Group+One+April+23


 * Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993) Discussion**

The authors wanted to employ an "integration of perspectives" on reading strategies (p. 52).
 * I. RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY**
 * The researchers essentially wanted to determine the qualities of expert readers. Previous studies had shown habits of good readers, and such studies were discussed in the article. The researchers were supporting the previous findings with their study. They chose to use experts who were active researchers as the subjects for their study because they wanted to find the reading processes exhibited by expert readers.**


 * WHAT IS MEANT BY HOT AND COLD COGNITION? (HILLER)**

15 social science professors were purposely sampled because of expertise that was determined with clear and explicit criteria. Participants were 10 men and 5 women who held the rank of assistant professor or higher and were considered experts in a field of social science. The participants had to have published at least five journal articles. None were experts on reading strategies. Data collection procedures clearly laid out: First meeting to explain project and get consent, second meeting to record and take notes during think aloud, document think aloud by triangulating data (notes, audio, annotations on document), 3rd meeting for participant checking. This helped with internal validity. Also, no more than two faculty per university were selected to strengthen generalizability. The authors determined a list of reading protocols and then pared this down to a smaller inventory list that they used to check off for each participant. The finalized list was grouped into theory-based sets and subsets.
 * II. CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH METHODS**

The analysis of the inventory list indicated that the participants used a variety of strategies to read the selected articles, including predicting, summarizing, elaborating, clarifying and reading selectively. The authors chose one person -- "JK" -- as a representative sample and went into richer detail about his/her experiences and strategies for reading. JK employed most all of the strategies on the researchers' inventory list. He/she also tended to react negatively or critically to much of the article he/she was reading. The inclusion of one sample case was helpful in understanding the thought process and strategies used by the researchers. Two researchers scored each protocol and continued to meet in order to determine what modifications were necessary. Half of the participants reviewed their reading prior to beginning, while the remaining half did not. The majority of participants read the article in its entirety. Eight of the fifteen readers did not skip text as they read. Thus, the typical reader as defined by the researchers is an active one who employs reading comprehension strategies, monitors their personal reading comprehension throughout the process, and evaluates the text by form and content.
 * III. CRITIQUE OF DATA ANALYSIS**

The researchers concluded that the participants followed a basic protocol as they read: a) they applied strategies; b) they paid close attention to tables and figures; c) they monitored the difficulty of the text; d) they did not accept the content of the articles at face value, but evaluated them critically; e) they had no "hard and fast rules" for application of the strategies (p. 64). The researchers looked at how the professors used strategies, and engaged in monitoring and evaluation. It makes sense that they would evaluate the studies they were reading because it was in their field and they had background knowledge about the topic. I am able to engage in evaluating studies at greater depth when it is part of my schema and I am interested in the area. It is also part of their job to question the validity of the studies they read. I wonder if the study would have shown different results if they used proficient readers who were not in the research field.
 * IV. CRITIQUE OF DISCUSSION**
 * I THINK THE RESULTS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE. IN MY MIND ITS SIMILAR TO HOW PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES READ WITHIN THEIR FIELD IN DIFFERENT WAYS (HILLER)**

The researchers seemed surprised at the "high degree of commonalities" employed by the various participants in their reading strategies, but this seems to raise an additional question: Do people who have excellent reading skills tend to gravitate toward academia? It seems a sort of "no brainer" to attribute the reading success of these participants to their innate intelligence and ability to comprehend academic articles. They are, after all, in academia. I found myself asking: So what??? I thought the so-what of the article was explicitly studying what "good readers" do so that we can apply that to teaching the struggling readers. The researcher did not state that but that is how I saw applying what was learned. The behaviors of the professors are all the things we tell students to do who are learning the comprehension strategies. I agree. It was somewhat comforting / reassuring that the professors employed strategies similar to what we (doc students) have discussed, yet I was also wondering "so what" because wouldn't any good reader employ those strategies?
 * V. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS (QUESTIONS/CONFUSIONS??)**
 * THESE ARE GOOD POINTS. I THINK ITS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED. WE WERE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT GOOD READERS DO WHEN THEY READ. THERE WAS A PLETHORA OF RESEARCH AT THE TIME THAT USED VERBAL PROTOCOLS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE MINDS OF GOOD READERS WHILE THEY READ (HILLER).**