Está en la página 1de 22

What a Formative Experiment Reveals About Internet Reciprocal Teaching David Reinking Jacquelynn Malloy Angela Rogers Katherine

Robbins

Clemson University Paper presented at the National Reading Conference Austin, TX December, 2007 This paper provides an overview of and preliminary findings from a formative experiment conducted during Year 2 of a three-year project funding by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The project, currently in its third year and referred to as Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents (TICA), addresses the following: (a) profiling levels and patterns of online activity among middle grade students, specifically students in the seventh-grade who are at risk of dropping out of school; (b) identifying students at a high end of that population’s distribution of use and skill in regard to the Internet; (c) determining the skills and strategies of that sub-population in locating, evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating information on the Internet; (d) developing, based on those data, a taxonomy of Internet skills and strategies to guide instructional activities aimed at enhancing Internet reading comprehension; (e) and investigating how an instructional framework referred to as Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) might be used effectively to increase Internet reading comprehension. Year 1 of the project employed a survey to address the first two of these purposes, which was followed by the collection of verbal protocol data for 50 savvy users of the Internet

Formative Experiment 2 to address the third and fourth purposes. Years 2 and 3 used these data and an evolving taxonomy of Internet skills to refine and investigate the effectiveness of IRT as an instructional framework to incorporate Internet reading comprehension skills, strategies, and dispositions into seventh-grade. Year 2 used the methodology of a formative experiment, a relatively new, but increasingly used, approach to investigating interventions. A brief introduction to this approach and its purposes is provided in a subsequent section of this paper. Year 3, which is the current year of the project, is a conventional experiment designed as a randomized field trial and using HLM statistical procedures. Readers interested in more detail concerning the overall project, the integrated goals and purposes across each year of the project, and specifics of Internet Reciprocal Teaching are referred to the other papers in the symposium of which the present paper is a part. In the remainder of this paper we briefly overview: (a) the rationale and purpose of a formative experiment in relation to this project; (b) our methods; (c) and some preliminary findings from our on-going data analysis. What is a formative experiment? A formative experiment (a.k.a. design experiment, design-based research) is a relatively new approach to conducting education research, specifically instructional interventions in classrooms, but one that has received increasingly enthusiastic attention among education researchers. For example, the following respected journals have devoted themed issues to discussing this approach to research, including its origins, why it is needed, its advantages and limitations, and so forth: Educational Researcher (2003, Vol. 32. No. 1), Educational Psychologist (2004, Vol. 39, No. 4), and Journal of Learning Sciences (2004, Vol. 13, No. 1). Likewise, a chapter on design experiments appears in the Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research sponsored by the American Educational Research Association (Schoenfeld, 2006). Further, two recently published books aim to define more clearly the parameters of this approach and to offer frameworks and standards of rigor for researchers who employ it: Education Design Research (Van Den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, & Nieveen, 2006) and On Formative and Design Research (Reinking & Bradley, 2008), the latter book appearing in a series devoted to research methodologies in literacy research. The latter book substantiates that this approach has strong roots and relatively extensive

less-controlled conditions of real classrooms. These differences are summarized succinctly in the following figure reproduced from Reinking and Bradley (2008).. is credited with writing the seminal chapter introducing the term design experiment. a highly regarded literacy researcher. Another indication that this approach is entering the mainstream is that it has been used in several articles published in Reading Research Quarterly. Likewise. 1999. A Comparison of formative and design experiments to conventional methodologies Methodology/Approach Experimental Naturalistic Formative/ Design . the early work of Luis Moll (e. which is an orientation fundamental to the rationale for formative and design experiments. the field’s premier research journal and one of the most influential research journals in education (see Ivey & Broadus. Figure 1. Moll & Dias. Jimenez. Neuman. That is the term she used to describe her research that attempted to move her highly controlled laboratory studies on the role of metacognition in reading comprehension into the messy. 2007. 1997. Ann Brown (see Brown.Formative Experiment 3 use in literacy research. 1987) called for approaches to research that are focused on bringing about constructive change in classrooms. Reinking & Watkins. 2000).g. Formative and design experiments have distinctly different goals and are based on distinctly different epistemological assumptions when compared to conventional scientific experiments (typically referred to as quantitative methods) or investigations using naturalistic methods (typically referred to as qualitative methods).2. 1992).

