Why Strategy Instruction Is So Difficult and What We Need to Do About It

Duffy, Gerald G.; Roehler, Laura R.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8838-8_6

Cited by 41 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the strong endorsement of learning-strategy training by education researchers (e.g., McCombs, 1993;Weinstein & Mayer, 1986), classroom teachers are hesitant to embrace strategy training (Clift, Ghatala, Naus, & Poole, 1990;Duffy & Roehler, 1989;Pressley & Woloshyn, 1995). The reasons for teachers' reluctance are a matter of speculation.…”

Section: Implementation Of Learning-strategy Trainingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Preservice Teachers' Value for Learning-Strategy Instruction

Hamman

1998

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implementation Of Learning-strategy Trainingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Preservice Teachers' Value for Learning-Strategy Instruction

Hamman

1998

The Journal of Experimental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and transactional strategies (Pressley et al, 1992), programs of strategy instruction by Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984) and Duffy and Roehler (1989) have also had a sustained impact on the area of strategies instruction. Paris et al focused their instructional approach, informed strategies for learning, on developing awareness of the goals of reading and the value of using strategies to pursue those goals.…”

Section: Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches

McKeown

Beck

Blake

2009

Reading Research Quarterly

272

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reports from research and the larger educational community demonstrate that too many students have limited ability to comprehend texts. The research reported here involved a two-year study in which standardized comprehension instruction for representations of two major approaches was designed and implemented. The effectiveness of the two experimental comprehension instructional approaches (content and strategies) and a control approach were compared. Content instruction focused student attention on the content of the text through open, meaning-based questions about the text. In strategies instruction, students were taught specific procedures to guide their access to text during reading of the text. Lessons for the control approach were developed using questions available in the teacher's edition of the basal reading program used in the participating classrooms. Student participants were all fifth graders in a low-performing urban district. In addition to assessments of comprehension of lesson texts and an analysis of lesson discourse, three assessments were developed to compare student ability to transfer knowledge gained. The results were consistent from Year 1 to Year 2. No differences were seen on one measure of lesson-text comprehension, the sentence verification technique. However, for narrative recall and expository learning probes, content students outperformed strategies students, and occasionally, the basal control students outperformed strategies students. For one of the transfer assessments, there was a modest effect in favor of the content students. Transcripts of the lessons were examined, and differences in amount of talk about the text and length of student response also favored the content approach.

show abstract

“…Such mastery may occur through the teacher's participation in, for example, in-service workshops on strategy instruction (Duffy et al, 1989), or through the teacher's own acquisition of knowledge about what strategies to use, and when, why, and how to use them (Pressley et al, 1987). Most teachers, however, have not yet been educated about the nature of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction at either the professional or preprofessional levels (Pressley et al, 1989).…”

Section: A Dialectic Of the Teacher As Instructor And Learnermentioning

confidence: 97%