (S3) (SEQ. 43, 47; TEP 14R5, 4-21-83) Initiation Reply Evaluation 28:50 T: TAKE FIVE,.THERESA? 29:01 30:01 T: 80 AHEAD, DAVE. T: Good. S: The suffix is -ness and the base word is ripe- ness. / And the word is ripe and the prefix is over. Over— ripe. S: The base word is success. And the suffix is -ful and prefix is un- and the base word is success. Unsuccess- ful. 30:40 T: Good. Example Eleven, from Teacher 04’s glossary lesson, illustrates telegraphed elicitations during Recitation Practice where the correct student response is to provide the page number on which the example word can be found (E-l). 3D2.2-13 Example Eleven: Simple Sequence (53) (SEQ. 40, TEP 04R5, 4-27—83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation I I 16:19 T: MOMENT. Just a moment. AMY? 16:33 (sound of pages being turned) S: 364 T: 364. Okay. Example Twelve and Eigmple Thiriggfl show simple sequences in which the teachers elicit information about skill usefulness (E-5), or conditional knowledge of where the skill can be applied. Eigmple Twelve occurs in Teacher OA’s Introduction to her lesson on "Alphabetizing". Example Twelve: Simple Sequence (83) (SEQ. 4, TEP 04R3, 2—15-83) - Initiation Evaluation 0:30 T: WHY MIGHT WE NEED TO KNOW ALPHABETICAL ORDER? WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO US? S: It helps us find words in the dictionary? T: Good. It helps us find words in the dictio- nary. 0:44 Examplnghirteen occurs in the Review phase of Teacher 18’s lesson on "Letters that make the/f/ sound". The teacher’s evaluation response to the student’s response 302.2-14 interrupts the student apparantly in an effort to shape the usefulness information shared with the rest of the reading group. Examplp Thirteen: Simple Sequence (SS) (SEQ. 36, TEP 18R3, 2-11—83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 22:55 T: OKAY NOW, WHEN MIGHT I USE THIS INFORMATION? S: Whenever you see one of those four letters and T: Whenever I run across, LUCY, a word I don’t know. No matter where I am, JO, if I run across a word with those letter combinations in it, that I don’t know, I am going to try out what we just did today. 23:28 Exampl Fourteen is from Teacher 08’s lesson on "Uses 4 of the comma", in which the teacher conducts Recitation Practice by having students write their responses to her questions. This sequence illustrates eliciting responses related to the logistics of tas completion (E—B) and includes a lengthy pause for students to complete their responses. 302.2~15 Example Fourteen: Simple Sequence (SB) (SEQ. 21, TEP 08R2, 11-24—82) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 12:50 T: HAS EVERYBODY GOT THE SECOND ONE DOWN? /(Pause - 75 seconds)/ S: (Noise from talking es- calates) S: I got it. 14:15 T: / / Okay. The final examples of simple sequence form focus on student management situations encountered by teachers during lessons. For most teachers, these sequences occurred as interruptions to the topical flow of the lesson. Eigmple Fiftggp occurs during the Closure phase of Teacher 11’s lesson on "Prefixes for word meaning", between two monologue sequences in which she presents the task assignment for independent practice. Example Fifteen: Simple Sequence (SS) (SEQ. 29, TEP 11R4, 3-14-83) Initiation \Reply T Evaluation 18:32 T: WHAT’S THE MATTER, UH, KENNY? S: (inaudible) T: PUT THAT DIC- 18:50 TIONARY AWAY. I don’t want to see any dictio- naries out. Dictionaries are banned books for this activity. 302.2-16 Examp$gf8ixtg§p occurs at the juncture between Teacher 22’s Introduction and Interactive Presentation phases in her lesson on the pronunciation of "‘str’-words". Although unrelated directly to the topic of the lesson, the teacher’s behaviorial elicitation appears designed to prepare students for focusing attention on the lesson topic. While sequences of this type occurred in most of the lessons studied, their frequency was probably inhibited by the presence of an outside observer at the time the lesson was conducted. Example Sixteen: Simple Sequence (53) (SEQ. 7, TEP 22R2, 12-13-82) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 1:29 T: REGGIE, PUT YOUR BOT- TOM IN THE CHAIR PLEASE. 