The Effects of Question And Answer Relationship on Second-Grade Students' Ability to accurately Answer Comprehension Questions By Carol Patterson Coppin State University To the faculty of the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education June 2015 Graduate Thesis APPROVALS: Advisor: __________________________________ Date: _______________ Chairperson: _______________________________ Date: _______________ Area Dean/Director: _________________________ Date: _______________ Dean of Graduate Studies: ____________________ Date: _______________ Format Used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition i Abstract This quasi-experimental research study examined the effects of the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) taxonomy on second-grade students' ability to answer comprehension questions. Participants included forty –five second-grade students. Participants were not randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Experimental group participants received one week of initial strategy instruction followed by three weeks of maintenance activities. The results of the study-------------------------- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my gratitude to my professors, Dr. K. Watson and Dr.H. Kargbo whose expertise, understanding added considerably to my graduate experience. They provided me with direction, technical support, and guidance. Special thanks to my principal, Dr. T Lipscomb, for her continued motivation and encouragement, to complete a graduate career in Curriculum and Instruction. I would also like to thank my family for the support they provided me through my entire life and in particular, I must acknowledge my husband and children, without whose love, encouragement, and editing assistance, I would not have finished this thesis. In conclusion, I recognize that this research would not have been possible without God for providing me with good health and the determination that was necessary to complete this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………... i Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………..ii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………... iii List of Tables ……………………………………………………………….v Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………... Background Information……………………………………………… Purpose of Study…………………………………………................ Statement of the Problem ………………………………………....... Research Question……………………………………………………. Research Design………………………………………………………. Assumption…………………………………………………………….. Significance of the Study………………………………………………. Definitions……………………………………………………………… Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………......... Introduction…………………………………………………………….. Comprehension Strategies ………........................................................... Comprehension Instruction……….…………………………………….. The Benefits of Questioning……………………………………………. Question- Answer Relationships…………………………………………. Trends in the Reading Classroom……………………………………… Trends in the Reading Classroom……………………………………… The Value of Prior Knowledge………………………………………….. Summary…………………………………………………………………. Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………….. Introduction…………………………………………………………………. Research Question ……….……..……………….......................................... Participants & Study Site ………………….………………………………... Method & Design…………………………………………………............... Instrumentation……………………………………………………………… Reliability & Validity …………………………………….………………… Privacy and Confidentiality……………….…………………….………….. Data Collection Procedure……………………………………….………… Data Analysis………………………………………………………………. Conclusion………………………………………………………............... Chapter 4: RESULTS ……………………………………………… Introduction…………………...…………………………………,,,,,……… Test Results………………………………………………………………… Tables…………………………………………………………….………… Summary of Results………………………………………………………... Chapter 5: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY & RESULTS....…… Introduction……………………………………………….……….. Importance of Study……………………………………………..… Potential Studies................................................................................ Limitations…………………………………………………………. Questions to Explore for Future Research…………………………. Implication for Personal Practice…………………………………... Conclusion…………………………………………………………. REFERENCES……………………………………………………… APPENDICES……………………………………………………… Appendix C: IRB Approval …………………………….................. LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Students Pre and Post-test Data…………………... Table 2 Students Pre and Posttest Scores Paired Samples Test........ Table 3 Students TRC Text Reading and Comprehension Pre and Posttest Samples CHAPTER ONE: The Effects of Question-Answer Relationships on Second-Grade Students' Ability to Answer Accurately Comprehension Questions Introduction This chapter describes a research study that was conducted by the researcher to examine the effects of direct instruction of Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) by Raphael, (1981) on second-grade students' ability to answer accurately answer comprehension questions after reading. Included are the background of the study, the purpose and problem of the study, the significance, and an overview of the methodology used. The chapter concludes by noting the limitations of the study and defining special terms that pertain to the study. Background of the Study Most of us think of reading as a simple, passive process that involves calling words in a linear fashion and internalizing their meaning one at a time; but reading is actually a very complex process that requires a great deal of active participation on the part of the reader. According to (Kiger and Cooper, 2011) Reading is making meaning from print. It requires that we: identify the words in print – a process called word recognition, construct an understanding from them – a process called comprehension, coordinate identifying words and making meaning so that reading is automatic and accurate – an achievement called fluency. Students' inability to comprehend text effectively has seemingly become one of the main causes of their low academic performances in school. The problem of low reading comprehension continues to have an adverse effect on the overall academic achievement of some students. These affected students lack the necessary skills in comprehending a text. Caldwell (2007) states that comprehension is a process by which the reader uses his prior knowledge, experiences and the information provided by the author in the text to construct meaning for a specific purpose. Currently, the researcher is interested in enhancing students' comprehension skills. It must be noted that the materials that students are provided with should be aesthetically appealing to them. This will influence their understanding of the given text and teachers will be able to activate their prior knowledge and build on their existing knowledge. Additionally, teachers need to understand that the text they provide their students with must be connected to the students and the lesson they are going to exploit. Reading texts that are unconnected does not hold much meaning for these students. The development of students' comprehension skills depends heavily on a teacher's ability to help students understand that the print they read conveys meaning and also activate students' prior knowledge for them to garner meaning within the text. The researcher's choice of topic was influenced, based on personal experiences as a classroom teacher and observations during classroom visitations in an urban school system. Over the years, elementary school teachers have been continuously "bashed" by others who believe that students are not provided with the necessary skills to make them competent in literacy with a focus on comprehension. Teachers at the lower elementary level are often held responsible for students' poor comprehension skills as it is often believed that they do not use the appropriate reading strategies to captivate students' interest in reading. Many students have failed to achieve academic success in comprehension because all too often teachers fail to recognize that irrespective of students' age they have thoughts and prior knowledge that can be activated for them to be successful in comprehending what they read or hear. The researcher observed two second grade classrooms over a two week period and discovered that there were several students who seemed to be frustrated when they were reading. These students relied heavily on one source of information to answer questions or they just found it difficult to answer questions; hence the choice to intervene using the Question-Answer relationships (QAR) technique to assist students to identify the type of responses necessary to answer a question. Questions are the most prevalent means of evaluating reading comprehension; therefore, knowledge about sources of information required to answer questions facilitates comprehension and increases a student's ability to participate in teacher- directed discussion and answer questions in textbook exercises The proposed research will focus on direct instruction of the QAR strategy that assists students in answering comprehension questions. Direct instruction of QAR provides a systematic approach to reading and answering questions that are required on standardized tests (Raphael & Au, 2005b). Also, direct instruction of QAR ensures teachers that their students are receiving effective comprehension strategy instruction. Statement of the Problem In 2007, the Alliance for Excellent Education estimated that as many as eight million middle and high school students were reading below grade level (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). Increased numbers of at-risk adolescent readers have caused this group to receive a great deal of attention at local and national levels. A large number of students at risk of failure increased even further when 21st-century literacy habits and skills were calculated. These skills include core subject knowledge, 21st-century content, learning and thinking skills, information and communications technology, and life skills (Partnership, 2006). This study focused on developing students' learning and comprehension skills through the instruction of the QAR taxonomy on students in an urban school system classified as a title one school. The school has a population of 314 students in grades pre-kindergarten through 5th grade. The school has a diverse cultural background of students with 78% of the students African Americans, 16% white and 3% Hispanic. 