identifies factors and mechanisms enabling effective practice Pragmatism Philosophy/Stance (epistemology ) Theoretical Imperative Methodological Imperative Participants Prototypical Researcher Starting point for research Relations and contributions to Practice Positivism.) Put theory to work Context-specific recommendations. topdown policy making Socio-cultural and ideologically positioned practice Generate thick descriptions Nuanced understanding. Engineering Lens.Formative Experiment 4 Contextual Variation Dominant Metaphor(s) Guiding Question Stance Toward Intervention Operative Goal Utility Controlled. analyzed. jazz What is best most of the time? Comparison (x vs. postpositivism. accommodated Ecology. social action Constructivism Selection (x or y) and modification (x1->x2>x3->x4-> etc. ideological confirmation. analyzed Studied. mixed methodologist Pedagogical goal connecting theory and practice rooted in values Specific suggestions . or viewed as nuisance and neutralized by randomization Laboratory Studied. scientific realism General laws and reductionist models Internal validity (fidelity) Pawns Chess-playing statistician Theory-driven question or hypothesis rooted in a quest for attainable truth Broad Generalizations Deep socio-cultural understandings Interpretative trustworthiness Agents Butterfly-chasing ethnographer Theory-driven question rooted in socio-cultural awareness Deep Reflections Workability Ecological validity Partners Deal-making. raised consciousness. y) What is? What could be? Establish causal relations Broad generalizations across contexts. rhizome.

These characteristics of formative and design experiments were consistent with the goals of the current project and the sequence of research activities across the three years of the project. 2003). and perspectives that would guide the more carefully controlled study in Year 3. instructional goal (e. Formative experiments have also been identified as an approach to research well suited to testing.g. All middle schools participating in the project were from school districts and communities that had demographic profiles indicating a high percentage of . In addition. METHOD Participants and Schools Participants and schools in the formative experiment during Year 2 were drawn from a larger pool from Year 1. we believe that using this methodology in Year 2 would be an effective means for providing critical data. the purposes for using a formative experiment in Year 2 were to refine IRT for its more controlled implementation in Year 3 and to guide us in determining what variables were salient in that implementation. and so forth. 2006 for a data-based argument that digital literacy is woefully neglected in the literacy curriculum). in this project we are interested ultimately in developing workable and effective instructional activities aimed at furthering a critical. Thus. others also see this approach as being particularly useful in informing conventional experiments conducted subsequently and informed by the results of a formative or design experiment (e. see Gersten.Formative Experiment 5 Why was a formative experiment used in Year 2 of this project? We believe the purposes and goals of this three-year project are well matched to the rationale for a formative experiment. and developing pedagogical theories (sometimes referred to as “principles of enactment” in classrooms) often through innovative instructional interventions aimed at achieving specific instructional goals and transforming classroom environments (see Reinking & Bradley. beyond producing independent data that could inform practitioners about how best to implement IRT to achieve a specific pedagogical goal. information. 2005.. modifying. 2004/2008). and currently neglected. Specifically. Kalchman.g. Formative and design experiments are well suited to testing innovative. which variables to measure or control. theory based interventions in authentic classroom settings where naturally occurring variables are free to operate and to perhaps affect the intervention in unpredictable ways. McCandliss.. Although many researchers see formative or design experiments as providing independently useful data and conclusions. Bryant. see Leu.

and teaching focus and population (e. Ms. was a veteran teacher of 25 years. in relation to the latter criteria. So. Jenkins was often assigned to teach the lowerachieving students in the school. Streamwood Middle School. Ms.. For example.in this case. In Connecticut. Hart (all teachers’ and students’ names are pseudonyms). although. (b) schools/classrooms in which conditions were not exceptionally ideal or abominably poor to accommodate the intervention. she was technologically savvy and enthusiastic about the goals of the project. and one school/classroom had a high percentage of second-language learners).g.we selected classrooms from among the larger pool using the following criteria: (a) schools and teachers who were willing to participate and committed to the project’s goals. she worked with technology in a business setting. a set of parallel formative experiments centered in these respective classrooms . It has a high percentage of diverse Hispanic students who come from Mexico. District policy was to provide Title 1 schools with a laptop for each student. Previously to pursuing a teaching degree. the 7th-grade language arts teacher. The present report focuses on data from three sites identified by the following pseudonyms for the school names: Bolivar Middle School. we worked in two schools in Connecticut and three schools in South Carolina. represented among our research sites there was variation in terms of rural versus urban. Streamwood Middle School was also located in a small town within a larger metropolitan area comprised of five school districts. Bolivar School is in a small town near a medium size city. and the classroom that was involved in the IRT . and Thompson Middle School. The entire school had wireless access to the Internet. For the formative experiment in Year 2. as is typical of most schools with Internet access. We worked with Ms. schools and districts were from rural areas or small towns. but who had entered teaching as a second career. Jenkins. The school had been identified as a Title 1 school by the larger district of which it was a part.Formative Experiment 6 students who were likely to drop out of school. a district firewall limited what students could access. Consistent with guidelines for conducting a formative experiment . level of technological knowledge and support. the 7th-grade language arts teacher. one classroom was a pull-out program for special education students. (c) and that represented a diversity of contexts across sites. Central and South America. schools and districts were from urban areas and in South Carolina. who is in her third year of teaching.