1:43 S: (inaudible and sound of chair moving) T: Thank you. Alright. / 302.2-17 (4) Extended Seguences The examples below are illustrative of the following four category codes: (a) Extended Sequence--Accept, same student (EAss): (b) Extended Sequence--Accept, different students (EAds); (c) Extended Sequence--Incorrect, same student (E155); and (d) Extended Sequence--Incorrect, dif— ferent students (Elds). (a) Extended Seguence--Accppt, same student (EAss): The following example teacher-student interac— tion sequences represent various kinds of instances in the analyzed skill lessons where the teacher elicited an informational response of some kind from a student and then probed for further responses related to the sequence topic after the student replied with a cor— rect or acceptable response. Example Sevgnteen. This example from Teacher 19’s lesson on "the /sh/ sound” shows a type of extended sequence that frequently characterized word pronunciation skill lessons--the stringing together of topically related simple sequences. During Recitation Practice, the teacher presented the student with a word to sound out (in this example, the word contains the alternate sound of ‘ch’). 3D2.2-18 Exam le eventeen: EAss (SEQ. 34, TEP 19R5, 3—23—86) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation I I 19:33 T: MARY, COME AND DO ONE FOR US PLEASE? The next one. ‘ S: (inaudible sounding) T: Okay, AND YOU KNOW THE FIRST PART OF THAT WORD SAYS WHAT? AND THE NEXT PART? S: Wood? 8: chuck. T: That’s right. T: /ch/-/uck/, okay, woodchuck. Examplg Eiqhtggp. In a lesson on “Syllables”, Teacher 04 demonstrates how teachers often established the parameters for student respones through use of directive elicitations in introductory remarks to the Recitation Practice phase. They were then were gradu- ally able to telegraph elicitations in subsequent extended sequences to allow a single student to make the several responses required to show understanding. When the student’s initial response was correct, this type of extension could proceed very smoothly as shown in the following series of sequences following a mono- logue presentation of directions (SEQ. 15). 3D2.2-19 Example Eighteen: EAss (SEQ. 15—16, 20; TEP 04R4, 3-30—83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 5:24 T: I’a going to give you a word and YOU TELL ME HOW MANY SYLLABLES IT HAS. You can use whatever aethod you want to, unless you have trouble, and then we’ll help you. (Words are on cards.) 5:41 /(implies respondant)/ CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU WOULD DIVIDE THEM? TAKE THIS MARKER AND MAKE A LINE WHERE YOU WOULD DIVIDE. SAY IT OUT LOUD FOR US, REAL SLOW. Just like you did when you clapped your hands. 8: Two. T: Two, very good S: Gar-den (claps) T: Alright NOW DIVIDE BETWEEN THOSE. S: (marks the word) 6:07 T: Very nice job. 7:06 T: [(implies respondant)/ S: Chipmunk. HOW MANY SYLLABLES? 5: Two SAY IT REAL SLOW. S: Chip-munk. LET’S SEE WHERE HE DIVIDES IT. T: Good. T: Two. T: Good. S: /pause to mark word- 6 seconds/ 7:35 T: Alright. 302.2-20 Example Nineteen. Often in extended interaction sequences with a single student, the teacher withheld evaluative feedback until the student responded to an entire series of elicitations successfully. Each subsequent probe for additional information seemed to serve as implicit positive certification of the prior response, as illustrated in the following sequence from the Recitation Practice phase of Teacher 20’s "Synonyms and Antonyms" lesson. Students were asked to identify whether two words were same or different in meaning. The extension here is based on asking the student to justify her initial answer. 