97.5% of the students received free and reduced meals. The district assessments showed that most of the students are struggling with reading comprehension. Based on the researcher personal experiences as a classroom teacher, and observation, these students were not fluent and have little recall of textual information. It was projected that at this level, guided instruction would be extremely demanding and time-consuming because the reader does not know enough about what he is reading to make adequate connections between the new information and prior knowledge; hence the need for the researcher to intervene using the question-answer relationships (QAR) technique. Research Question The state of literacy education in some of schools in the United States suggests that elementary students are in need of strategies that can improve their literacy and question-answering skills. By teaching students to accurately answer the four types of questions included in the QAR taxonomy, students received instruction in fundamental comprehension strategies and increased their knowledge of how to accurately answer comprehension questions. Thus, the following research question was formulated and will guide this study. To what extent does the direct instruction of the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) taxonomy, affect struggling second-grade students' ability to answer accurately comprehension questions after reading? Research Design This study was conducted using a quasi- experimental design, a quantitative method suggesting that variables can be identified, controlled, and measured. The use of a quasi- experimental design will help satisfy the critical need for "rigorous scientific research in education" (Gersten 2005, p. 149). In 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) suggested that experimental design allows the study to adhere to scientific methods as other disciplines. This study will focus on second graders who are struggling academically at an Elementary School in Baltimore City Public School. Some of the students in this population were identified by school administrators, parents, and teachers as performing below on-grade-level in academic areas, including Participants in this study were chosen because they were identified as students who need reading intervention based on previous testing. The students' reading comprehension ability was tested using the mClass Reading Assessment – Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC). This assessment is used in the elementary school system to measure student's comprehension level. The quasi- experimental design permitted the researcher to utilize an experimental group and a control group and does not allow for a random selection. This design was chosen because it will allow the researcher to get the best evidence of whether or not the strategy "Question Answer Relationship" had the intended causal effect on the second-grade students. This quasi-experimental study utilized quantitative data collected before and after four weeks of strategy instruction. Both groups were pre- tested and post-tested to answer comprehension questions after reading based on their ability. Students received approximately three weeks of instruction, except the absence of QAR instruction in the control group. The results of this study are generalizable to other similar studies whose population includes elementary schools Assumptions 1. The researcher assumed that participants in the study did not have solid previous knowledge of the QAR strategy. 2. The researcher assumed that students in the transition program would represent a population of struggling readers. Significance of the Study The importance of this study lies in the population that was being utilized and in the recent trends in educational testing. Schools throughout the nation have increasingly been evaluated based on students' ability to excel on standardized tests. It is common knowledge among schools that the weakest point in school evaluations typically resides with those students who are performing and reading below grade level. Raphael and Au (2005b) examined questions on a fourth-grade NAEP examination and discovered that of 12 questions, five were "Right There," four were "Think and Search," and three were "Author and Me" questions. This analysis suggests that even at the fourth-grade level, tests are riddled with challenging questions. The significant of this study is based on students' ability to read and most importantly comprehend print. Reading is a socio-interactive process in which a reader's interpretation of text is based on textual and no textual information. As they share their thinking, readers construct answers to questions, shifting between the text and what they know. Therefore, not only do students figure out answers to questions, but they also know the source of information they are using to construct answer. In the current study, the researcher examined the effects of direct instruction using Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) on students who are struggling in second grade. Although a significant increase was not seen in the results, this study should serve as a reminder that researching comprehension instruction for second graders is multi-faceted. Research that includes this population should address direct instruction, appropriate scaffolds, corrective feedback, and teachers who act as motivators. Definition of Key Terms Direct Instruction. A method of teaching students that requires the teacher to explicitly teach a strategy. Teachers must explain and model strategies for students. There are three phases of direct instruction: explanation and modeling, guided practice, and independent practice. Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) (Raphael, 1981). A taxonomy that categorizes questions according to their location in the text. It is important to note that 21 the QAR taxonomy is not a hierarchy. There are two main categories in the taxonomy: "In the book" and "In my head." Questions for which answers can be found in the text fall within the first category. Questions for which answers require the reader to make an inference or use prior knowledge to develop the answer are in the second category. There are also four subcategories: "Right There," "Think and Search," "Author and Me," and "On My Own." "Right There" and "Think and Search" are in the "book" category. Answers to these questions are found directly in the text. Answers that are in only one place are considered "Right There," and answers that are found in multiple places across the text are "Think and Search." "Author and Me" and "On My Own" questions require the reader to use prior knowledge or make an inference. Answers to "Author and Me" questions can be found by reading the text and combining what is learned from the text with what the reader already knows. Answers to "On My Own" questions do not require the reader to read and can be answered without the use of the text. The question is about the text, but the text is not required to answer it. These types of questions will not be included in the proposed study. Reading comprehension: A process in which readers construct meaning by interacting with text through the combination of prior knowledge and previous experience, information in the text, and the stance the reader takes in relationship to the text (Pardo, 2004, p. 272). Struggling readers. Students who are reading below grade level, according to the district reading assessment. These students may benefit from direct instruction of reading strategies as taught in the proposed study CHAPTER TWO Literature Review This chapter presents a review of the literature and research related to several topics relevant to the proposed research: (a) comprehension strategies and instruction, (b) the benefits of