All of the students had been identified as having special needs and had been in self-contained classrooms for the entire school day during the previous year. unlike other research methodologies that address research questions specified in advance.. The group of students involved in the intervention were not officially designated as “self-contained". it might be validated as promising on the basis of previous carefully controlled experimental studies. often innovative. a pedagogical goal and what needs to be done to achieve it through the intervention is what drives a formative experiment. see Reinking & Bradley. academic engagement.Formative Experiment 7 intervention included a high percentage of resource students. There must also be a rationale for why it addresses an important pedagogical goal. pedagogical goal (Reinking & Bradley. increase Internet reading comprehension strategies to improve reading (on-line and off-line). although they were not often used in this classroom for instruction prior to the intervention. A full discussion of this intervention and a rationale for its use in the present investigation is beyond the scope of this paper and can be found partially in another paper in the symposium of which the present paper is a part. had ten years of teaching experience at the beginning of the project. The pedagogical goal A formative experiment investigates how a theory-based. . 2004/2008). The school also had wireless laptops for each student. Thompson Middle School is a small school located in a rural school district in South Carolina. Since it was a small class with a maximum of ten students on any given day. It is a combined middle and high school. The intervention investigated in the present study was Internet Reciprocal Teaching. none-the-less grouped specifically on the basis of being identified as most at-risk to drop out. 2004/2008). The present investigation addressed the following pedagogical goal: Among middle-school students at risk of dropping out. but were. Thus. Ms. intervention can be implemented to achieve a valued. the 7th grade special education teacher. sometimes difficult-to-achieve. with only 360 students in the sixth through twelfth grades. and achievement. Wireless laptops were not available to the students during the majority of the project because access to the laptop cart was not always granted to this classroom.g. students were required to use old desktop computers with slow Internet connections at the back of the room for the project. Watson. The intervention The intervention in a formative experiment must be justified in terms of its theoretical and/or empirical validity (e.

These included the Internet Use Survey from Year 1. school. and the School Success Profile (SSP). These are discussed in greater detail in the paper submitted by Coiro. before the school year began. Information was gathered from public documents. Phase 2: This phase occurred approximately between the 3rd and 6th week of the school year.schoolsuccessprofile. the Assessment of Motivation for Online and Offline Reading (AMOOR). their commitments and role in data collection.Formative Experiment 8 Phases of the investigation Researchers conducted this investigation using the following phases: Phase 1: During the spring and early summer prior to Year 2. Phase 3: Baseline data were collected to characterize the initial status of students relative to the investigation’s pedagogical goal (identified explicitly in a subsequent section). Observational data were gathered to create a thick description of the environment of the classroom. We also asked them to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experience with and views of using technology in the classroom. The ORCA and AMOOR are assessments that were designed and piloted prior to Year 2 by TICA researchers and these measures were found to demonstrate acceptable levels of reliability and validity. did preliminary planning to integrate IRT into their curriculum and instructional objectives. and through observations of the classroom and the school. we . Phase 4: This was the intervention phase that began with our first attempts to implement IRT. interviews with teachers and administrators. the Online Reading Comprehension Assessment (ORCA). During this phase. We also addressed their questions and concerns. we met with participating teachers who agreed to participate for approximately six hours each to discuss the project including the methodology of a formative experiment. the IRT intervention and its rationale. The SSP is a standardized instrument used to measure the degree to which students may be at-risk of dropping out of school (http://www.org/). and community. These provided a baseline of dispositions and practices regarding the use of and support for technology in the classroom. views of teaching language arts. we recruited schools and teachers from the set of schools fitting a demographic profile indicating a high percentage of students at risk of dropping out of school and that met the criteria outlined in a previous section discussing participants and schools. In August. Castek & Henry as part of this symposium. and so forth. as well as a host of logistical and scheduling issues. which is at the heart of a formative experience. decided on times to meet regularly during the course of the investigation.