302.2-21 Example Nineteen: EAss (SEQ. 26, TEP 20R4, 3—18—83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 19:34 T: ALRIGHT, THE NEXT ONE. MONICA? S: Plea and request. T: Alright, SAY IT . AGAIN. S: Plea and request. S: Synonyms. S: Umhum. T: Alright. T: YOU SAY IT MEANS THE SAME? S: //Umm // T: DID YOU LOOK PLEA UP? 5: Uh-huh S: A request or call for help of some kind. ° The same. Synonyms. T: Synonyms. T: WHY DO YOU SAY IT MEANS THE SAME? T: Okay, WHAT IS THE MEANING FOR PLEA? ' SO REQUEST AND PLEA ARE...? SO THEY ARE CALLED WHAT? 18 Example Twenty. In her lesson on "Reading for Details", Teacher 08 also asks a student to prove the correctness of her answer to a true-false practice example. In this case, the teacher elicits a text citation for justification--a means of sequence exten- sion seen in several lessons. 302.2-22 Example Twengx: EAss (SEQ. 25, TEP 08R4, 3-3-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation I I 24:54 T: Okay / NUMBER TWO, SAMANTHA? WOULD YOU PLEASE READ IN THE ARTICLE? T: Alright, S: Thousands of years ago lakes were bigger/ I put yes. S: "Thousands of years ago it was much bigger and was a fresh water lake." T: Okay, you’re right and you read it right out of there. Example Twenty-One. In some instances interac- tion sequence extensions with a single student were the result of the teacher probing for additional information to clarify the student’s intial response. This is illustrated in the following example from a review phase in Teacher 14’s "Drawing Conclusions" lesson. The teacher accepts the student’s response, withholding certification, however, until clarifica- tion is exacted (see also, Example Twenty). 302.2-23 Example Twpnt230ne: EAss (SEQ. 25, TEP 14R4, 3-7-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 18:22 T: CAN SOMEBODY ELSE TELL ME HOW YOU DRAW CONCLUSIONS? You’re going to teach your friends / this now after school. HOW YOU’RE GOING TO TELL HIM WHAT? T: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH WORDS THAT THE AUTHOR SAYS AND WHAT YOU ALREADY KNOW? T: TO HELP YOU WHAT? 18:45 S: Words that the author says and what you already know. 5: Use them as clues. 8: Draw con- clusions. T: Draw conclu- sions. Good, I’m glad you’re using that word. Example ngnty-Two. This example, from Teacher 22’s lesson on "Apostrophes for possessives", illus- trates the length and complexity that could be found in extended interaction sequences even when student responses were wholly acceptable. Sequences of this kind were typically located in the Guided Practice phase of the lesson. Also, in the skill lessons ana— lyzed, sequence extensions could follow from academic management elicitations which initiated treatment of a 302.2-24 practice example. For example, a common kind of sequence receiving this code was one in which the teacher first asked a student to read an example aloud, prior to initiation of answer-getting tasks requiring use of the lesson’s skill. Several extended sequences in the data were of this kind. In these cases, coding according to student response accept— ability was based on the elicitations and responses following the academic management task rather than the student’s ability to read the text of the example fluently. It should be noted, however, that when sequences involved oral reading, a student’s ability to negoitiate the text fluently was a determiner in the length and discourse flow quality of the sequence. 