questioning (c) Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) (d) trends in the reading classroom and (e) the value of prior knowledge. A brief summary follows the discussion of each of the QAR categories of studies. Question-Answer Relationships is a taxonomy that categorizes comprehension questions based on where their answers can be found. According to the taxonomy, there are four categories: "Right There," "Think and Search," "Author and Me," and "On My Own." "Right There" and "Think and Search" questions can be found directly in the text, in one location or multiple places in the book, respectively. "Author and Me" and "On My Own" questions require more thinking, as readers must use the text to make inferences or use the information on their heads entirely. The QAR taxonomy assists teachers and students by (a) providing a common language for teachers and students' questions, (b) providing a framework for answering questions, and (c) providing a framework for comprehension instruction. Comprehension Instruction Comprehension begins when readers begin to internalize their thoughts as they read (Block & Israel, 2004). In most cases a reader can start to internalize thoughts once they have learned to decode words and then simultaneously read the phrases and construct meaning from text. Comprehension strategies are tools that a reader can utilize when understanding of text breaks down. The National Reading Panel (2000b) has suggested summarizing, question asking and answering, the use of graphic organizers, and multiple strategies uses as key strategies that should be included in reading instruction. Also, Kamil et al. (2008) advocated for summarizing, question-answering and asking, paraphrasing, and finding the main idea. Researchers have confirmed that direct instruction of comprehension strategies can be effective in improving students' ability to understand text (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil et al., 2008). Predicting during reading requires readers to look at what has been previously stated in the text and what they think may happen next. By predicting prior to reading, readers activate their prior knowledge. This strategy engages old schema and allows for new information to be "filed." Text structure pertains to how authors organize text. Bartlett (2007) suggested that students who have a better understanding of how text is organized are also able to recall more information from text. Monitoring also referred to as metacognition or self-monitoring, occurs when readers think about what they are reading in the process of, and after, reading. Readers who are successful at self-monitoring have the ability to self-evaluate their comprehension of text. Graphic organizers have become commonplace in the reading classroom. These are used to provide a visual representation of the text that aids in the organization to assist with comprehension. Summarization requires students to understand the text, by discerning more important from less important information, and synthesize information into a coherent text that can represent the original (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991). Questioning takes on dual roles in reading, question asking, and question answering. Question asking is also called self-questioning, a metacognitive strategy that helps students comprehend text by posing questions about the text as they read. Self-questioning requires the reader, to summarize, select relevant information, and put pieces of text together to formulate a question. Question answering is a very common practice in classrooms. Questions can take on many forms and may be posted by other students, the teacher, or a test. Reading strategies can be employed before, during, and after reading. According to Kamil (2008), the multiple strategy uses results in better comprehension than single strategy use. Multiple strategy use means that students can use strategies almost simultaneously, because thoughts are developed and internalized as the reader moves across the page. Also to assisting students, the QAR taxonomy also helps teachers in scaffolding questions to meet the various phases of comprehension instruction (Raphael, 1986). Direct instruction of "Right There" questions teaches students to scan for important details and use context clues. Direct instruction of answering "Think and Search" questions requires students to locate relevant information and synthesize information from multiple places in the text. In doing so, students must summarize, think about text organization, visualize, clarify, and make connections and simple inferences. When answering "Author and Me" questions, students must connect information from the text with information that they already know. In doing so, they must be able to predict, visualize, and make connections and more complex inferences. When answering "On My Own" questions, students are not required to refer to the text. Therefore, text-based strategies are not necessary. However, this type of question does require the activation of prior knowledge and text self-connections. Many researchers believe that it is "not the specific strategy taught, but rather the active participation of students in the comprehension process that makes the most difference on students' comprehension" (Kamil et al., 2008, p. 17). If this is true, instruction regarding the strategies above might be particularly useful in assisting adolescents whose needs are to transition from passive to active reading. As students transition from elementary to middle and high school reading, the need for the active use of comprehension strategies increases along with the level of text being presented. Students entering secondary grades are required to read the more intensive text and answer comprehension questions. By engaging in more active reading process students, can focus on and internalize the information being presented. Comprehension Instruction Because the goal of various teaching strategies is to aid in comprehension, teachers should choose strategies that benefit the needs of their students. With countless numbers of reading strategies available to teachers, comprehension instruction has many facets in classrooms. Modern strategy instruction research began when Durkin (2004) uncovered a lack of direct instruction of comprehension strategies in classrooms. Durkin explored elementary classrooms and found that less than 1% of classroom time was being devoted to explicit teaching of comprehension and that assessment occupied more time than on the instruction of comprehension. She further revealed that the explicit instruction was not being replaced with other reading strategies. Instead, more time was being spent on assigning, grading, and transitions. Later, Pressley et al. (1998) also found a lack of strategy instruction across classrooms. They observed six fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms over a period of one school year. They observed a wide variety of positive instructional practices, such as trade book instruction, writing instruction, independent reading, whole and small group instruction, and projects. Although there were many good instructional methods in these classrooms, the researchers' observations also revealed teacher-led discussions that were often driven by commercial worksheets and focused on student understanding of the story. Teachers observed in this study mentioned and modeled comprehension strategies. However, they failed to encourage students to orchestrate strategies during reading. Instead, teachers surveyed student thinking by asking students questions after they finish reading, such as "Did you get images in your head while you were reading?" (Pressley et al., 1998, p. 173) And asked students to supply written responses to questions after reading. Researchers involved in this study were shocked by the complete lack of strategy instruction during reading in classrooms that included so many other good practices. Direct Instruction Kamil et al. (2008) suggested that there was strong evidence supporting the use of the direct and explicit instruction in classrooms across all grade levels. They reviewed five experiments that focused on explicit instruction, two in the upper elementary grades and three in secondary grades. Strategies in these studies included comprehension strategies, summarization, and question answering. Kamil and colleagues found that 67% of the reviewed studies showed a positive impact on struggling readers. Thus, explicit instruction of summarization and question answering helped struggling readers. Direct and explicit instruction is an essential and powerful instructional technique for adolescent comprehension instruction (Kamil et al., 2008). Direct and explicit instruction encompasses an instructional model that includes the explanation and modeling of the comprehension strategy, guided practice with the strategy, and eventually independent practice of the strategy (Duffy, 2003; Duffy et al, ; Duke & Pearson, 2001; Kamil et al., 2008; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Pressley, 2000). According to Kamil et al., 2008, modeling include "defining each of the strategies