Content uploaded by Oliver Pergams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Oliver Pergams on May 03, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
10
Journal of College Science Teaching
TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY
A Combined Read-Aloud
Think-Aloud Strategy Improves
Student Learning Experiences in
College-Level Biology Courses
By Oliver R. W. Pergams, Charmaine E. Jake-Matthews, and Liza M. Mohanty
Reading aloud (RA) is a learning strategy commonly used to help younger
students develop language comprehension skills and in adult literacy and
language courses to help students master the pronunciation of words,
grammar, and intonation. However, we know of no studies to date that
investigate the possible benets of RA at the college or university level.
We propose that “reading aloud” (RA) immediately followed by “thinking
aloud” (TA) during class can help college students enhance their reading
abilities and cultivate their analytical thinking skills. This study explores
the impact of a “read aloud–think aloud” (RA-TA) strategy in college-
level biology courses. Students in 3 sections of 2 courses were asked about
their experiences with RA via an end-of-semester survey. When pooled (N
= 34 students), responses to all 5 survey questions signicantly supported
RA-TA. The responses to 4 survey questions very signicantly supported
the use of RA-TA: Students read the text more, understood it better, found
the instructor’s help useful, and in general learned to read difcult texts
with greater comprehension. Results suggest that a RA-TA approach has
the potential to greatly enhance student learning at the college level and
provides a promising area for future research.
Community college students
typically have diverse edu-
cational backgrounds and
life circumstances (Cohen,
Brawer, & Kisker, 2014). Many stu-
dents are returning to the classroom
after being away for many years, or
are switching careers or disciplines.
Others have just completed high
school and are not experienced with
studying independently. In a diverse
classroom, helping every student
meet learning goals can be a chal-
lenge, particularly in content-heavy
subjects such as biology. An added
obstacle for students learning about
a science such as biology is the vast
number of new vocabulary words
that they must integrate in a short
period (Snow, 2010). Students often
face the same challenges in a biolo-
gy course as they would in a foreign
language course. At the same time,
learning new words is easier when
students are familiar with their con-
text. These aspects of learning can
be daunting. To serve these needs,
a teaching approach that helps them
to learn both vocabulary and course
concepts is needed. To identify such
an approach, we return to the foun-
dations of educational pedagogy.
Of the many theories in the eld
of education, Lev Vygotsky’s work
seems applicable. Vygotsky empha-
sizes the roles of social interaction
and cultural context in learning. The
learner best acquires knowledge and
skills through social connection and
interaction with others (Gredler,
2009). Many educational concepts
and practices are in turn based on
this premise, including the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) and
scaffolding.
The ZPD is dened as what the
learner cannot do alone, but can do
with support and assistance from a
more experienced and knowledge-
able individual (Rogoff, 1990). Scaf-
folding is the temporary support that
the more knowledgeable individual
provides to help the learner move
through the ZPD to higher levels of
skill and knowledge. As the learner
progresses, so does the nature of the
support provided. Ideally, descaf-
folding will eventually occur and the
learner will have acquired knowledge
and skills that can be demonstrated
independently (Collins, Brown, &
Newman, 1989).
Lin et al. (2012) conducted a
content analysis of 43 science edu-
cation scaffolding articles, yielding
three conclusions. First, the aims of
scaffolding in science education are
the development of conceptual un-
11Vol. 47, No. 5, 2018
derstanding, procedural and strategic
skills, and metacognition. Second,
many representations of scaffolding
are present in the science education
literature. These can be categorized
as visual representation, social inter-
actions, and written prompts. Third,
Lin et al. found consensus that descaf-
folding is necessary, but found little
documentation of its occurrence.
Interactive reading aloud (RA)
is a teaching tool that uses scaffold-
ing. RA consists of several steps
(previewing a storybook, scaffolding
on prior knowledge, emphasizing
story elements, answering purpose-
ful questions, and summarizing what
was learned). Two forms of RA have
been used in educational practices:
reading to students and round-robin
reading (Brabham & Lynch-Brown,
2002; Trelease, 2013). In the former,
the teacher reads the book aloud to
the students, modeling appropriate
uency and intonation, while students
experience the storybook by answer-
ing and asking questions as the book
is read to them (Trelease, 2013).
Round-robin reading is similar, but
instead the students take turns read-
ing passages. RA in various forms
was observed to increase student
mastery of new vocabulary words at
both the preschool (Leung, 2008) and
elementary school (Brabham & Lynch
Brown, 2002) levels. The authors thus
felt it worth exploring the potential of
RA as a learning tool for students at
advanced educational levels.
The teacher may also demonstrate
“thinking aloud” (TA) at the same
time, by describing his or her thought
processes while reading. This mod-
els for the students how to search
for meaning in what they read. RA
to younger students has been dem-
onstrated to broaden vocabularies,
develop concept of story structure,
strengthen understanding of the con-
nection between spoken and printed
elements, sharpen critical thinking
skills, increase condence with the
reading process, model uency, and
encourage students to read on their
own (Rog, 2001).