302.2-25 Example ngptv-Tgp: EAss (SEQ. 16, TEP 22R4, 3-8-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 13:24 T: DWAYNE, DO YOU WANT TO READ THE NEXT ONE? S: (reads) “The girl’s dog is a PUPPY-" S: "The girl’s / wait / the girl’s dog is just a PUPPY-" T: LOOK AGAIN. T: Perfect. Okay. The girl’s dog is just a PUPPY- S: Oooo-oooo. The girl owns the dog? T: Alright. Girl’s PUPPY- S: You look at the paper and if the apostrophe’s before, af- ter, before the s. I’m looking up and I see, the girl’s dog is just a puppy. SOMEBODY OWNS SOMETHING HERE. T: Now I don’t know whether that means girls, you know, more than one girl owns the puppy, or whether it’s one girl’s puppy. SO HOW DO I THINK IN MY HEAD, HOW DO I FIND OUT WHETEHR ONE GIRL OWNS THE PUPPY OR WHETHER MORE THAN ONE GIRL OWNS THE PUPPY? Examplg ngnty-Two (cont’d.) Initiation T Reply Evaluation T: 50 WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 5: One girl. T: You’re saying you looked and the apostrophe only closed in the word girl. LEFT THE S OUTSIDE, DIDN’T 0 88 H W MANY? 14:48 S: Mmmmm IT? / So that meant only the word girl. S: One. T: One girl owns the puppy. / You guys are good at this. (b) Extended Seguence--Acggot, gifferent students: Teachers often engaged two or more students in extended interaction sequences even when the first respondant’s answer was accepted. The obvious benefit of this practice was greater group involvement in practice sequences, especially during the lengthier 'interactions characteristic of the Guided Practice phase. During Recitation Practice phases, multiple students might be involved in providing the "pieces" that made up the total response treatment to a prac- tice example without the more extensive teacher elabo— ration of guided practice. The examples below repre— sent the numerous instances of this kind of sequence. 302.2-27 Example ngnty-Thrgg. This extended sequence occurred in the Guided Practice phase of Teacher 21’s lesson on ”Outlining and Noting Details". Sequences were coded as "Accepted, different students" when students were signaled to respond as a group to a verification request following a single student’s response. Example Twpnty-Thrpp: EAds (SEQ. 11, TEP 21R4, 3-1-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 7:29 T: Okay, BACK TO THE FIRST MAIN IDEA / MMMM, RELATED TO THE TITLE OF THIS STORY. / The title of this story "Hot Springs in Iceland", WHAT DOES JUST THE TITLE TELL YOU? CONNIE? S: That there’s hot springs in Iceland. T: Alright. SO IT’S GOING TO SAY WHERE THE HOT SPRINGS COME FROM, DOESN’T IT? /(writes on 8:17 Okay. Ss: Yes, Yup board)/ Example ngnty-Four. In another example from the same lesson, Teacher 21 illustrates how grounds for extending with different students might relate only to the acceptability od the syntactic form in which a student responded, not the answer correctness. 302.2-28 Example Twenty—Four: EAds (SEQ. 5, ibid.) Initiation Reply Evaluation 2:52 T: Okay, the l/...we can go ahead and do this part, WHAT ARE THE SPRINGS USED FOR? HEATING WHAT? SUSAN? ..cmd 3:23 S: Heating. 8: Heating greenhouses. S: Heating greenhouses. T: Alright / MAKE IT MORE OF A PHRASE. T: RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE. / T: Okay, heating greenhouses /(writes on board)/ Example Twenty-Fivg. Often the only way to tell that different students were involved in an interac- tion sequence was by listening to the audiotape. Teachers’ acknowledgement of turns for reSponses were frequently nonverbal cuing signals as elicitations were being spoken. Teacher 20 illustrates this in the Recitation Practice phase of her "Synonyms and Anto- nyms" lesson. 302.2~29 Example Twenty-Five: EAds (SEQ. 12, TEP 20R4, 3-18-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 6:55 T: ALRIGHT THE NEXT ONE THERE? / T: Patiently and impa- tiently, AND OF COURSE YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE WORDS AND AUTOMATI- CALLY TELL THAT THEY S: (muffled) Antonyums. ARE... S: (different BECAUSE THEY MEAN? voice) Antonyms 8: (different voice) Opposite. T: Antonyms T: Opposite, alright. ExamplgiTwenty-Six. Teacher 02, in her lesson on "Uses of the Apostrophe“, closes by explaining how to do a practice worksheet. The following extended sequence allows the group to do the first item together for task understanding before completing the worksheet on their own. 3D2.2-30 Example Twenty-Eix: EAds (SEQ. 53, TEP 02RS, 