Formative Experiment 9 collected qualitative data to determine. the researcher and classroom teacher collaborated in planning lessons using the common lesson plan format described in the discussion of Phase 4 and included in Appendix A. the researchers interviewed the classroom teachers and a select group of focal students. In some classrooms. the effects of our modifications. and if the intervention was having any effect on the instructional environment. or 24 lessons. at the end of the school year. what unanticipated effects the intervention produced. the researcher delivered the intervention while the teacher assisted and observed. and a listing of Web sites and supplementary materials selected for use in the lesson. In each classroom. Each researcher designed their lessons using the Internet Reciprocal Teaching Lesson Framework as a guide to ensure that the essential components of IRT were being integrated into instruction in each classroom (see Appendix A). beyond these essential components. During this time. . and in others. The lesson plan. as described in more detail in subsequent sections. Phase 5: During this phase. documented modifications of the IRT content and framework in response to that data. These reflections and observations provided valuable data regarding the effectiveness of IRT in moving toward the pedagogical goal. we re-administered the baseline measures used during Phase 3. curricular needs. The intervention was implemented twice weekly for approximately 12 weeks. and the unique data that were being collected at each site. The post-intervention assessments required approximately two weeks to complete. what factors enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of the intervention. However. and in evaluating the need and effectiveness of modifications of the intervention. the researcher collaborated with the teacher to develop IRT lessons tied to the state content standards and curricular requirements of the school. also provided room for researcher and teacher reflections regarding the lesson that could be added following each class period. researchers and teachers at each site collaborated to adapt IRT to accommodate local instructional practices. The purpose of the semistructured interview was to gather perceptions of principal agents involved in the intervention regarding changes in learning and motivation for learning tasks that may have occurred as a result of IRT. The lesson plan included the objectives and targeted curriculum standards addressed in the lesson. in planning future lessons. Scheme for collecting and analyzing data During the intervention phase. a description of the mini-lesson and sharing activities that would be used in achieving the learning objectives. the teacher presented some of the lessons while the researcher assisted. maintained in a digital format.

Therefore. the unanticipated effects the intervention produced. (b) the researcher's and teacher's reflections and observations of the lessons. In the process of reading through and considering the various documents included in the data set. allows for digital analysis of documents and other types of data and provides a means to consider the data from individual sites separately and later merge them for a cross-case analysis. The researchers conducted the analysis of the documents and products collected during the five Phases according to the framework for conceptualizing. (f) the post-intervention interviews with the teachers and focal students.qsrinternation. and whether the intervention was having any effect on the instructional environment. a product of the QSR Corporation (http://www. (e) and changes in the environment. (b) factors that inhibit. became . (d) student products. collecting. Researchers uploaded these data into separate NVivo 7 projects for each individual site for analysis. (c) modifications and effects.and post-intervention data derived from the assessment measures administered during Phases 3 and 5 in an Excel spreadsheet. These quantitative data will be integrated with findings from the qualitative information gathered on individual students to provide a finer grained analysis of student response to the intervention.com). or more frequently. and reporting formative data as proposed by Reinking and Bradley (2004/2008).Formative Experiment 10 The products collected for use in the analysis of the Year 2 formative experiment included: (a) the lesson plans for each of the 20 lessons. (c) the baseline data gathered in Phase 1. 1988) were utilized to inductively and deductively code the data and derive and distinguish the thematic categories. the qualitative data were collected to determine the factors that enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of IRT in achieving the pedagogical goal. The software also provides a means to establish individual student cases that can be managed in tandem with the whole-class analysis. (e) classroom photos. Merriam. constant-comparative methods (Bogdan & Biklen. The process of moving between inductive and deductive reasoning to evaluate data is supported by Morgan (2007) and described by Onweugbuzie and Leech (2006). and. NVivo 7. While some of the themes generated during the analysis were deduced from the formative structure described earlier in this paragraph. 2003. Researchers uploaded the pre. the primary codes established at the start of the analysis were: (a) factors that enhance. (d) unanticipated effects. the modifications of the IRT content and framework that were required to adjust toward the pedagogical goal. As stated in the description of Phase 4. others were induced from the data and created additional primary nodes.

