Susan Lareau, Central Connecticut State University
Joseph Pandolfio, Kennelly School-Hartford
Deborah Rand, Windham Center School-Windham
Carolyn Turner, Dr. Joseph J. Bellizzi Middle School-Hartford

Introduction

“The face of content area literacy instruction is changing. Once associated exclusively with middle and high school instruction, today, as never before, educators are directing their attention to the importance of encouraging content area literacy instruction at even the earliest levels” (Moss, 2005, p. 46). In the article, “Searching Informational Texts: Text and Task Characteristics That Affect Performance” the author states, “Informational texts deal with relatively less familiar content and use text organizational patterns (e.g., compare and contrast, cause/effect) different from the traditional narrative structure.”(Brown, 2003, p.1 ). With the current academic focus on reading instruction across the curriculum we were interested to see if expository text structure knowledge would affect students’ expository writing.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of our research, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eight Grade Student’s Expository Writing focuses on the relationship between student knowledge of expository text structures and the transfer of that knowledge to the students’ expository writing.

Review of Literature

Currently an “ever-deepening crisis in adolescent literacy” exists according to a position statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association (1999). The expectations of adolescent students to comprehend complex content are unlike any expectations set for previous generations of students, due in part to the complex technological demands of today’s workplace. Alarming statistics from the 1998 Reading Report Card by National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that approximately only sixty percent of U.S. adolescents could understand factual statements and less than five percent could elaborate on the meaning of the material read (Meltzer, 2001). NAEP writing assessments also showed that few adolescents could write material with the amount of detail needed to support their main points. If students can’t understand the science they are reading, how can they be expected to draw a correlation for an experiment, understand a scientific argument or write about cause/effect? These same questions can be asked with different disciplines such as history or mathematics. Students must learn how to distinguish, identify and interpret the most important expository content and succeed in transferring this information into their expository writing. As students are being pushed to read and understand more content, many students struggle with not only what the text is about but also how to read it. Students who are unfamiliar with expository reading have difficulty understanding how to negotiate these texts because they lack schema for such genre and topics (Villano, 2005).

Today’s adolescents in the 21st century working world will read and write more than at any time in human history (Vacca, 2002). They will need advanced literacy levels to succeed in managing the vast quantities of information they will be confronted with in their professional and personal lives. Compounding the problem is students entering middle and high school receive little or no instruction in using reading and writing strategies to learn with texts (Vacca, 2002).

As reported by Vacca, a recent report by the Carnegie Corporation of New York finds that more than 50% of students entering high school in the 35 largest cities in the United States read at or below the sixth grade level. While appearing skillful at reading, some students are only going through the rote process of reading and writing while they are unable to interpret the meaning of content area subject matter. Although students receive instruction in rhetorical writing, they rarely associate writing with learning “by using writing to explore and interpret meaning that they encounter in texts and class discussions,” (Vacca, 2002, p. 3).

Because of the importance of text structure in comprehension and writing, the issue is not whether text structure instruction is effective but what type of instruction is most effective (as cited in Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Horowitz, 1985; McGee, 1982). Students that were aware of text structure while reading produced better structure in their writing and were better comprehenders (as cited in McGee, 1982). Research findings suggest the importance of leveraging reading and writing relationships when creating text structure interventions or lesson plans. In their analysis of textbooks Kragler (2005) noted, that the social studies and science texts primarily focused on assessing student understanding rather than a focus on comprehension instruction. Comprehension instruction that was offered was inadequate.

In “Integrating Reading and Writing to Teach Compare-Contrast Text Structure: A Research-Based Methodology”, Shirley Dickson (1999) states that “Research in text structure, writing process, and integrated reading and writing provides evidence that these instructional components mutually support each other” (p.1 ). Dickson’s statement is an affirmation of our research of the relationship between student knowledge of expository text structures and the transfer of that knowledge to the students’ expository writing.

A study conducted by Williams, Hall and Lauer (2004) on the benefits of teaching expository text structure to young at-risk learners demonstrated that even second grade students benefited from specific instruction in expository text structure. Some of the conclusions drawn from the study were that knowledge of text structure organization improves comprehension and positively affects the ability to transfer this knowledge both orally and in written summaries. This instruction, especially if it is geared toward a single text structure such as cause and effect that was used in the study, is effective in improving students’ comprehension of expository text.