5-11-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 36:13 T: LET’S DO NUMBER ONE TOGETHER PLEASE. NUM- BER ONE SAYS...WHAT, CHRISTIE? I’ve only been late three times. I’ve only been late three times. T: LOUDER, CHRISTIE T: Okay, I’ve only been late three times. : No. Ss: No. Contractions. T: Alright, two words. AND WHY WAS THIS APOS- TROPHE USED IN NUMBER ONE? I’ve only been late three times. NOW IN THERE AGAIN, DOES THIS SHOW OWNERSHIP? DOES IT POSSESS SOME- THING? Contractions or dial- ect, those are your three choices. / Alright, I think I heard it, I think it came from Robert’s mouth, ROBERT? WHAT TWO WORDS? I’ve only been late three times. WHAT TWO WORDS WOULD YOU WRITE ON THE BLANK, IN THE BLANK? CHARLES? ' I and have. 37:11 Ss: No... T: IS IT A DIFFI- CULT LESSON? 302.2-31 Example ngnty-nggp. Several sequences occurred in the skill lessons where the teacher elicited mul- tiple acceptable responses by extending a sequence with the probe to a different student, "WHAT ELSE?". Mehan (1979) called this phenomenon "recycling" because the same elicitation was reused in telegraphed form to obtain a different response. Teacher 14 illus- trates this kind of extension with different students in her "Drawing Conclusions" lesson. Example ngnty-Seven: EAds (SEQ. 36, TEP 14R4, 3—7—83) Initiation T Reply : Evaluation 26:18 T: SIX.../ JESSICA? T: WHAT HELPS YOU KNOW THAT, JESSICA? WHAT ELSE, TERRY? 8: (reads) "Why do you think Hank had a big smile on his face?" Cause he passed the test? S: Cause he had a big smile on his face. S: He might not want to take the test ’cause he was ner- vous and he probably don’t want to take it. T: Right. T: AND THAT WOULD MAKE HIM SMILE? 302.2-32 Examplngwgnty-Seven (cont’d.) Initiation Reply Evaluation S: Cause he ran after. T: Oh, he’s guess- ing that when he got there the instructor told him, ‘Oh, you donT’t have to take your test today. And that’s why he was smiling. Could be. Could be. BUT THAT ISN’T ONE OF YOU CHOICES, IS IT? S: Yes / I think T: Oh, it is one! IS THERE ANY CLUE THAT WOULD TELL US WHETHER HE DID TAKE IT AND PASS IT OR DID NOT TAKE IT? 8: (inaudible) 27:39 T: THE AUTHOR DOESN’T GIVE US A REALLY GOOD CLUE, DOES HE? We just have to kind of guess. Example Twenty-Eight. A relatively common way to assess students’ procedural knowledge of a skill strategy was to initiate a ‘how do you you do it?’-type sequence and ask several student to contrib— ute steps describing how to do the strategy. The fol— lowing example from Teacher 18’s lesson on "Main Idea“ illustrates the successful negotiation of such an extended sequence as part of the Interactive Presenta— 3D2.2-33 tion phase review of the previous day’s lesson. xam le Twent - ' ht: EAds (SEQ. 9, TEP IBRA, 2-25-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 5:30 T: WHO CAN TELL ME, THINK IT THROUGH NOW, WHO CAN TELL ME Egg TO FIND THE MAIN IDEA IF THERE IS A SENTENCE LISTED? WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT 2Q xgg DO? YES? WHAT’S THE SECOND THING YOU DO? / AND WHAT? AND THINK... WHAT’S THE THIRD THING YOU DO? JO? WHERE DO YOU LOOK? THEN WHAT’S THE NEXT THING YOU DO? MIKE? . You read it over . T: You read it first. - Sit back and look it over. . what’s the main idea. Right. You look. At the first sentence. : Sit back and look it over : WHAT’S THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT, RIGHT? You look at the first sentence and see if that’s it. 302.2-34 ExamplggTwenty-Eight (cont’d.) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation S: (inaudible) T: Look at the (inaudible). WHAT’S THE LAST THING YOU DO? (inaudible name) S: (softly)... middle. T: You look in the middle. And you choose. That’s how you do A. If the sentence is listed. 