Formative Experiment 11 distinctive "branches" of the primary nodes. an understanding of the evolving social relationships and climate of the classroom – a mercurial beast at best – is crucial in creating an instructional environment where democratic exchanges can occur. was not able to boss B. as well as those that appear to be context dependent. increase Internet reading comprehension strategies to improve reading (on-line and off-line). Lesson 4] B. around. As is the nature of working with adolescents. During the initial stages of the Year 2 analysis. and achievement. a preliminary listing of the emerging themes is presented in Appendix B. Although the analysis of the complete data set continues.) . A primary goal of IRT lessons is the exchange of ideas and strategies in accomplishing a common task. She (L. pairing students well or choosing groups is key. the researchers responsible for coding the data from their individual sites met periodically to discuss the emerging themes and coding structures. [Mrs. [Researcher notes. a foundational set of themes have been identified and have been useful in informing the version of IRT that is being implemented in the traditional experiment in Year 3. academic engagement. were a good pairing. but because L. and L. These excerpts from the Streamwood researcher's observation notes show that it takes a few weeks discover how best to arrange students for sharing: Certainly. though. A common factor found to influence the effectiveness of IRT across all of the sites was the grouping of students during the sharing portion of the lesson. These emerging themes include both context independent and context dependent factors that influence the effectiveness of IRT in advancing the intervention toward the following pedagogical goal: Among middle-school students at risk of dropping out. not because they worked together particularly well. These exchanges provided an opportunity to describe and justify interpretations and to establish structural validity of context independent themes that emerged across sites. After the lesson. Jenkins] and I discussed how important selecting groups is to the success of the lesson. It takes a few classes to see how they work. FINDINGS While the complete analysis of data from Year 2 is continuing. and establishing and maintaining groups or pairings of students that 'worked' was as much a product of trial and error as it was of explicit teaching in how to collaborate with others.

were wards of the State. as described in the following excerpt from the Streamwood data: D. identifying an "expert" – a student who was observed to demonstrate an early grasp of the targeted Internet strategy for a lesson – was helpful in encouraging participation and sharing according to the principles of IRT. he was delighted to share it with the class – many were relieved! [Researcher notes. whereas L. a young girl identified with behavior disorders. A common theme emerged from the Year 2 data that described the changes in disposition and manner of some of these students when they demonstrated skill in negotiating the Internet-based tasks involved in the lessons. is not.Formative Experiment 12 is hard-of-hearing and can tune others out. in creating a reciprocal teaching environment utilizing an Internet-based skill set.V. or who did not speak English at home. As stated in the description of the Year 2 schools. these students demonstrated behaviors that indicated disengagement with traditional instructional formats. the classrooms involved in the intervention were comprised of a high percentage of students who received resource services. but B. and he (B. At some of the sites. researchers indicated that students became comfortable with and accepting of the wisdom of these experts. One particular student from Thompson Middle. Although she expressed difficulty with many traditional academic tasks. and was also fairly adept at showing other students how she did it. . But. came by the trick of clicking 3x at the beginning of a paragraph to get it highlighted purely by chance. is very confident on the computer. [Researcher notes. Although she was easily frustrated in some contexts. particularly those that were print-based and relied on question/response teacher-led instruction. particularly those who do not often achieve this level of notice in the classroom. she was also quite capable at leading others in more positive and appropriate ways when her talents were highlighted and she felt connected to the process. Often. Lesson 5] Another factor that was found to enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal across sites involved the students who were less confident in their academic prowess or otherwise marginalized in the mainstream classroom. was known for her angry outbursts in the classroom. Lesson 4] Researcher and teacher observations from several of the sites provided support for the value of noticing and highlighting the developing skills and strategies of students.) won't be bullied or ignored. she was particularly good at finding information quickly on the Internet. Often. having been frustrated by trying to highlight within Web page. were previously in self-contained classrooms.