Some of the lessons taught in the Williams, Hall and Lauer study {2004) are similar to lessons used in our research. These include the use of graphic organizers, teaching compare and contrast strategy questions, summarization, and instruction in “clue” words used in the cause/effect text structure.

Solutions to Address the Problem

Vacca (2002) points out that while content literacy programs are emerging in middle and high schools he believes it is important that all subject teachers share the responsibility in literacy development. More teachers, he writes, are aware of the needs of their adolescent students, and are finally beginning to use instructional strategies that incorporate content literacy.

Sinatra (2000) points out that, in order to effect change, teachers need to model the use of concept maps; providing guided practice in concept mapping, and encouraging progression toward using concept mapping independently. This should be done as part of teaching expository text structure and allowing for more student led discussion.

Jacobs (2002) states that teachers need to activate and organize students background knowledge and that they must effectively use strategies that bridge known to new knowledge, such as brainstorming, using graphic organizers, doze passages and encourage the development of students’ own questions through writing or interactive writing. Along with Vacca, Jacobs too talks of staff development, where content area teachers must examine their instructional goals to see how reading and writing to learn in the content areas can lead to a stronger development and a clearer understanding for students.

Limitations in Existing Research

After an extensive search, few studies were found that paralleled our research, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eighth Grade Student’s Expository Writing. The majority of the studies focused on the need for expository text structure knowledge and its relationship to reading comprehension. Few studies were found with supporting material for the transfer of text structure knowledge from reading to the expository writing process.

Numerous studies approached the topic of teaching reading strategies in the content areas and went on to propose that reading instruction is the responsibility of all teachers, including content area teachers, due to the fad that, unfamiliarity with expository text structure interferes with student’s ability to understand the “to-be-learned” material (Bakken & Wheldon, 2002). Students need direct instruction in expository text structure; and that concept mapping aids in the writing process Sinatra (2000). The article does not claim direct instruction in expository text structure improved students’ expository writing with a transfer of strategies from the reading process to the writing process.

We attempted to answer two questions during our research:

1. Do students possess background knowledge of text structure from their reading?
2. With direct instruction of the cause/effect expository text structure will we see a transfer of knowledge to the students’ expository writing?

Method

Participants:

This qualitative study involved two classes, one fifth grade, and one eighth grade located in the same urban district. The participants consisted of 9 elementary and 7 middle school students. All participants were from inclusion classrooms and no distinctions were made between special education students and regular education students during the study. Students were chosen through convenience sampling. Our study was designed to measure the students’ expository text structure knowledge on their expository writing using cause/effect genre.

Instrumentation:

Baseline data was collected through the triangulation of two types of instruments. The first instrument was (a) modified Cloze of an expository cause/effect passage. This modified Cloze consisted of 200-250 words. The second instrument (b) an open ended visual cue provided the participants with two pictorial representations of a cause/effect relationship. These visuals were used to elicit an open ended written response which provided evidence of the students’ expository writing knowledge using the cause/effect structure. Visuals provided a modification for inclusion students to respond with their peers. Participant responses to visuals were critically viewed through the use of a rubric. This rubric measured participants’ understanding and application of necessary key elements of cause/effect writing.

To allow for consistency in the scoring of student work, each researcher participated in the development of the parameters used in the rubric. Scoring was based on the format used on the Connecticut Mastery Test-Third Generation. Each student’s writing score was based on two separate readings each producing a score between 0 and 4. A third scorer was used when there was a discrepancy of more than one point between the judgments of the first two scorers. The two scores for each essay were added to produce the final score for each student with a maximum score of 8. In order to control bias due to student familiarity. the classroom teacher, as well as an objective scorer/researcher assessed the data.

Prior to instruction both instruments were administered in order to establish a baseline of the participants’ knowledge of expository text structure and its impact on their expository writing. In order to establish fair baseline data all participants involved were assigned a number. Every third number was then selected from this list, thus allowing for a fair distribution of participants from the high, middle, and low ranges. This process also allowed for the inclusion of special education students from both classrooms.

At midpoint of the study, the students’ knowledge of cause/effect text structure and its effect on their writing was re-evaluated using different versions of each instrument. These instruments were administered only after the students had been exposed to the cause/effect text framework along with sufficient modeling, guided practice and independent application of the cause/effect writing framework.