for students and showing them how to use those strategies when reading a text" (p.18). During guided practice, teacher and students should work together to apply the strategies to the text. (Kamil et al., 2008). In this phase, students and teacher must collaborate closely with one another to ensure that the students are correctly applying the strategy to the text. Guided practice can also occur by grouping students so that they may assist one another. As soon as students can effectively use the strategy, students may move to the independent practice phase of instruction. During independent practice, students work by themselves to apply the strategy to the text. The rationale for this approach to instruction is that by teaching students to use specific cognitive strategies, their ability to comprehend text and overcome obstacles during the reading process is improved (National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, 2000). Block (2004) surveyed 630 second- through sixth-grade students to determine what students felt they needed from their teachers to improve their reading. Student responses signified that they needed their teachers to demonstrate how they understood meanings of words and events in books and expressed a need for teachers to explain what happens in their heads when comprehending. Vaughn et al. (2011) examined the effect of collaborative strategic reading (CSR) with middle school students. The purpose of CSR was to provide direct instruction to students in comprehension strategies, thereby monitoring and clarifying for understanding during reading. Students worked in groups to learn to reflect on the text through a main idea and self-questioning instruction and then participated in a group discussion after reading. Participants included seventh- and eighth-grade students in three school districts in Texas and Colorado. Participants were assigned randomly to 34 treatment group classrooms and 27 control group classrooms. Pupils in the control group received "business as usual" instruction (Vaughn et al., 2011, p. 938). Treatment groups received direct instruction of comprehension strategies in their regular English/reading class two times per week for four to six week. These students were subsequently divided into peer groups of four to five students for the remainder of the study, totaling 18 weeks. Teachers of the treatment groups received three days of professional development. Student data were based on three measures: knowledge of strategies, reading comprehension, and fluency. Pupils in the treatment group outperformed control group students on reading comprehension measures and meta comprehension (knowledge of strategies); however, no significant effect was noted for fluency. Osman & Hannafin (1994) examined the effects of high-level, concept-relevant orienting questions and differences in prior knowledge on learning. They discovered that providing a rationale for strategy use encouraged participants to use the strategies. Participants included 107 tenth graders of low to mid socioeconomic backgrounds. The study included three lessons for three different groups. One group was encouraged to "think about" how to apply concepts; another group answered questions designed to provoke the use of content-specific and prior knowledge. The final group was the same as the second but was told "why" the strategies were being used. Students in the third group were also encouraged to generate their reasons as to why questions were necessary (buy-in). Results suggested that providing a rationale for strategy use improved the likelihood that it would (a) be used by students, (b) increase learning, and (c) improve attitudes toward questioning methods. Direct instruction of QAR that includes informed strategy instruction is an effective way of teaching students to utilize the taxonomy. When learning about QAR, students learn to identify different types of questions. Then students will locate information to answer the question, and how to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own actions as they respond to questions (Raphael & McKinney, 1983, Raphael & Wonnacott, 1985). Direct instruction of comprehension strategies can be effective with the use of think-aloud. The think-aloud offers teachers a way to teach explicitly reading comprehension strategies and assist students with the transition from passive to active and independent reading. Teachers read aloud to students and model what they are thinking so that students have the opportunity to see and hear good readers using comprehension strategies as they read. Israel & Massey (2005) offered three reasons that think-aloud may be beneficial to students: The first reason is, students enjoy listening to teachers modeling reading. The second is think-aloud explicitly model what students should be focusing on when they read, especially when reading various types of text. The third reason is think-aloud permitting struggling readers, who may not normally be engaged, to be involved in classroom discussions of text (Ivey, 2002). The main concept behind think aloud is that students eventually become independent readers and thinkers. At first, the teacher assumes all of the responsibility, then gradually releases the responsibility to the students who take control and work independently and this approach is key to instruction if students are to gain independence. The think-aloud helps students become thoughtful and purposeful readers (Duffy, 2003). Of course, this requires metacognitive teachers who are willing to model their thought processes. The goal of teaching metacognition is that the thinking process becomes automated. This automaticity holds true for teachers, sometimes making it difficult for teachers to model their thinking. In fact, teachers may become so automated that they are inaccessible to consciousness (Afflerbach & Johnston, 2001). Duffy et al. (2003) explored the necessity for teachers to utilize direct instruction to explain the mental processing associated with reading strategies. Researchers examined (a) teacher ability to explain their thinking and (b) the effect of modeling thinking on student achievement and awareness. Participants included 20 third-grade teachers (and their classes) who were divided into control and treatment groups. Findings suggested that teachers who were explicitly trained to share their thinking were also more explicit in explaining the thinking associated with using reading skills as strategies than teachers in the control group. Although students who received teacher modeling were found to be more aware of their use of strategic reading, they did not do as well as expected on a reading comprehension test. The comprehension score may have been affected by an increased number of students with learning disabilities and the increased number of word-level tasks on the comprehension test. The Benefits of Questioning Okebukola and Owolabi (2007) conducted research to examine how QAR could assist students in the text-based learning of scientific ideas. The students were instructed using two methods; the QAR strategy and the traditional method. The researchers found that students who learned using the QAR method were successful than those who used the traditional method. These students showed improvement in their confidence to recall, clarify and question different scientific themes from the research. In addition, Cummings, Streiff and Ceprano (2012), examined how QAR strategy can assist a small group of 4th graders analyze and answer questions at different level. The researchers found out those lower-level students benefited significantly from QAR strategy. It proves that this approach can provide students with self -confidence so they can be successful. The finding also revealed the diligent effort of pupils when they tried to find the correct answers in academic comprehension tasks, including tests. Wilson and Smetana (2009) further discussed QAR and its place in Questioning as Thinking (QAT). They described QAT as the integration of three metacognitive strategies which promote active learning. They include how the reader thinks aloud, how the reader questions one's self and QAR. All of these empower students, make them engage more and be self-directed in learning Question-Answer Relationships Teacher-generated questions are a well-established practice across classrooms (Durkin, 1978). Although answering teacher posed questions might enhance students' comprehension of a particular text, the goal of comprehension instruction should be to provide students with processes of comprehension that can be applied to many texts (Johnston, 1985). Educators are required to teach strategies that assist students in reading efficiently, accurately answering teacher posed questions, and overcoming the challenges of standardized tests. Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) is a taxonomy that supports teachers by providing a framework for answering questions and comprehending texts. When teaching students to answer comprehension questions, the QAR taxonomy provides students with structured categories for questions. When using this taxonomy as a question-answering strategy, students can determine where to find the information needed to answer a question by determining where the question belongs in the QAR taxonomy. The taxonomy is also useful in that it provides a common language for teachers' and students' questions. Raphael and Au (2005b) wrote that instruction in the QAR framework can serve as a "reasonable starting point for addressing four problems of practice that stand in the way of moving all students to high levels of literacy" (p. 208): 1. The need for a shared language to make visible the largely concealed processes which underly reading and listening comprehension. 2. The need for a framework for organizing questioning activities and comprehension instruction within and across grades and school subjects. 3. The need for accessible and straightforward whole-school reform for literacy instruction oriented toward an higher level of thinking. 4. The need to prepare students for high-stakes testing without undermining a strong focus on higher level thinking with text. (Raphael & Au, 2005b, p. 208) The QAR taxonomy provides two main categories for questions based on where the answer is found: "In The Book" and "In My Head." Under the "In The Book" category are "Right There" and "Think and Search" questions. "Right There" questions have answers that can be found directly in the passage, typically in one place, and with the same verbiage as the initial question. "Think and Search questions" are very similar to "Right There" questions, except that their answers are found in more than one place in the text. Under the "In My Head" category, there are two sub-categories: "Author and Me" and "On My Own." "Author and Me" questions require an inference based on the reader's prior knowledge (schema). Scheme plays a role in students' ability to answer issues that rely on the recall of prior knowledge. Answering "Author and Me" questions requires students to use what the author tells them as well as what they already know or can infer based on the text. "On My" questions share a topic with the reading, but the text is not needed to answer the questions. Teachers typically use the common language of the taxonomy to teach students how to go about answering comprehension questions that are asked after reading. Direct instruction of QAR requires teachers to teach explicitly, model, and practice identifying, labeling, and searching for answers to comprehension questions. Its purpose is to develop strategic readers (Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009). QAR can assist students with standardized tests by first teaching students that there are different levels of questions and then to assist them in learning how to search for answers, depending on the various levels. Researchers have indicated that QAR Instruction assists students in their approach to reading texts and answering questions (Raphael, 1984). It is important to note that the QAR taxonomy does not necessarily transition from lower to higher levels, as does Bloom's taxonomy. Though Bloom's taxonomy appears to be a pyramid that takes learning from lower to higher levels, this is not true. It is not necessary to master the simpler skills prior to moving to the next "level" (Krathwohl, 2002). When Bloom and his colleagues (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) first created this taxonomy, its intended purposes were geared toward providing a common language for, and creating, curriculum objectives. The two taxonomies are comparable in the sense that they were both created with the intent of developing a common language and that they are both taxonomies rather than hierarchies. The "Right There" questions require the reader to utilize the knowledge level of the taxonomy. "Think and Search" questions require the reader to apply the comprehension and application levels. "Author and Me" questions add the analysis level, and "On My Own" questions prompt readers to weigh several points of view (evaluation) and support their points of view based on research (synthesis). Researchers have addressed the taxonomy's effectiveness with varying levels of students (Ezell & Koehler, 1992; Raphael, 1981, 1986; Yopp, 1988). Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) examined the effect of teaching QAR to 69 K-2 students in a mixed methods action research study. The purpose of the study was to determine if such young students could successfully learn the strategy and increase reading achievement with its use. The study was conducted in a Title 1 school with an approximate class size of 20, although one special education class was included that consisted of seven students across the three grade levels. Each classroom consisted of students who were reading on, at, and below grade level. Students in Kindergarten and special education classes were not pre- or posttested, because there was no test available for them. All teachers began with instruction about the two broad categories of questions with lessons that included pictures, chants, posters, and songs. Teachers led students to focus on words, such as who, what, where, and when to teach "book" questions and "how and why" to teach "head" questions. Data analysis revealed that students in all grade levels were successful in the use of the strategy. First-grade students' quantitative results yielded an increase in comprehension from 74% to 89% (mean scores) and second-grade students' scores increased from 58% to 80% (mean score). Qualitative results of teacher and student interviews confirmed that teachers were excited and agreed that the strategy was appropriate across the spectrum of students. Teachers observed that this was a pertinent 69 strategy in laying a strong foundation in how questions work prior to moving into higher grades (Kinniburgh & Prew, 2010). McMahon (2010) conducted an action research study with 16 second-grade students. The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of direct instruction of QAR on students' reading comprehension across small groups of students whose instruction was differentiated. One stimulus in deciding on direct instruction for McMahon's study resulted from Ezell et al.'s 1997 study. Ezell et al. (1997) compared direct instruction to peer-assisted instruction in order to determine which style of teaching would be more effective with QAR. Because both groups saw increases in comprehension, it was difficult to determine if the reason was type of instruction or the effects of the QAR strategy. The students in McMahon's 2010 study worked in groups of four during small group instruction. They were pre- and post-tested, although there was a serious validity threat involved with the two tests. During the pretest the teacher was allowed to read the questions to the students. This accommodation was removed for the posttest. The study lasted a total of six weeks. The teacher/researcher in this study utilized direct instruction during whole-class and small group instruction. She also modeled her thinking through think-alouds and required her students to hear one another's thoughts through peer think-alouds. Curriculum consisted of one basal reader per week and one QAR category per week with a basal reader comprehension assessment at the end of each week. The weekly assessments were used for classroom purposes only and were not included in the results of this study. Only two of 16 students increased performance on the posttest. Of 70 the 16 students, nine had scores that dropped by less than 10 points. Two students dropped between 10 and 15 points, one student dropped between 15 and 20 points and one student's score decreased by 28 points. The researcher expected the drop in scores due to the change in test administration (the removal of the read-aloud accommodation during the posttest). In addition to the change in administration, the pre- and posttests was not balanced in question difficulty. "Right There" questions were included on the pre- but not the posttest. Since these questions were the easiest for students to answer correctly, the lack of this question type on the posttest likely caused a drop in scores as well. The Benefits of Questioning Okebukola and Owolabi (2007) conducted research to examine how QAR could assist students in the text-based learning of scientific ideas. The students were instructed using two methods; the QAR strategy and the traditional method. The researchers found that students who learned using the QAR method were successful than those who used the traditional method. These students showed improvement in their confidence to recall, clarify and question different scientific themes from the research. In addition, Cummings, Streiff and Ceprano (2012), examined how QAR strategy can assist a small group of 4th graders analyzes and answer questions at different level. The researchers found out those lower-level students benefited significantly from QAR strategy. It proves that this approach can provide students with self -confidence so they can be successful. The finding also revealed the diligent effort of pupils when they tried to find the correct answers in academic comprehension tasks, including tests. Wilson and Smetana (2009) further discussed QAR