RA is less commonly used in the
upper elementary, middle, and high
school levels, and there are relatively
few studies of its effectiveness in
helping older students learn (Trelease,
2013). We know of no prior studies of
RA at the postsecondary level. The de-
crease in the use of RA in higher grade
levels may occur for many reasons.
Some argue that RA is unengaging for
the listener. Some studies suggest that
it is anxiety producing for the reader
and encumbers working memory for
decoding, recoding, and articulation,
thus preventing the student from fully
comprehending what she or he is read-
ing. Furthermore, RA may arguably be
a linear process that does not facilitate
comprehension (Klapper, 1992). Some
feel that the slowed reading rate dur-
ing RA results in the dissection of the
language and an overall loss of mes-
sage of the writing (Eskey & Grabe,
1988; Grabe & Stoller, 2011). Kelly
(1995) noted that many teachers persist
in using RA despite these arguments
and the lack of research to support the
effectiveness of RA.
However, more recent research
provides support for RA in the class-
room, especially when it is used in an
active, rather than passive, manner.
Dreher (2003) reported that RA helps
engage students in lessons, increases
their condence, and improves their
ability to read difcult texts. Spe-
cically, these benets occur when all
students are involved in the reading
process and subsequent discussion.
Hale et al. (2007) found that RA
enhances reading comprehension in
elementary and high school students.
Furthermore, Duncan (2015) reported
that adults continue to engage in RA,
apply it to a variety of reading mate-
rials, and value it for many reasons.
These ndings are particularly salient
as they support the use of RA with
older students and support the use of
RA in other than storybooks.
The use of TA in conjunction
with RA (RA-TA) might serve as a
powerful learning tool even at more
advanced levels of study. From the
authors’ experience, this approach
seems to work best in smaller classes,
preferably with fewer than 15 students.
RA-TA provides a framework for
strengthening students’ reading skills
in an interactive way. The concern
of students becoming bored is offset
by a TA session after the reading of
a paragraph. During the TA session,
the instructor would pose questions
and provide explanation as needed.
All students would be encouraged to
contribute to the discussion by para-
phrasing, summarizing, and asking and
answering questions. RA alone may be
a more passive activity, but in concert
with TA it can engage all students in
the classroom, while providing the
scaffolding necessary to develop abili-
ties central to both reading scientic
literature and performing hands-on
science. These abilities include critical
thinking, data analysis, and integration
of prior knowledge, all of which help
students succeed in their courses and
beyond. The authors thus felt justied
in using class time to help students
develop their reading skills.
In this study, the strategy of RA in
class was implemented in three sec-
tions of two courses offered at an urban
community college, Olive-Harvey
College (OHC), one of the City Col-
leges of Chicago (CCC). CCC is one
of the nation’s largest community col-
leges and the largest in Illinois, with
6,000 faculty and staff and 120,000
students. The PI (corresponding au-
12
Journal of College Science Teaching
TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY
thor Pergams) is a tenured associate
professor at OHC, the poorest of the
seven colleges (95% minority, 84%
below poverty level (CCC unpublished
data, 2016). One course was Biology
119, Environmental Biology, a general
education course that may be taken by
biology nonmajors, although it is often
also taken by majors. A second course
in which this technique was applied
was Biology 122 (Organismal Biol-
ogy: Ecology, and Evolution), which
is a majors’ biology course usually
taken by students who will transfer to
a 4-year bachelor of science program.
Sample course materials are included
in Appendices I–VI (available at http://
www.nsta.org/college/connections.
aspx).
The PI had previously taught these
courses in a traditional lecture-based
style, using PowerPoint slides to con-
vey much of the information. He felt
that this “sage on the stage” approach
was not engaging students enough and
not motivating them to take owner-
ship of their learning. The instructor
asked the rst group of students where
they were facing challenges. Most
responded that they had not read the
textbook on their own, or that they
had attempted to read the textbook but
did not understand it. When asked to
elaborate, most students cited one or
both of two reasons: (1) a lack of ad-
equate time, or (2) they did not enjoy
reading the textbook or article, often
because they felt overwhelmed by it.
To counter these challenges, the PI
sought a different approach. Based on
success of RA and TA in other educa-
tional settings discussed previously,
RA-TA in class seemed to be a poten-
tially effective approach to address all
three concerns (encouraging students
to read the material, helping students
to understand the course concepts,
and motivating students to become
stakeholders in their own learning).
Methods
The PI decided to directly address
the students’ apprehension of read-
ing (especially difcult textbooks)
by having them take turns reading
the textbook aloud during class. He
also wanted to encourage them to
think critically and to identify their
own areas of challenge by asking
questions as they read. A combined
“reading aloud–thinking aloud”
(RA-TA) approach was used.