6:24 (c) Extended Seguence--Incorrect, same student (EIss): A student’s incorrect or inappropriate response to a teacher elicitation was almost a guaran— teed set-up for extending an interaction sequence beyond the basic three-part form. Unlike ”Extended"- Accept’ sequences, the teacher here had less maneuver“ ability in deciding whether to extend the sequence if the sequence was to be closed with A positive evalua— tion. Although extensions of this type involving a single student were not as prevalent in the data as those involving multiple students (examples below in (d)), there were numerous instances where the teacher chose to probe a single student until answer correct- ness was accomplished. The following series of four example sequences illustrates the kinds of interaction sequences receiving this code designation. 302.2-35 Examplg ngnty-Ning. In a mid-lesson Interactive Presentation phase of one of the four uses of the apostrophe being taught in Teacher 02’s lesson, the following sequence was initiated and extended with a single student. Repeated elicitation recycling, seen here, was an instructional questioning device noted in several lessons. The teacher’s evaluative bluntness signals general frustration she communicated through- out sequences in this lesson because students were unable to provide the answers she sought. Extended sequences with a single student, based on incorrect or unacceptable responses of this kind, seemed to inter— rupt the pacing of practice phases in many lessons analyzed. 302.2-36 Example ngnty-Ninp: EIss (SEQ. 43, TEP 02R5, 5-11-83) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 27:40 T: IF I ASKED YOU TO COME TO THE BOARD AND GIVE ME THE SHORT FORM OF THE CONTRACTION OF ‘DID NOT’, WHAT WOULD YOU WRITE I TIM? S: Did not. S: Did not. T: JUST GIVE ME THE WORD, SWEETHEART. T: Did not. Okay, SO IF I ASKED YOU TO WRITE ‘DID NOT’, USING A CONTRACTION, WHAT WOULD YOU WRITE? S: Did not. S: Didn’t. 28:57 No. JUST GIVE ME THE WORD. Okay. So apos- trophe can be used to show ownership, an apostrophe can be used as contractions, these are the time we use an apostrophe. And in sentence E, the contrac- tion is used. This is a long lesson, but you know it is a review. I thought you would be, go right through it but we got,/ better take the time to do it. I see that you didn’t remember it. // OKAY?// 302.2-37 Example Thirty. The following sequence from Teacher 19’s lesson introduction on "Guide Words" illustrates an extension that occurs because the stu- dent uses the incorrect syntactical form to express the response sought by the teacher (see Example Twenty-Four above). Again, the student’s error is bluntly handled by the teacher’s evaluation before she recycles the elicitation to the same student. Example Thirty: EIss (SEQ. 2, TEP 19R2, 11-30-82) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation 0:46 T: OKAY WHAT ARE GUIDE WORDS? WHO KNOWS? KEN? S: A word that tells the first word on a page and the last word on a page. S: A word on the first page and the last page. T: A WORD THAT TELLS? T: No. You’re confused. 302.2-38 Example Thirty (cont’d.) Initiation Reply Evaluation T: Guide words are... NOW START AND TELL ME AGAIN. S: Guide words are the first word on a page and the last word on a page. 1:09 T: Okay, the first word on a page and the last word on a page. Examplg Thirty-Ong. This example illustrates how a student’s misunderstanding of an elicitation could lead to a response technically correct given what was asked, but unacceptable given the lesson topic. Also, it appears that the student’s response is tied to a spelling error more than a sound error. In this case, Teacher 01 responds by providing greater clarity in her evaluative probe for a response that fits with the I topic of her lesson (i.e., "Suffixes for meaning”). 