For the final assessment a change was made to the visual cue instrument. Instead of providing the participants with two pictorial representations of a cause/effect relationship, only one was provided. This was done in order to ascertain whether or not participants had internalized the instruction of cause/effect genre. In regard to the Cloze passages all three fifth grade passages had a number of cause/ effect signal words eliminated from the text. However, for grade eight the third Cloze passage had an elimination of phrases indicating cause/ effect relationships.

Results

In exploration of our research topic, The Impact of Expository Text Structure Knowledge on Fifth and Eighth Grade Students’ Expository Writing our random sample group of participants consisted of 9 fifth grade students and 7 eighth grade students selected from a pool of 50 students that participated in our study (see table below).

Visual Prompt and Cloze Passage scores from 5^th and 8^th grade random sample

Discussion

Consistent with the findings of several other researchers; Moore (1996), Jacobs (2002), Sinatra (2000), Dixon (1999), Williams, Hall and Lauer (2004), our research findings strongly suggest that specific instruction in expository text structure positively affects students’ comprehension of material read with a transfer of text structure skills to the students’ writing.

Data analysis of results from both the visual prompt as well as the Cloze passage demonstrate an increase in student scores for both fifth and eighth graders. When comparing baseline to final scores for the visual prompt assessment, there was an increase of 62% in correct student responses. Cloze passage assessment also showed a significant increase of 75% from the baseline to the final assessment.

Interestingly, when viewing the results of the fifth and eighth grades separately, 67% of the fifth graders and 29% of the eighth graders showed a significant drop in their visual prompt responses when comparing from baseline to mid-point. A factor that may have contributed to this decline in scores was that CMT testing occurred during this time period which adversely affected pacing of instruction and delivery of assessments.

Limitations

The primary limitations of the study were the limited amount of time allocated in conducting the research and lesson design. Also, the research was conducted during the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and was administered around the CMT test schedule.

Initially, lesson design for both 5th and 8th grade was identical but was modified to meet the individual needs of each class. “Modifications made must be based on sound knowledge of the learner: what he 16 or she knows and can do, as well as his or her learning style” (as cited in McMackin & Witherell, 2005, p. 249). The fifth grade students required more practice in cause/effect because of their limited exposure to the structure. The eighth grade students had previous experience using cause/effect and thus became bored with the amount of lessons administered. The lesson design and the number of lessons had to be modified. Also, the fifth grade needed more explicit instruction in application and use of a rubric, whereas the eighth grade did not.

Strengths

The primary strengths of the research include the sample size, use of students in the same urban school district, use of visual prompts and continuous weekly meeting of the researchers.

The sample size of fifty participants from which our random group of sixteen was selected was manageable and allowed the researchers to conduct an in-depth analysis of each participant’s work. Using students from the same urban school district allowed for a fair comparison of students from the same socio-economic background.

The use of visual prompts allowed ESL, struggling readers and special education students to complete the assignment of writing an expository passage using cause/effect that was not dependent on their reading ability. As a result of the cause/effect lessons included in the research study all participants were exposed to the cause/effect structure and had additional practice in using cause/effect. This enabled them to have prior knowledge that may have aided them in the Cloze portion of the CMT.

Implications

Our results strongly suggest that instruction in cause/effect text structure positively affected the students’ expository writing with a transfer of knowledge from reading to writing. Resulting from an indepth analysis of participants’ work, we identified significant improvement over time in students’ baseline to final assessment scores for the random sample of students selected.

With our findings in mind we agree with Sinatra (2000) that a shift in teaching style is needed in order to address content area reading instruction. “Teachers need to move from the ‘broad brush’ approach of covering content to focusing on selected topics in depth.” According to Moss (2005) students receive limited exposure to exposition and get little instruction in how to comprehend information text. We assume students can transfer their ability to read narrative into competent reading of non-narrative, upon which much of their further education and capacity to deal with adult life will depend.

Suggestions for Future Research

Suggestions for future research would include the replication of this cause/effect text structure study in other urban districts within Connecticut to establish validity for this research project. Another area of productive research might be the study of other expository text structures such as: compare/contrast, sequence, and description to see if knowledge of these structures is transferred to academic areas other than in which they were learned.

References

Bakken, J. P., & Wheldon, C. K. (2002). Teaching Text Structure to Improve Reading Comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 229-233. Retrieved February 4, 2006, ERIC database.