Watson’s] explanations. the researcher noted that most of the lessons involved direct instruction and little collaborative work. guided by [Ms. and the researcher documented Ms. the classroom teacher. inadequate bandwidth provisions made it difficult for 25 wireless laptops to simultaneously access online sites without enduring slow page loadings. Watson] on each question. as she felt they might break them. . These bandwidth issues also affected communication by email and frustrated students and teachers alike. such as shared student blog sites or wikis. [Ms. on several occasions. Watson’s] classes. Even on days on which the researcher did not go to the school for IRT lessons. the following researcher in situ memo. or to access images that could be incorporated into projects. In some instances. As an example of changes in the environment that occurred as a result of the IRT intervention. She felt more comfortable letting the students explore on their own when they were in groups that she knew worked well together based on what happened in our IRT lessons. the filters and firewalls put in place by school districts made it difficult to make use of certain online resources. Watson’s observations each time. access to technology was found to be a factor that could inhibit progress toward the pedagogical goal. Watson’s class had to use older desktops with very slow modems. they merely listened to [Ms. In this school. After the implementation of IRT. access to the "faster" machines was withheld from the Thompson Middle School classroom involved in the intervention. lack of access often meant that they were not able to finish the assignment at all. In a more disturbing. In addition to this. Not having access to the newer laptops meant that students in Ms. She communicated this to Ms. the researcher noted many times in her observations that this was changing.Formative Experiment 13 In varying degrees across the sites. students began working in their groups. When a lesson required that a student use more than one Web site. Students were not really permitted to discuss why a certain answer was correct or incorrect. context dependent example of this inhibiting factor. Watson] stated in her post interview that the concept of a mini-lesson at the beginning of the class was particularly useful to her. is offered as evidence of the influence that a novel instructional practice can have on a classroom when provided over an extended period of time: In early observations of [Ms. written while analyzing the Thompson Middle School data. Watson. Students would complete worksheets. the media center specialist with whom teachers reserved the laptop cart was not comfortable with having this particular group of students use the laptops.

D. suddenly became very interested in our lesson because he got to formulate his own research question. provide a foundational structure of the Year 2 findings that were particularly instrumental in shaping the Year 3 version of IRT. but student formulated questions. While these descriptions of factors that enhanced and inhibited progress toward the pedagogical goal do not comprise a complete detailing of the data. Watson] noted in her interview that D. after we had one lesson in which a previously unengaged student named D. [Ms. seemed happier in her class and did not act out as frequently in not only her class. but also in his other classes throughout the day. they do. with plans for collaboration on a cross-case analysis to follow. especially seemed changed by the end of the IRT intervention.Formative Experiment 14 Additionally. Lesson 17]. [Researcher memo. Watson] began designing bigger projects that involved not only group work. . [Ms. when combined with the listing of primary and secondary nodes in Appendix A. A comprehensive report of the findings from each site is currently underway.

1(1). Behind the scenes of an intervention research study. 20(4). (NRC Presidential Address). R. 18. 300-311.). & Leech. S. (October.. Brown. Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. & Broaddus. Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Design experiments and laboratory approaches to learning: Steps toward collaborative exchange. . 14-16. K.A. M. In J. 32. Anthropology & Education Quarterly. Mallette (Eds. Leu. Fairbanks. Onwuegbuzie. A. and the challenges of change: A Deictic perspective. Reading Research Quarterly. Worthy. Gersten. 2(2). S. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 141-178. McCandliss. S. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (2003). & Biklen. 149-169). Qualitative data analysis: A step-by step approach. R. D. Hoffman. B. & Bradley. A. (2007). 224-243.. (2003). In N. B. write. L. D. Reading Research Quarterly. Literacy research methodologies (pp. R. L. Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. B. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. (1997). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milwaukee. Presentation provided by Education Technology Services of Clemson University. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice.. (1988). 34. K. (5th ed. M. (2007). S. Reinking. T.. On Formative and Design Experiments. WI: National Reading Conference. D. 200-212.) The 55th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (1999). Morgan. K. (2005).. Schallert. Change as the goal of educational research. 286-311.. D. (2004). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Jimènez. Educational Researcher. New York:Teachers College Press. & Diaz. (2006). Duke & M. (2008). H. Neuman. D. G.). (1-20). 32(1). D. B. L. C. Ivey. N. Kalchman.J. J. L. reading research.Formative Experiment 15 References Bogdan. New literacies. Moll.B. 2006). Clemson. 48-76. Merriam. Maloch (Eds. and speak English. (1987). A formative experiment investigating literacy engagement among adolescent Latina/o students beginning to read. Reinking. & Bryant. P. A. Reading Research Quarterly. & Bradley. Journal of Learning Sciences. C. New York: Guilford. (1992). SC. & B.