and its place in Questioning as Thinking (QAT). They described QAT as the integration of three metacognitive strategies which promote active learning. They include how the reader thinks aloud, how the reader questions one's self and QAR. All of these empower students, make them engage more and be self-directed in learning. The Value of Prior Knowledge Okebukola and Owolabi (2007) investigated the use of the QAR strategy on secondary students' ability to improve on students' background knowledge and reading performance regarding science concepts. The study's research design was experimental, and the students' science conceptual knowledge was measured using only a post-test. The students read about science-related concepts. Then, the teachers posed QAR questions based on the QAR subcategories. The instruction was designed to assist students in identifying the type of QAR question, and eventually using the QAR strategy to answer the questions correctly. The experimental group mean on the post-test was considerably higher than the control with an observed difference that was statistically significant at the confidence interval of p<0.05. In another experimental study, six-grade students were able to apply the QAR strategy based on instruction they received in three phrases (Peng, Hoon, Khoo, & Joseph, 2007). In the first phase, the teacher supported the students' understanding of the strategy by first introducing them to the four question categories and using a particular text to model the strategy. During the second phase, the teacher gave the students a short passage to read. The students answered the teacher-generated questions about the passage, and the teacher provided the QAR question type. During the third phase of the intervention, students developed their QAR question types based on the reading. They presented their question form and question to the whole group for discussion. In the first study, the experimental group outperformed the control group on all QAR questions. The students that were in the experimental group as part of the replicated study did not fare as well as the students that were in the experimental group as part of the first survey. However, the difference between the experimental and control group was not statistically significant. According to Kujawa and Husk (2005), " Prior knowledge acts as a lens through which we view and absorb new information. It is a composite of whom we are, based on what we have learned from both our academic and everyday experiences" (p.15). Students sometimes learn and remember new information when it is linked to relevant prior knowledge. When students can relate to the idea, he or she will be engaged in discussions and participate more in class activities. The students, who acquire previous knowledge of a particular subject, expressed in answering questions at the different level of comprehension better. Because of the experience these students have, they will just require thinking a little deeper to respond to questions within a context. Therefore, when teachers are able to connect classroom activities and instruction to prior knowledge they are able to build on their students' familiarity with the topic and thereby assist students to connect the curriculum content to their culture and experience (Beyer 1991). The way in which students and teachers interact with the learning materials influenced their prior knowledge. It serves as an entry point for education and that help them build on what they know; an important factor in enhancing comprehension. Thus, the process helps students make sense of their learning experiences. Summary With the United States in such a literacy crisis, it is imperative that educators implement strategies that are supported by research and can assist students in comprehension and increase scores on standardized tests. Research reviewed in this chapter indicated that educators can improve students' comprehension by taking a research-based approach to instruction. Students Comprehending a text is a complex process that requires the reader to master much more than simply reading the words on a page. Students are in need of direct metacognition and comprehension instruction that facilitates the use of strategies. Teachers who choose QAR instruction provide students with a strategy that saves time, yields better test-taking attitudes, and assists with comprehension strategies, metacognition, and question-answering skills. Based on findings from QAR research, it can be concluded that strategic implementation of the taxonomy can increase students' ability to answer correctly reading comprehension questions. The current study, supported by previous QAR research, utilized the taxonomy in reading the curriculum that is taught to low-achieving second-grade students. Participants in this study were incoming second-grade students who were struggling academically. Students who are struggling academically typically have poor attitudes toward testing and a low tolerance for the instruction of reading and testing. Research conducted by Highfield (2003) supports QAR Instruction with this group of students. She found that the instruction of the taxonomy improved students' attitudes toward testing. Using this group of students as participants was additionally supported by the findings of Raphael and McKinney (1983) and Ezell and Kohler (1992) who found that QAR was most effective for students of average and low ability. The effects of QAR Instruction were measured using the mClass Reading Assessment – Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC). The short-term goal of QAR Instruction is to see improvements in reading comprehension as measured by a standardized reading test. QAR's effectiveness has been found to increase scores on standardized reading tests (Ezell & Kohler, 1992, Highfield, 2003). However, the long-term goal of all comprehension instruction is to transfer the use of the tool to content area texts. An additional effect of QAR lies in the potentially increased self-efficacy of the student. Brabant provided qualitative data that suggests that QAR improves students' self-assurance, pride, and the ability to make deeper connections to the text. The United States is in need of literacy strategies that can be implemented at a young age and maintained and transferred to other text. Kinniburgh and Prew (2010) found that kindergarten-age students can utilize QAR and that teachers supported laying the foundation of questions at a young age. Results from this literature review support the notion that the QAR taxonomy is an effective strategy that should be implemented from Kindergarten through Grade 12. CHAPTER THREE Introduction The methods and procedures that were used to conduct the study are contained in this chapter. Included are a restatement of the purpose, a description of the population, the methods used to select participants, and the research question used to guide the study. The instrumentation, which was used in collecting the data, is described along with the validity and reliability of instruments used. Procedures including the type of instruction, surveys, pre- and post- measures, and grouping of students will be reviewed. Lastly, the quantitative data analysis methods will be discussed. Research Question To what extent does the direct instruction of the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) taxonomy, affect struggling second-grade students' ability to answer accurately comprehension questions after reading? Participants Participants included a convenience sample of 43 second-grade students who were struggling academically. To be placed into third grade, these students are required to be reading and comprehending on a second-grade level. Methodology and Design The quantitative quasi-experimental study took place in two classrooms, one control (n = 21) and one experimental (n = 23), of second-grade students who were struggling academically. This study took place in the reading classes of the second- grade classes. All class periods were approximately 75 minutes in length. Students in both groups completed a pre- and posttest that included assessment of their ability to ask and answer questions about the text. Both groups also received approximately four weeks of instruction, except the absence of QAR instruction in the control group. Instruction about the QAR taxonomy served as the independent variable in this study. This variable was manipulated in the study by allowing only the experimental group to receive the instruction. Dependent variables included student ability to answer comprehension questions and to ask interactive text questions. This study was conducted using a quasi- experimental design, a quantitative method suggesting that variables can be identified, controlled, and measured. The use of a quasi- experimental design will help satisfy the critical need for "rigorous scientific research in education" (Gersten et al., 2005, p. 149). In 2002, the National Research Council (NRC) suggested that experimental design allows the study to adhere to the same scientific methods as the other disciplines. This study will focus on second graders who are struggling academically