Brown, G. I L (2003). Searching Informational Texts: Text and Task Characteristics That Affect Performance. Reading Online, 7(2).Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp

Dickson, S. ( 1999). Integrating Reading and Writing to Teach Compare-Contrast Text Structure: A Research-Based Methodology. The Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, p50.

Jacobs, V. A. (2002). Reading, Writing and Understanding. Educational leadership. 60(3),58-61. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from ERIC database.

Kragler, S., Walker, C. A., & Martin, L. E. {2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 59, (3).

Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting Adolescent literacy across the Content Areas. Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Retrieved February 4, 2006, ERIC database.

McMackin, M. C., & Witherell, N. l. (2005}. Different routes to the same destination: Drawing conclusions with tiered graphic organizers. The Reading Teacher, 59, (3).

Moore, S. R. (1996). Collaboration and the Reading-Writing Relationship: Implications for Building Schemata for Expository Text. New York, NY. Retrieved February 15, 2006, ERIC database.

Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for effective content area literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The Reading Teacher, 59(1).

Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Teaching learners to Think. Read, and Write More Effectively in Content Subjects. The Gearing House, 73(5), 266-273. Retrieved February 4, 2006,from ERIC database.

Vacca, R. I (2002). From Efficient Decoders to Strategic Readers. Educational leadership, 60(3), 6-11. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from ERIC database. 18

Villano, I l. (2005). Should social studies textbooks become history? A look at alternative methods to activate schema in the intermediate classroom. The Reading Teacher, 59 (2).

Williams, J.P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K.D. (2004). Teaching Expository Text Structure to Young At-Risk learners: Building the Basics of Comprehension Instruction. Exceptionality 12(3), 129-144.

Pam Govertsen-Kahn, Middletown Public Schools

Jill Pilon, East Farms School, Farmington, CT

Statement of Purpose

In the Spring of 2004, we took the graduate course, Design, Management and Supervision of Reading Programs at the University of Connecticut. The class was small and discussion was intimate and dynamic. Along with our classmates, we enjoyed the high-level professional conversation so much that we were sad to see the course come to an end. Wishing to continue our dialogue and our shared love of literacy, the idea of continuing to meet as a professional study group was born.

Review of the Literature

How did study groups as a form of professional development emerge? In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s Report, A Nation at Risk, reported that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people.” No Child Left Behind grew out of the many policy legislations since the 1983 report. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference, this legislation claims to embody four key principles necessary to address the issues of inequity in public education. The title of the Act comes from President Bush’s statement that “too many of our neediest children are being left behind.”

One of these principles places an emphasis on improving instruction through the use of teaching methods that have been demonstrated to work. This directive has resulted in the mandate for today’s teachers to use scientifically proven, research-based practices, methodologies, and programs. The need for teachers to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to do this has led to reform in professional development practices.

Educators are encouraged to become life-long learners who continually examine their own knowledge and practice in an effort to educate their pupils to meet the demands of an ever more complex world. Wald and Castleberry (2000) wrote:

We need schools that prepare our learners to lead productive lives in this complex, high-tech, and fast-changing world – schools that are responsive, fluid, and adaptive to emerging needs and opportunities. The next generation of schools must have the capacity for continuous renewal. We must have an ethos that values lifelong learning for staff and families, as well as students.

Much has been written recently about the relative ineffectiveness of traditional professional development methods, which consisted largely of “one shot workshops or training opportunities without follow-up or immediate relevance to teacher needs” (CLASP Consulting 2002). Teachers would listen to the ideas and return to their classrooms relying only on their own interpretation of the information. “One of the most formidable obstacles a school will face in attempting to function as a professional learning community is the tradition of teacher isolation … ” (Dufour, 1999). On the other hand, Eastwood and Louis (1992) found that the most important factor in the success of school initiatives is the presence of a collaborative environment, one in which educators become involved in collective inquiry and reflective dialogue. In the last chapter of Living Between the Lines (2001), Lucy Calkins and Shelley Harwayne state, “If we as teachers are going to nurture our souls, we need each other.” (Robb, 2000, p. 82)

Lyons and Pinnell (2001) have developed a list of Characteristics of Systems for Extending Learning, a clear intent of NCLB. These include:

• The responsibility for learning is shared.
• There is a commitment to ongoing learning.
• Learning is grounded in the work of students and teachers.
• Learning takes place in an atmosphere of inquiry.
• Learning is accomplished through conversation.
• Data are used for practical purposes.
• Communication takes place within and beyond the community

