Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1),  62-88.

Researchers have found that students’ background knowledge will influence their comprehension of texts. In a study that contrasted two alternative instructional methods to build and activate background knowledge, Dole Valencia, Greer, and Wardrop (1991) found that teacher-directed instruction was more effective than interactive instruction when students read and remembered information from a single text. Yet, Dole, Brown, and Trathen (1996) speculated that “even though a teacher-directed strategy may help students understand a text at hand, a student-centered strategy may be more likely to help students with texts they read on their own” (p. 62).

Dole, Brown, and Trathen (1996) set out to test the idea that a more interactive teaching strategy may help students perform better in an independent learning situation. They designed a study to focus on the comprehension performance of at-risk learners (67) as they read and recalled text in teaching sessions and independent learning sessions. The researchers also contrasted strategy instruction with teacher-directed instruction and instruction suggested by a mainstream basal program. In the strategy instruction condition, students (5th and 6th graders) were taught different strategies that would aid comprehension. Students learned how to self-regulate their learning as the strategies incorporated declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. The content instruction provided students with information to help them better understand a text that they were about to read, and the instruction was teacher-directed and focused primarily on declarative knowledge. The traditional basal instruction came right out of the teacher’s manual for a district adopted basal series. The directions asked the teacher to activate prior knowledge, discuss vocabulary, and lead discussions of the reading.

Materials for the study consisted of 24 selections from basal readers at the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade levels. Six recall tests were developed to be administered before the instruction began, immediately after the instructional period ended, and seven weeks after the instruction ended. Each test consisted of ten open-ended comprehension questions that measured story elements, vocabulary knowledge, and key story events. At each instructional time (before, immediately after, seven week delay) tests were given under two conditions. In the independent condition, students read independently and then completed the comprehension test. In the instructional condition, students received the instruction for that day and then completed the test. The researchers predicted that students in the content instruction condition would outperform all other groups on the instructional tests and that students in the strategy instruction condition would outperform all other groups on the independent tests.

Results revealed that the strategy instruction group outperformed the other two groups overall. In addition, the strategy instruction group performed better on the independent tests than the other two groups; this result was predicted by the researchers. Surprisingly, the content instruction group did not outperform the strategy group on the instructional tests. The researchers attributed the robust findings for the strategy instruction to the “modeling, coaching, and fading . . . [that] provided our at-risk readers with the scaffolding necessary to incorporate the procedural and conditional knowledge they were learning into their own repertoire of reading strategies” (Dole, et al., 1996, p. 73). In essence, the instructional strategy students began to take ownership of their learning while the story content group grew dependent on the instruction and seemed to become less engaged over time.

The strategy instruction was successful for the majority of students in that condition, yet observations from the research team and daily notes on student behavior and engagement indicated that there were students who were not as successful with this instruction. These observations led to phase two of the study, where researchers developed student profiles of two readers who were prototypical of the student responses that were observed. One student was a lower ability reader who responded to the strategy instruction and the other was a higher ability reader who did not respond positively to the instruction. Data included questionnaires, interviews, story map performances, comprehension, and informal teacher observations.

Phoung, an English as a Second Language student, struggled in school and found reading difficult. The strategies that Phoung learned in the strategy instruction improved her reading, and as a result her confidence increased. She displayed evidence that she could see the utility in the strategies she was learning: Her story map performance and comprehension scores improved form the first half to the second half of the instruction. Phoung’s strategies were limited when she began this study, and this instruction offered her a new strategy that worked for her. She liked it.

Melinda, a good reader, began the study full of enthusiasm but by the end of the instruction had lost interest. Melinda’s comprehension performance declined from the first half of the instruction to the second. Melinda became frustrated with the instruction because she did not see the utility in it. She came to the instructional task with a strategy already in place; she was asked to give up her effective strategy for a new one. Why should she? She was simply not motivated to learn or use the instruction that was being taught. As a result it was not effective for her.

Results from this study indicate that students can benefit from strategy instruction. Also, students are more engaged in their learning when they can see a need for what they are learning. Without this utility, students become bored and disengaged. Strategy instruction seems to be an effective instructional technique for a classroom teacher to use. However, as in all instruction, we must be careful to not force “one size fits all” instruction on our students. Students come with strategies already in place or partially in place; we need to give them the flexibility to become strategic readers. Yet strategic means selecting strategies that are appropriate for the task at hand, and this will not be the same for every student.