302.2-39 Example Thirty-One: EIss (SEQ. 8, TEP 01R3, 2-23-83) Initiation Reply T Evaluation 5:06 T: SUPPOSE THAT WE LOOK AT THE WORD -EN. NOW NOTICE -EN IS LISTED ON HERE [referring to the practice sheet of suffixes] AS TWICE. ‘En’ can mean two different things if added to a word. Alright, -en, to make. OH, LET ME SEE.../CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF -EN ON A WORD THAT MEANS TO MAKE, JACK? '36 - S: I invented.. T: Okay, we need S: Lightened. -en on the word now. PUT ~EN ON THE END, SUF- FIX. T: Lightened. Okay. That would be to make light. Example Thirty-Two. The following extended sequence from Teacher 18’s "Main Idea" lesson illus- trates how an incorrect student response during a Guided Practice phase interaction, requiring proce- dural knowledge using a text example, could prompt the teacher to maintain the interaction with the same student until both declarative and procedural knowl- edge of the skill was satisfactorily demonstrated. Here, however, the teacher’s lengthy elaborations remain focused on procedural information although her elicitations actually redirect student attention to 3D2.2-40 the informational content of the practice example. It is clear at 22:29 that the teacher unintentionally elicits an additional response from the student that breaks the flow of the point she is trying to make. This sequence illustrates the perceived tension that was noticed in several extended sequences of this kind (i.e., when student incorrect responses 'sidetracked’ the teacher’s focus) between maintaining focus on the lesson skill topic and eliciting correct answers when using the skill with text examples. Example Thirty-Two: EIss (SEQ. 24, TEP 18R4, 2-25-83) Initiation ---+- Evaluation 21:27 T: DON, THIS NEXT ONE IS YOURS. YOU’RE GOING TO TELL.US HOW YOU WOULD DO IT, OKAY? / (reads the example text) / ”Do you have some ice, do you have some cream of giraffe soup here? My friend eats it all the time. That is how he got to be so tall. I need to get very big by next Thursday. Cowboy Joe is coming to town and he needs someone to rope horses for him. You need to be tall to do that." / THE FIRST THING YOU’RE GOING TO DO. TELL US WHAT YOU’D DO. S: Read it over carefully. S: Look at the first sen- tence. T: Okay. We just did that. soa.e-41 Example Thirty-Two (cont‘d.) Initiation T Reply T Evaluation S: Oh, look back at it and see what the main idea is. T: Uh-oh. I DON’T LOOK AT THE FIRST SENTENCE. T: Alright. DON’T FORGET THAT, BOYS AND GIRLS. If you don’t take that step of stopping to think what this thing is about, you’ve lost it all. You’ve got to sit back and say ‘This is about what?’ / 22:29 T: Okay. It’s.../ S: Joe./Why I need to grow tall. okay. Why I need to grow tall. He’s already chosen the main idea. Okay. He has told you why I need to grow tall is the main idea. DID YOU FIND THERE WERE NO SENTENCES THAT STATED IT? S: Uhh. Yes. WHY DO YOU NEED TO GROW TALL, DON? S: Because Cow- boy Joe is coming to town and he needs some- body to rope his horses. 3D2.2-42 Example Thirty-Two (cont’d.) Initiation T Reply Evaluation T: Very good. Alright. Boys and girls, what we seem to be doing here is forgetting to sit back and look to see what the main idea is. DON’T FORGET THAT. That’s impor- tant. (d) Extended Seguence--Incorrect, different students: This final category of extended sequence form codes was used when multiple students were involved in repairing an incorrect response, usually made by the initial student called on to reply to an elicitation. This sequence type occurred repeatedly in the lesson data probably as a response to the teachers’ needs to involve as many students in the group as possible for management and attentional rea- sons. As noted earlier, listening to the audiotape of a lesson was often important in discerning use of different students in an extended sequence because of teachers’ nonverbal cues to different respondents. The following examples are representative of extended interaction sequences based on incorrect or unaccept— able student responses. 