One research-based professional development model that meets the requirements of NCLB is the professional study group. This model was one of the “core propositions advanced by the National Board of Teaching Standards” in 1989 (CLASP Consulting, 2002). It is “more likely to lead to sustained change in classrooms than other staff development models” (Allen, 2006-07) and to create a common vision (Sweeney, 2003). According to Garet, Porter et al (2001 ), the format of a study group meets the criteria of an effective reform-based professional development model. It accomplishes this by its definition – a group that meets over an extended time to enhance the group’s understanding of a specific subject or subjects. According to this study:

… our results indicate that sustained and intensive professional development is more likely to have an impact, as reported by teachers, than in shorter professional development. Our results also indicate that professional development that focuses on academic subject matter (content), gives teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work (active learning), and is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence), is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills.

Further support for the power of cooperative, collegial learning was noted by Garry and Graham (2004, reporting on the work of Porter et al. 2000) with this list of common elements of effective professional development, all of which are characteristics of study groups:

• A focus on higher-order teaching strategies
• Use of a reform type (e.g., teacher study groups or networks) as opposed to isolated workshops
• lnclusion of opportunities for active learning
• Direct connections between teachers’ goals and the focus of the professional development
• Grouping of teachers from the same subject area, grade level, or school

Robb (2000, p. 83) has suggested a few additional elements particular to study groups which render them valued tools for improvement in our profession. These include participant control of the curriculum and meeting times, focus on teacher needs (not administrator needs), and inquiry as the force driving the curriculum.

What is the Purpose of a Study Group?

Why should educators spend professional time together in study groups? There are three major reasons. Study groups help us implement curricular and instructional objectives, collaboratively plan school improvement, and study research on teaching and learning (Fisher using the work of Murphy, 1992).

Study groups typically form when a small group of teachers want to focus on a common issue or concern. Bean ( 2004) stated “When teachers are involved in an activity that is especially meaningful to them, they become more engaged in the process and are generally more willing to apply what they are learning to their classroom practices. Participation in a study group puts teachers in charge of their own learning … ” They meet together in order to collaboratively build meaning and problem solve about a common issue. Usually they do so with the goal of improving the quality of instruction in their classrooms through inquiry methods of learning. These groups provide opportunities for teachers to share their expertise, diverse perspectives, and support. Often they turn to sources other than themselves to study collaboratively – the diversity of their perceptions and experiences directly expands the knowledge of their subject for all the study group members, by adding depth and dimensions of understanding that they may not have thought of independently -thus helping to build and expand upon new learning.

In this era of reform initiatives legislated by policy makers, but not necessarily supported by funding, the study group model may seem particularly appealing to schools as a form of professional development because it is relatively inexpensive. Facilitation depends upon the expertise of staff within the school’s culture, thus avoiding the costs of hiring outside consultants. Study groups lend themselves to enduring, well-attended professional development because of the convenience of meeting in the work place. These sessions are easily accessible to the teachers, administrators, parents, and specialists working within the school, affording an avenue of communication among these subgroups. Teachers accumulate knowledge about best practices and integrate them immediately into daily work with children. Magnification of improved student learning is achieved as teachers model and discuss new insight with colleagues and parents. The ongoing inquiry, integration into practice, reflection, and modification operate in the cyclical manner which results in continuous improvement in schools.

Thus, if study groups are to be valued as a substantial response to the drive for educational enhancement, they need be developed and executed following a somewhat precise, research-based structure that has been proven to be effective.

How Should Study Groups Be Structured?

The structure for study groups referred to in this paper comes from the work of Adam Garry and Parry Graham (2004). Although their work centered on professional development for dissemination of technology best practices, their structural foundations for study groups hold true for the study of any other topic.

Garry and Graham state that for any professional development activity to be effective the activity must center on the study of an area of need directly related to curriculum and student learning. Therefore, the first order of business for a study group is to establish its focus. In fact, a study group usually grows out of a problem that needs to be addressed by a group of people related in some cohesive way (i.e. grade level teachers; classroom teachers, special education providers and reading specialists; or district administrators, principals, and head teachers).