at an Elementary School in Baltimore City Public School. Students in this population were identified by school administrators, parents, and teachers as performing below to on-grade-level in academic areas, including reading. Participants in this study were chosen because they were identified as students who need reading intervention based on previous testing. The students' reading comprehension ability was tested using the mClass Reading Assessment – Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC). Instrumentation The researcher used the mClass Reading Assessment – Text Reading and Comprehension TRC for pre- and posttest measures. Experimental and control group students completed pre- and posttest instruments to assess their ability to answer accurately comprehension questions after reading. The pretest instrument was utilized prior to the instruction of the QAR strategy. The posttest was utilized following four weeks of instruction that included a one-week treatment phase followed by a three-week maintenance phase of content-focused instruction of Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) in the Reading classes. The purpose of the treatment phase was to provide direct instruction to the QAR taxonomy and target students who might struggle with the concept. Materials utilized during the treatment phase were not part of the curriculum and were provided by the researcher (Appendix B). Treatment phase materials include QAR-specific training materials (Raphael & Au, 2002) to help develop initial understanding of the taxonomy. After the one-week treatment, the teacher implemented the strategy into the school's curriculum (maintenance phase) displayed by students in this type of program. Both the experimental and the control groups received the same passage for pre- and posttest measures. The researcher used four non-fiction passages and questions from the mClass Reading Assessment – Text Reading and Comprehension TRC. The Text Reading and Comprehension (TRC) assessment is an individual assessment that uses leveled readers from a book set to determine students' instructional level. During this measure, students were asked to read an authentic text individually with the teacher and completed some follow-up tasks, which included comprehension and vocabulary development. After establishing the student reading level based on the number of the correct responses the examiner will receive a cumulative result determining the student reading level. To demonstrate proficiency in TRC, students should read a particular level N by the end of second grade. The results from the pretest determined the student grouping and assisted the researcher in the differentiation of instruction. Reliability and Validity Reliability of the 2010-2011 3D Text and Reading Comprehension TRC has been reported using the Grade-level Person-reliability (IRT equivalent to Cronbach's alpha. The second-grade TRC had a coefficient of 0.94 according to the item response theory (IRT). Wang & Gushta (2013) examined whether or not exempting students out of TRC administrations and progress monitoring leaded to differences in literacy achievement in DIBELS among kindergarten through second grade. The result from kindergarten to second-grade suggested that, after controlling for the propensity score, TRC was positively associated with the change in Achievement test score. The students who were administered TRC had higher DIBELS composite scores than students who were not administered TRC. Furthermore, the effect sizes were even higher when the researchers controlled the fidelity of implementation. ). The description of evidence that teachers' use of the tool results in improved student achievement was based on the proof of this empirical study. According to Baltimore City Public School (2012-2013) ,"mCLASS®:Reading 3D™ is a validated, research-based assessment that combines what educators want and need. The quick indicators of early skill development and deeper observations of student interaction with authentic text." (p.20). This assessment is used in the school system to assist teachers to predict students' reading comprehension y the end of third grade. In terms of the validity of TRC, the school system further stated "TRC is supported by two decades of sophisticated research include Progress Monitoring in the five Big Ideas in Beginning Reading with an invaluable TRC diagnostic inventory." (p. 20) Privacy and Confidentiality Processes required by the Coppin State University Review Board were completed at appropriate points in time prior to beginning the research. (Appendix F). The researcher sent letters home with each student to invite parents to come to an informational meeting concerning this research. During the meeting, the researcher secured a signed consent form from each parent of each participant. The parents who were unable to attend the scheduled informational, the researcher arranged telephone conferences and discussed the purpose of the study. The researcher also informed parents that a consent form will be sent home with their child and requested that parents sign and returned for the student to participate in the study. Approval from Baltimore City Public School District was also needed. In order to obtain approval, the researcher provided the principal with proof of a literature review, the methodology that would be used in conducting the study, and a copy of the QAR handout that would be used for instruction (Appendix G). The principal granted permission for the study to be conducted in a form of a letter (see Appendix ). Data Collection Procedure Students in this program are typically introduced, through the regular curriculum, to a variety of text and genres, including fiction and non-fiction, and both were used to teach the strategies. The students in the experimental group participated in the treatment and maintenance phases of this study. Experimental group students received an informational handout explaining the QAR taxonomy and daily direct instruction with practice answering questions based on the strategy (see Appendix B). Table 7 contains Duke and Pearson's Five-Phase Model for Direct Instruction, which was used in the treatment phase. After the treatment phase, daily direct instruction of QAR was not necessary except for those students who were struggling with the concept. During this model, the teacher and students remained focused on the constant need to orchestrate various comprehension strategies, such as using context clues, making inferences, and summarizing (Duke & Pearson, 2002). When utilizing the QAR taxonomy, students should learn to switch strategies, depending on the type of question they are answering. As good readers read, they use many strategies constantly. According to Duke and Pearson, throughout the process of teaching a particular strategy, other strategies should be referenced, modeled, and encouraged. The outcome of this model of instruction presented in Table 7 is a gradual transition from the teacher assuming all responsibility. Then the students having none to the exact opposite in which students take all responsibility and the teacher has none (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Teachers and pupils should be engaged in constant and ongoing assessment, monitoring, and self-monitoring the effectiveness of their strategy use. Table 7 Duke and Pearson's Five-Phase Model for Direct Instruction Phase Teacher/Student Actions Grouping of Students Teacher Responsibility (discretion of teacher) 1 Explicit Explicit description of strategy Teacher explains "how, what, and when" to use the strategy Teacher discretion 100% 2 Modeling Teacher models the strategy in action. Teacher discretion 100% 3 Collaborative Use Teacher and students practice together. Groups of pairs 40-60%- 4 Guided Practice The gradual release of responsibility to students. Students attempt the strategy with the teacher overseeing its use. Groups, pair, or independent 20-30% 5 Independent Practice Students practice strategy independently Independent None The treatment phase encompassed the first week of instruction (first four days). The purpose of the treatment phase was to introduce the students to each category of questions (Ezell et al., 1996) through Duke and Pearson's (2002) model of instruction and to target students who were having trouble understanding the strategy (Raphael, 1981, 1982, 1986; Raphael & McKinney, 1983; Raphael & Pearson, 1985; Raphael & Wonnacott, 1985). Students learned about the "In the Book" questions on Day 1, followed by the "In my Head" questions on Day 2. The third day was a review of all categories, with a final assessment on day 4. The curriculum during the treatment phase included passages from Raphael & Au's (2002) Super QAR for Test-Wise Students Grade 1. It should be noted that initial instruction (treatment phase) of the strategy was at the second-grade level. This study utilized text that was lower than grade level for initial instruction so that the struggling second-grade students could focus their attention on the strategy rather than on comprehending difficult text (Samuels, 2006). Although they had completed Grade 1, they likely