This purpose of the study was to determine the effects of teachers using the Question Exploration Routine (QER) in regularly scheduled secondary–level English Language Arts classes to help students answer questions about the development and use of main ideas in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Questions were posed in both multiple–choice and written formats. On average, students representing diverse groups who received instruction with the QER correctly answered a significantly higher percentage of total questions than students receiving traditional lecture–discussion instruction (effect sizes were very large). Results are reported for total scores, subscores of multiple–choice and written responses, and for responses of subgroups of students. Students’ mean satisfaction and confidence responses are reported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlleyG., & DeshlerD. D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver: Love Publishing Co.
2.
AndersonJ. R., RederL. M., & SimonH. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189×025004005.
3.
ApplebeeA. N., LangerJ. A., NystrandM., & GamoranA. (2003). Discussion–based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. doi: 10.3102/00028312040003685.
4.
BiancarosaG., & SnowC. 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.
5.
BulgrenJ. A., DeshlerD. D., & LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 121–133.
6.
BulgrenJ. A., EllisJ. D., & MarquisJ. G. (2013). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10956–013–9452–x.
7.
BulgrenJ. A., LenzB. K., SchumakerJ. B., DeshlerD. D., & MarquisJ. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356–371.
8.
BulgrenJ. A., MarquisJ. G., LenzB. K., DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. B. (2011). The effectiveness of a question exploration routine for enhancing the content learning of students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 578–593.
9.
BulgrenJ. A., MarquisJ. G., LenzB. K., SchumakerJ. B., & DeshlerD. D. (2009). Effectiveness of question exploration to enhance students’ written expression of content knowledge and comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(4), 271–289.
10.
BulgrenJ. A., SchumakerJ. B., & DeshlerD. D. (1998). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary–level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3–17.
ConleyD. T. (2008). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
ConleyM. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the promise, what we don't know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 84–106.
14.
DiCeccoV. M., & GleasonM. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320. doi:10.1177/00222194020350040201.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). Change and improvement in educational reform. In ElmoreR. F. (Ed.), School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
17.
HellerR., & GreenleafC. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
18.
JacobsV. A. (2008). Adolescent literacy: Putting the crisis in context. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 7–39.
19.
KamilM. L., BormanG. D., DoleJ., KralC. C., SalingerT., & TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences.
20.
KimA. H., VaughnS., WanzekJ., & WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370020201.
KuhnD., SchaubleL., & Garcia–MilaM. (1992). Cross–domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.
23.
MellardD. F., SternA., & WoodsK. (2011). RTI school–based practice and evidence–based models. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(6), 1–15.
24.
National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25.
NovakJ. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Educator, 86(4), 548–571. doi: 10.1002/sce.10032.
26.
NystrandJ. (1999). Classroom language assessment system (Class. 3.0). Madison, WI: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
27.
PalincsarA. S., & BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension–fostering and comprehension–monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.
28.
PashlerH., BainP. M., BottgeB. A., GraesserA., KoedingerK., McDanielM., et al. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning. IES Practice Guide (NCER 2007–2004). Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Research.
29.
PerkinsD., & SalomonG. (1992). Transfer of learning: Contribution to the international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
30.
PorterA., McMakenJ., HwangJ., & YangR. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. doi: 10.3102/0013189×11405038.
31.
PressleyM., & McCormickC. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
32.
RampeyB. D., DionG. S., & DonahueP. L. (2009). NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress (NCES 2009–479). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
33.
RosenshineB., MeisterC., & ChapmanS. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. doi: 10.2307/1170607.
StevensR., WineburgS., HerrenkohlL. R., & BellP. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002125.
36.
SwansonH. L., & DeshlerD. D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta–analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135. doi: 10.1177/002221940303600205.
37.
TaboadaA., & GuthrieJ. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35. doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1.
WeinsteinC. E., & MayerR. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
40.
WongB. Y. L., HarrisK. R., GrahamS., & ButlerD. L. (2003). Cognitive strategies instruction research in learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK. R., & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 383–402). New York, NY: Guilford.