When the participants have agreed to form a group they next need to establish the basic ground rules, which Garry and Graham label, “The Initial Framework for Understanding.” This stage is where the group takes care of the group norms. Some conventions to consider might be who will be included in the group (Fountas and Pinnell suggest that groups of 5 to 7 people work best, 2001, p. 17 4); where and when meetings will take place, and how long they will last; who will facilitate the group; what material/topics will be studied; what the expectations for participation will involve. These expectations should include clear commitment to attend regularly, read chapters, and/or try strategies in the classroom. “As with any group, study groups create their own culture, and when ground rules are established and agreedon early in the process, it is more likely that the study group will reach its goal.” (Vogt and Shearer, 2003).

The person who is selected as facilitator should be someone who is willing to take risks, has experience and expertise in a specific topic, and has the self-disciplin e to observe and guide participants (Robb, 2000, p. 87). Farr {2004, p. 88) has found that the sharing of power is key to the success of collaborative relationships. A facilitator should view himself as an equal in the learning process, and not as an authority. Further, Farr states that for study groups to maintain continuity, it is essential for a facilitator to provide a skeletal framework for the group, and the group must trust that this role will continue. A facilitator should consider the following suggestions offered by Laura Robb (2000, p. 88):

1. Begin the meeting on time and follow the agenda or plan negotiated with participants at the previous meeting.
2. Read the notes you took from the last meeting to refresh participants’ minds.
3. Invite participants to share a mini-lesson, how a reading or writing strategy worked in their classroom, and so on.
4. Keep the discussion going with these questions: Does anyone have something to add? Does anyone have a different perspective? Can you offer research that supports this idea? Can you show us and interpret students’ work? Can you elaborate on that idea? Can you clarify that point with an example from your classroom or from professional reading?
5. Encourage members to link and adapt theory, demonstrations, and discussions to their classrooms.
6. Help resolve heated disagreements by repeating the salient points each side raised and pointing out that diverse ideas can coexist.
7. Negotiate assignments for participants and the agenda for the next study group.
8. Write up the high points after the meeting on notebook paper or on forms your school has developed. Distribute these to appropriate persons.

Jennifer Allen (2006) also suggests that resources should be organized ahead of time and that meetings should be held in a relaxed environment with healthful snacks available.

The next stage “Analysis/Application,”s also from Garry and Graham (2004), is when “participants are evaluating new resources or ideas with a critical eye and beginning to make connections to their own classroom objectives and curricula.” This phase of the study group process entails positive group discussion that encourages new learning from considered resources, while allowing for group reflection about ways to use this insight as a catalyst to stimulate improved student achievement. It can also include examination of student work, resulting in suggestions for new instruction methodologies to address particular learning needs.

The final phase of a study group’s journey has to do with coherence to the entire learning community in the form of Reflection. This may be the most important aspect of the study group because it can have profound impact on the professional culture of a school, according to Garry and Graham (2004).

Probably the most important aspect of the study group model is its ability to develop and strengthen professional culture, which increases a school’s capacity for long-term improvement. At the heart of this process is teacher reflection and collegial feedback.

Robert Garmston and Bruce Wellman ( 1999) view reflective dialogue as a key agent in “melding the private and the public and of autonomy and interdependence” that exist in the professional communities of our schools. Shared understandings bind educators together, reducing some of the isolation in classroom instruction.

Methodology

The Initial Framework for Understanding. We met in the summer of 2004 and had a lively discussion about possible study group topics and potential members. After choosing a date and location for our first meeting, we decided to invite our UCONN classmates and encouraged them to invite two or three colleagues with an interest in literacy research, instruction, and leadership. One aspect of our project that appeared to differ from study groups that had been discussed in the literature was that group members were not all employed by a single school district; rather we represented five districts and a university in the Greater Hartford area (Farmington, Middletown, Waterford, West Hartford, Wethersfield, and University of Connecticut). Core participants included a graduate student, two classroom teachers, one Reading Recovery teacher, one teacher/literacy coach, one reading specialist, two reading consultants, one curriculum specialist for professional learning, two principals, and one university professor. On occasion other professionals joined us when our topic was of personal interest. We were hopeful that this inter-district project could lead to learning that might influence practice beyond the scope of our individual systems.

We prepared a Needs Survey. We included topics and materials that had piqued our own interest during our coursework at UCONN or that we had simply heard about from other language arts professionals. Wanting to serve as effective facilitators who keep a group on task, we also created a simple agenda and a study guide. Full establishment of further ground rules had to wait until the first study group meeting in order to negotiate dates, times, and assignments/readings so that all participants would share ownership of this learning experience.