302.2-43 Example Thirty-Thggg. This brief sequence is from Teacher 11’s lesson on "Prefixes for word mean- ing". It illustrates extension with a different stu- dent to get the correct answer to what the teacher perceives as a basic identification question (based on her verbal stress on ‘pre’ in the evaluative probe) to lead off the Guided Practice phase of the lesson. Example Thirty-Thrgg: EIds (SEQ. 9, TEP 11R4, 3—14-83) tiation T Reply T Evaluation 4:14 T: / Now. / LOOK AT YOUR LIS T OF PREFIXES AND LET ’8 SEE HOW WE CAN LOO K AT OUR PREFIX LIST AND TELL US HOW THE SE TWO PREFIXES CAN CHA NGE THE MEANING OF THE WORD. ALRIGHT, WW3 T’S THE PREFIX OF THE FIRST WORD? S: Struct. 5: (different voice) Con. T: WHAT’S THE EEEFIX? 4:30 T: Alright. / EygmplgfiThirtv-Four. As illustrated in the following example from Teacher 07’s lesson on “Guide Words", teachers frequently involved more than a single student in a sequence when there were multiple skill features to be identifed. Also, as shown in the previous example, this teacher signals response incor» rectness to the first respondant by negatively evalu- 7', ating the reply in the form of a clarification e11c1=~' — f r ~ q ~ " , D " ; ‘ 0 ‘ t 8” R I ) fl ‘ fi “ — é fl fi n i v . % 6 3 0 } + ' — i 7 § — - 4 . ~ § § ‘ _ § ‘ € “ ? t a i h 3 . e s o p - n u P : n e h w ” my ‘ _ — 3 : 3 ? H ‘ v o H a I r f u ' l E ‘ O H C H Q S , ' fi . c i o y m u P d b r a V ! 2 0 a a k a b fi l fi i v m n T : e n u r p I50 : “ a 3% » ‘ 9 . c c . , ‘ P I V 5 { ' « h l { : T £ ¢ a 5 Q . 2 . E § Q ‘ . ' , i g : ' ' ' ' ' l l f u , z . ' . , b M ‘ E ‘ , 6 7 J 7 ‘ ‘ ' 2 ' U 5 9 ' . ' C ' . I ' ' - ” A ‘ % ll ‘ 3 n . ‘ i F l ; H 1 ' . . . 5 ' ’ ; H ' t fi n u : s " t i l 4 ' l a ' L . ' v a s n u o c u D : a . c m u q z g : “ APPENDIX 36 SAMPLE DATA REPORTING HORKSHEETS AND FORMS The following forms were used for various step in the data analysis as described in Chapter III: 36.1 -- Tally Sheet for Sequences and Elicitations 36.2 -- Tally Sheet for Evaluations 36.3 -- Worksheet: Summaries of Phase/Lesson Information 36.” -- Worksheet: Cognitive Knowledge and Instructional Purpose Codes 36.5 -- Phase Summary: Cognitive Knowledge Types 36.6 -- Phase Summary: Instructional Purpose Codes 36.7 -- Summary of Elicitation Type Frequencies 36.8 -- Record of Sequence Time Measures for Lessons/Phases APPENDIX 35 SAMPLE DATA REPORTING HORKSHEETS AND FORMS 36.1 -- Tally Sheet for Sequences and Elicitations 7éac/wr "I, I??? 9"‘603‘49 36-2 36.2 -- Tally Sheet for Evaluations Edda ____. 73w" shy/at...— . five/udch/E/cbafim A MHPusJAt .33- GAR". 7370:. FbsnEWal ”clad Aauiéflhb Alggéfihb Mam Elm , 259 be rzpvt Uo fielbuk Utah! mm: &*W "Ah I“ T : [II a“, n o i t a m r o f n I n o s s e L / e s a h P f o s e i r a m m u S : t e e h s k r o W - 3 . 6 3 . o T ~ s u o s s f L . " 4 7 Q I ' t s u M : w n ‘ n u u r m u a u L r o y u u u h S : N — r a M 36-3 . h ' 8 a ' ' 4 h . . s a E ‘ 4 ' . . n - m u s t e u M E S ! S M H . 3 _ g a w s _ ; ] , 4 : 3 4 5 [ . o n “ t u f ” ( 36-4 F O c m u a c x r m m I r o : s M P : l P ‘ e c u E M Q E J U a v x m m n a - w a n u a g 0 s e d o C e s o p r u P l a n o i t c u r t s n I d n a e g d e l w o n K e v i t i n g o C : t e e h s k r o W - 4 . 6 3 s - e p o d T U A E H S S E s s A — _ U s - e p o c g m t s s s fl ' 0 36-5 16044245065 TV/E Focus ’54 We /(¢¢/__ Coqnitive Knowledoe Tvoes 36.5 -- Phase Sunmary: (E 014506 (ram % 0F Susan“ " l) E? 44 (L 2> A? I ) ! a n n a m ' n 1 I I 0 " ! A 9 3 5 : P 36-6 36.6 -- Phase Sumary: Instructional Purpose Categories f-lc’é'GuE/ucy 0F I'll/5‘7 facing: Fae :53. mags/clmmus 35-3 __ rEAcmse (eon. 10 (A1 ..- ) JC/lg I/UT'KO VICE-S. gala! Be. fem-.5 ”Jo W L . E r d ”If 4' I # Hal: 4 ‘ I _ -4- 1 —L .144. 4.1—!— -l-.’~ -6023” 111 .273: - .1..:-.1_. _1__1-1 X 1! -1-1.--1.. 1-1.-. l 1 I E l i 3G-7 36.7 -- Sunmary of Elicitation Type Frequencies 36-8 36.8 -- Record of Sequence Time Measures fbr Lessons/Phases r e ” ! ? 5 ’ 1 5 5 6 1 1 5 0 0 5 5 s H P S : t I u : r c u s u c m m ( 1"" __ __.1_ — E L E L Z . e m 0 ’ “ ! ? ) t a w t 0 3 3 5 £ ’ x l l ‘ . s * M 7 4 ! 4 6 8 R I “