had not reached proficiency on the grade 1distict reading test. Initial strategy instruction should utilize text that is readable to the participants. Once students had a grasp of the strategy, the teacher utilized text at the second levels including the curriculum and Raphael & Au's (2002) Super QAR for Test-Wise Students Grade 2. Treatment Phase (Day 1) The teacher utilized whole group and peer-assisted instruction (Ezell et al., 1996. Instruction on Day 1 of the treatment phase included explicit instruction of morphemes (part of the Baltimore City curriculum), teacher modeling of her thinking, and direct instruction of the QAR taxonomy. Direct instruction on Day 1 included the first four phases of the direct instruction model: explicit description, teacher modeling, collaborative use, and guided practice. Morpheme instruction included the mandatory use of note cards, teacher explanation of trigger words for each morpheme, and student practice learning the morphemes. Through the use of morphemes, the teacher asked the students to break down the word, metacognition, explained what the word means in terms of reading, and suggested that they would be using it frequently throughout the lesson On Day 1, the teacher modeled her thinking with a think-aloud using The Art Lesson, a picture book by Tomie DePaola. She also modeled her thinking with each read-aloud during QAR Instruction and asked students to pause during paired reading to discuss their thinking. The teacher paused to think-aloud when she had questions, had a prediction, a connection, or needed to clarify. QAR Instruction included the "In the Book" category of issues. Instruction on Week 1-3 Explicit instruction of morphemes (part of the ELA 2nd grade curriculum), the teacher modeled her thinking and direct instruction of the QAR taxonomy. Direct instruction on Day 2 included the first four phases of the direct instruction model: explicit description, teacher modeling, collaborative use, and guided practice. Instruction on Week 3-6, The teacher modeled her thinking with think-aloud using picture books. She modeled her thinking with each read-aloud during QAR Instruction and asked students to pause during paired reading to discuss their thinking. The teacher will break to think-aloud when she had questions, had a prediction, a connection, or needed to clarify. QAR Instruction included the "In the Book" category of issues. The teacher will have students preview the questions and QAR categories prior to reading. The preview of questions will lead to a discussion about question stems. The teacher will explain that typically a question that begins with "who, what, where, when" is typically a "Right There" question and that "why and how" questions usually require more thinking and typically fall in the "Think and Search" and "Author and Me" categories. Data Analysis The researcher acknowledged the difference in difficulty levels of questions by allocating one point to correctly answered "Right There" questions and two points to issues in the remaining categories. Pre- and posttest scores were compared between experimental and control groups. This test was conducted to examine if there was a significant difference between post-test scores of the two groups. Conclusion This chapter has provided detail regarding the methods and procedures that were used to conduct the study. Included were restatements of the purpose, a description of the population, the methods used to select participants, and the research question used to guide the study. The validity and reliability of the instrumentation to be used in the study was explained, and the pre- and posttest assessments were described in detail. Procedures used in conducting the study, including the treatment and maintenance phases for the experimental and control groups, were detailed. Processes by which data were collected and analyzed were also explained. CHAPTER FOUR Data Analysis Introduction The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the Question-Answer Relationships taxonomy on second grade students' ability to accurately answer comprehension questions. After pre-testing, students received four weeks of strategy instruction and practice, and participated in a posttest that evaluated their ability to answer comprehension questions after reading and 2nd-grade passages. Research Question To what extent does direct instruction of the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) taxonomy, affect struggling second-grade students' ability to accurately answer comprehension questions after reading? References Anderson, R. C. (2006). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., p. 595). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Allen, K. & Hancock, T. (2008). Reading comprehension improvement with individualized cognitive profiles and metacognition, Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 124-139. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford Press. Benito, Y.M., Foley, C.L., Lewis, C.D., & Prescott, P. (1993). The effect of instruction in question-answer relationships and metacognition on social studies comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 16(1), 20-29. Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next--A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Block, C.C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effective think-aloud. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154-167. Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices. NY: Guilford Press. Brabant, C. (2009). Improving comprehension using question answers relationships (QAR). University of California, Davis. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304850049?accountid=10003 Bransford, J. D. (2006). Schema activation and schema acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson's remarks. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 607-619). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2007). What's hot, what's not for 2007. Reading Today, 24(4), 10-12. Cassidy, J., Garrett, S. D., & Barrera, E. S. (2006). What's hot in adolescent literacy 1997-2006. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 30-36. Conley, M. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we do not know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84-106. Cooper, & Kiger, (2011) Literacy Assessment. New York: Houghton Mifflin Cortese, E. (2003). The application of question-answer relationship strategies to pictures. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 374-380. Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239-264. Cummings, S., Streiff, M. & Seprano, M (2012). Understanding and applying the QAR strategy to improve test scores. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 4(3). Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Council for Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149-164. Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement (Washington D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education, Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/LitCon.pdf Israel, S., & Massey, D. (2005). Metacognitive think-alouds: Using a gradual release model with middle school students. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 183-198). Manway, NJ: Erlbaum. Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE # 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc Kujawa, S., Huske, L. (2005). The strategic teaching of reading project guidebook (Rev. Ed).Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Okebukola, F. & Owolabi, T. (2007). The efficacy of question-answer-relationships (QAR) On students' achievement and conceptual change in science. The International Journal of Learning, 14 (5) 173-178. Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). Effects of advanced questioning and prior knowledge on science learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 5-13. Pardo, L. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291-309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Peng, R. G. S., Hoon, T. L., Khoo, S. F., & Joseph, I. M. (2007). Impact of question answer relationships on reading comprehension. Retrieved from: http://iresearch.osprey.url3.net/iresearch/slot/u110/Alar/.../ar_peichun_qar.pdf Raphael, T., & Au, K. (2005a). Super QAR for test-wise students: Student activity book grade 8. Chicago: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. (2005b). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221. Raphael, T. E. (1981). The effect of metacognitive strategy awareness training on students' question-answering behavior. Dissertation Abstracts, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1981. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., Swanson, E., Boardman, A., Roberts, G., Mohammed, S. & Stillman-Spisak, S. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. American Education Research Journal, 48(4), 938-964. Wilson, N. S., Grisham, D. L., & Smetan, L. (2009). Investigating content area teachers' understanding of a content literacy framework: A yearlong professional development initiative. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 70