We met about once per month (seven times) throughout the 2004- 2005 school year. All meetings were held at a centrally located Barnes and Noble Book Store from 6:30 until about 8:00 PM. The following chart summarizes each study group meeting, including summary information about the “big ideas” that the group learned as well as examples of how these ideas were applied in the work setting (see tables on pages 8-11 ).

Analysis/ Application

We met about once per month (seven times) throughout the 2004-2005 school year. All meetings were held at a centrally located Barnes and Noble Book Store from 6:30 until about 8:00 PM. The following chart summarizes each study group meeting, including summary information about the “big ideas” that the group learned as well as examples of how these ideas were applied in the work setting:

Reflection

Following each of the first few sessions, we asked group members to complete a formal reflection form. Afterwards we, as facilitators, prepared and distributed minutes by email that summarized our new learning and how these understandings would be implemented in our teaching, coaching, or professional development practices. At the conclusion of each meeting, we saved a few minutes to agree on a focus for the next meeting. As the group became more intimate, structures relaxed as we discovered that outcomes wouldn’t always be immediately apparent. Over time our group processes became more fluid, and we found less need for official documentation.

During the 2006-2007 school year, we reconvened and quickly noticed that the interests of our group had taken a new direction. Once again we all completed a needs survey which indicated a desire to concentrate on leadership issues. These texts were springboards for our monthly inquiry/research and reflective discussions:

Literacy Coaching, The Essentials by Katherine Casey
Becoming a Literacy Leader by Jennifer Allen
Sustainable Leadership by Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink
Teaching for Comprehending and Fluency by Irene C. Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell
Choice Words by Peter H. Johnston

Highlights from this second year of working together included these deepened understandings:

• Teaching students to label their comprehension strategies is not an important teaching focus. Instead, ability to apply these strategies independently is essential.
• Teachers should understand the power of reciprocal conversation when conferring with students.
• Reading and discussing professional literature together allows learners to make meaningful connections across texts and theories.
• Having commonly understood terminology for literacy ideas helps develop shared conceptualizations.
• Participation in literacy study groups enables administrators to deepen their knowledge of theory and to identify resources that will help teachers improve the learning of students in their schools.
• Coaching is a collaborative learning model. It is not supervisory. Shared planning and instruction expands everyone’s repertoire of instructional approaches and improves student learning. Coaches need to apply the gradual release of responsibility model for learning in their work with other professionals.
• Literacy leaders need to create systems and practice that are sustainable beyond their tenure.
• Commitment as a member of a study group encourages participants to read texts and discuss topics that might not have been explored independently.
• A multidisciplinary study group provides the opportunity to consider ideas from differing points of view and promotes respectful non-judgmental listening.
• Mature study groups are able to encourage professional growth with decreasingly less rigid structures. Groups become less guarded and more willing to take risks in discourse.

Discussion

In our role as facilitators we learned how to gather participants, schedule meetings, develop study guides, manage time, and collect resources. We also learned how important it is to develop strategies for maintaining group processes that focus discussions. Advantages of our partnership included encouragement to keep on track, shared anticipation of issues, constant clarification· of thinking, and a renewed professional and personal friendship.

We participated in “Instructional Conversations” (Tompkins, 2003), or conversations for the purpose of enhancing our conceptual knowledge of shared interests, as we read and discussed texts related to literacy and instructional practices.

1. These discussions provided multiple encounters with the vocabulary of our craft, embedding the language into our thinking. This has led to an improved ability to conceptualize the knowledge of our profession as we teach and communicate with other education professionals. These conversations also helped to expand our own understanding of topics, while considering various interpretations by colleagues with varying perspectives. Personal connections, experiences, and questions were frequent cause for shifts in thinking. Such sharing of insight deepened the comprehension of each of the study group members in ways that an individual reading of the same text would not have accomplished.
2. Multiple encounters with ideas based on readings in a relaxed social setting helped conceptualizations become more memorable. The supportive tone of the group encouraged experimentation and application in classrooms.