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Elmore. S.) (2006). Grace (Eds.Formative Experiment 16 Reinking. UK: Routledge. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. Design experiments. Gravemeijer. London. (Eds. & Watkins. (2006). Camilli. Skukauskaite.B. J. In J. van den Akker. 384-419. P. H. 193 – 205). N. McKenney. D. Schoenfeld.L. J.. Reading Research Quarterly 35 (3).. & E. . Educational Research Design. Green. A. A. (2000). G.). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students independent reading. Mahwah. and Nieveen.

IRT Checklist ___ Democratic dialogue and discussion content ___ Model by teacher then student ___Opportunities to privilege struggling readers ___ Strategies emerge in relation to ___ Students as informants ___ Meaningful/authentic activities . ELA Content Objective Learning Target(s): Standard(s): III.Formative Experiment 17 Appendix A Internet Reciprocal Teaching Lesson Framework Teacher:__________________ School: ______________ Researcher: ____________ Date:_____________ Unit/Lesson ID____________________________________ I. TICA Objective (circle all that apply) Question Locate Evaluate Communicate Synthesize Notes: II.

Time to Explore Activity What students will do: VII. Mini.Formative Experiment 18 IV. Types of Knowledge (circle all that apply) Declarative Notes: Procedural Conditional Reflective V. Time to Share How students will share strategies: VIII.lesson (modeled by teacher) What teacher will do: Materials/links: VI. What did we learn? .

Who completed the objectives? (circle names of new experts) X. New strategies to add to taxonomy? XI.Formative Experiment 19 Class-generated summary: IX. Assessment/product Name/description of artifact: .

Formative Experiment 20 XII. Reflection Notes .

a. 2. 1. Instructional Practice: Instructional practices and activities that impede progress toward the pedagogical goal. B. 3. 4. 4. Tree Nodes: A. 2. software. Lack of Administrative Support: Ways in which the district or school or goal. 1. Groups: Notes or observations that describe groupings or pairs that impede progress toward the pedagogical goal. Enhance: Factors that enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. Administrative Support: Ways in which the district or school administration support the use of technology with teachers pupils. 5. Indications for individual work – instances where individual work was preferable to group work. access that enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. 6. Dispositions: Attitudes and dispositions that enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. Technology: Factors regarding hardware.Formative Experiment 21 Appendix B TICA Research: Year 2 Foundational Themes and Coding Structure I. Content ties: Content that did not work well in the IRT format. Groups: Notes or observations that describe groupings or pairs that worked well to enhance progress toward the pedagogical a. 3. Changes in Environment: Changes in the classroom environment that occurred as a result of the IRT treatment program. Inhibit: Factors that inhibit progress toward the pedagogical goal. 7. C. Dispositions: Dispositions and attitudes that impede progress toward the pedagogical goal. Skills: Specific skills that permit participation in the IRT lessons in progressing toward the pedagogical goal. Content ties: Content that works well with IRT to enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. Instructional practice: Specific instructional practices or activities that enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. .

such as visitors in the classroom or weather concerns.Formative Experiment 22 administration does not support the use of technology in the classroom. Skills: Lack of skills required to participate in IRT lessons that impede progress toward pedagogical goal. 8. Key Events: Vignettes and stories that would demonstrate well what happened in the environment as a result of the IRT lessons. Evidence of learning: Observation or statements that indicate learning in progress as a result of IRT. 2. 1. E. Unanticipated Effects: Unanticipated effects resulting from the IRT program. Free Nodes: A. Technology: Hardware. 3. Ineffective modifications: Modifications to the IRT program that did not enhance progress toward the pedagogical goal. 7. Standards: List of standards used during IRT for use in demonstrating the standards that were addressed during IRT lessons. Modifications: Modifications made in response to an effect of the IRT treatment. 1. software or access issues that impede progress toward pedagogical goal. distracted or D. May review later for how effectively they were addressed. Modifications needed: Notes that acknowledge that a modification is required. B. 5. 6. Effective modifications: Modifications to the IRT model that had the effect of enhancing progress toward the pedagogical goal. C. Time: Insufficient time to complete an IRT lesson as planned. II. influenced student dispositions on a particular day. . Health and Other Issues: Instances where illness or outside influences. High need students: Unexpected responses of students with high needs to IRT specific practices in IRT.