Our study group was highly successful as a shared learning opportunity. Each of Farr’s (2004, p. 73-98) descriptors of the collaborative process was apparent in our action research. We all placed high value on our meetings and created time in busy schedules to meet. Our learning was focused, but willingness to change direction to address unexpected questions kept us flexible. Because participants genuinely trusted and cared for each other while respecting individual competency, dialogue was open and non-judgmental. Power was shared equally as decisions were made and while conversing. With members representing a variety of literacy perspectives and several school districts, we constantly discussed issues that would impact learning beyond our individual schools, sharing ideas that could improve instruction in our region or state. Perhaps most important -we laughed often together and regarded our study group as an enjoyable method of renewing professional energy.

It is difficult for study group members to maintain commitment when topics are not of personal interest. Perhaps a group of five to seven members as suggested by Fountas and Pinnell would have helped with consistent attendance. It wasn’t possible for us to please all of the original members with chosen topics because of differing priorities for professional growth. A core group who attended the meetings regularly expressed that the experience was better than anticipated, and that it served as an inspiration to keep current with literacy issues.

It was often hard to read an entire text for each meeting. Rexibility to allow continued conversation at a subsequent session proved to be helpful. Rather than planning to read entire books, focusing on only a chapter or two made the task feasible for busy professionals. A jigsaw or similar strategy could also have been used to share the reading preparation ahead of time or at the actual meeting.

The inter-district study group structure created a learning ripple effect. Not only did members learn content, but they also became familiar with this professional development model. They recreated this experience in their local districts, schools, and classrooms – sharing and continuing their own learning while growing the learning of others in their community.

Through our work as an inter-district group, a discourse began about the widely varying resources, curriculum, support programs, staff roles, and student performance among a small urban and several suburban districts.

Recommendations

• There is ethical potential for the strong collegial bonds that are developed in this inter-district collaborative professional development model to influence improved education at a larger scale. In such a setting, professionals from both high and low performing districts may be able to work together to find ways of equalizing student performance among all districts in an entire region.
• It might useful to explore ways to use technology to enable study group members from varying districts to converse and enhance understandings of text between scheduled meetings.
• Extensions of shared study group learning might include focused observations and walk-throughs, peer coaching, and joint lesson study.
• Continued research about study groups with interdisciplinary membership (professors, administrators, literacy specialists, teachers, graduate students, etc.) is needed to determine their value in the development of collaborative learning communities in educational settings.
• Further studies that measure the relationship between study groups and improved student performance would be helpful to quantify the utility of this professional development model.

References

Allen, Jennifer. (2006). Becoming a Literacy leader. Supporting learning and Change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Allen, Jennifer. (2006-2007).launching Teacher Study Groups: Guidelines and Resources. Choiceliteracy.com. Bean, Rita. (2004). The Reading Specialist. New York: The Guilford Press. CLASP Consulting. (2002}. Teachers as Experts: a New Model for Inquiry. An Initiative of Mass Networks Education Partnership. Dole, Janice A. (2004}. The Changing Role of the Reading Specialist in School Reform. The Reading Teacher; Vol. 57, No.5, 462-471. DuFour, Rick. (1999). Taking on loneliness. Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 20, No. 1, Winter 1999. Farr, William J. (2004}. Collaboration Among Teachers of literacy. University of Connecticut PhD. Dissertation. Fisher, Jan. (2000}.1f It’s Wednesday. It Must be Study Groups. TEACHER’S. NET GAZETTE (website}, Vol. 1. No.6. Garet, Porter, et al. (2001 }. What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38, No.4, p. 935. Garmston, R.J. and Wellman, B.M. ( 1999}. The Adaptive School: A Sourcebook for Developing Collaborative Groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon, p. 15-19. Garry, Adam and Parry Graham. Using Study Groups to Disseminate Technology Best Practices. (2004 }. Tech learning, The Resource for Education Technology leaders, Feb. 1, 2004. Lyons, Carol A. and Gay Su Pinnell. (2001 }. Systems for Change in Literacy Education-A Guide to Professional Development. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann. National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983} A Nation at Risk. Robb, laura. {2000). Chapter 6. Study Groups -learn by Doing. Redefining Staff Development. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann. Sweeney, Diane. {2007).learning Along the Way. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Tompkins, Gail E. {2003}. 50 Literacy Strategies, 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 44. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002} No Child left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, D.C. Vogt, MaryEllen and Brenda A. Shearer. (2003}. Reading Specialists in the Real World. New York: Allyn and Bacon, p. 218. Wald, Penelope J. and MichaelS. Castleberry, ed. (2000) Chapter 1. Realigning for Change. Educators as Learners: Creating a Professional Learning Community in Your School. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.