Active student participation and
buy-in were gained by rst explain-
ing RA-TA and its hoped-for benets
to them. Students then were asked to
vote on a 2-week RA-TA trial period.
At the end of the trial period students
voted again on whether to retain RA-
TA for the rest of the semester. All stu-
dents agreed to abide by the majority
opinion. In each course the majority
voted in favor of retaining RA-TA for
the duration. No students objected,
so there was no need to incentivize
participation by awarding points.
Each student and the instructor
took turns reading a paragraph out
loud. Under the guidance of the
instructor, this was followed by a
think-aloud during which the class
took part in the paraphrasing and
analysis of the paragraph. Students
were asked to summarize the main
idea of the paragraph and to ask
questions on anything they did not
understand, including unfamiliar vo-
cabulary. Accompanying gures were
also discussed. During the lesson,
the instructor incorporated videos,
models, ancillary texts, internet re-
sources, etc., and paused for discus-
sion to be sure students thoroughly
understood concepts before reading
would continue. RA also provided the
instructor with instant feedback on
students’ reading ability and allowed
the instructor to model the reading
process and to demonstrate correct
pronunciation and intonation. The
goal was to increase students’ self-
condence in their reading ability,
improve their reading comprehension,
and help them develop their metacog-
nitive abilities. This also modeled for
the students how to search for other
sources of information to help them
better understand what they had read.
Analysis
Three sections of two courses were
involved in this project:
1. Biology 122 (Organismal
Biology II) taught fall 2015 (N =
8 students)
2. Biology 119 (Environmental
Biology) taught spring 2016 (N =
14 students)
3. Biology 122 (Organismal
Biology II) taught fall 2016 (N =
12 students)
There were a total of 34 students
in these three sections. The instruc-
tor gave the students a semester-end
survey to ll out (see Figure 1). The
FIGURE 1
End-of-semester survey.
Please rate the following on a 1–5
scale, with 1 = strongly disagree, 2
= somewhat disagree, 3 = neither
disagree nor agree, 4 = somewhat
agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
1. It made me read the text more
than I would have otherwise.
2. It made me understand the text
more than I would have otherwise.
3. [The instructor] elaborating on the
text was useful to me.
4. In general, I learned how to
read dicult texts with greater
comprehension.
5. I prefer a class conducted this
way over a class with lecture and
PowerPoints.
13Vol. 47, No. 5, 2018
survey sheets were proctored by a
student while the instructor was out
of the room. The total sample of 34
students is small, but p-values take
sample size into account. We used
one-sample t-tests with null hypoth-
eses of 3 on a 5-point Likert scale
(neither agree nor disagree). In other
words, we tested whether students’
responses were signicantly differ-
ent from neutral for each question.
Because previous sections of both
courses used different textbooks,
homework, and quizzes, student
grades in past sections of these
courses taught by traditional lectur-
ing could not be compared with these
three RA-TA classes.
Results
Students in Biology 122 (fall 2015,
N = 8) responded signicantly and
positively to all but two questions
(Table 1). One was “My own ‘trans-
lating’ of the text after someone else
read it helped me understand the
text better.” Later discussion with
students suggested this was because
“translating” started late in the class
(Week 11 out of 16), and the students
did not have time to get used to it.
In fact, it was unpopular, and the in-
structor discontinued it in later class-
es. Students also did not respond
signicantly to “I prefer a class con-
ducted this way over a class with lec-
ture and PowerPoints.” Subsequent
student discussion revealed that it
was difcult for students to embrace
this approach to learning because it
was novel. Traditional PowerPoint-
based lectures were the norm in the
majority of their classes, so it is not
surprising that students were still not
completely at ease with the RA-TA
approach by the end of the semester.
Students in Biology 119 (spring
2016, N = 14) responded signicantly
and positively to all but one question:
“I prefer a class conducted this way
over a class with lecture and Pow-
erPoints.” Student discussion sug-
gested that the novelty of the RA-TA
approach was less important to them.
Students in Biology 122 (fall 2016,
N = 12) responded signicantly and
positively to all but one question: “In
general, I learned how to read difcult
texts with greater comprehension,”
The question missed significance
by a very small margin (2-tailed p
= .0688). When asked about their
response, some students shared that
they felt they still needed the instruc-
tor’s guidance to help them fully
understand the readings.
TABLE 1
Results (2-tailed P values) of 1-sample t-tests on survey questions, using 3 on a 5-point Likert scale as a null
hypothesis.
Bio 122
Fall 2015 Read Text More
Understand Text
More
Pergams
Elaborating
My
“Translating”
Helped Reading
In General
Prefer Class This
Way
mean 4.13 4.13 4.88 3.69 3.69 3.13
2-tailed P 0.0379 0.0066 <0.0001 0.1885 0.0280 0.7627
(1-sample t-test w/3 as null hypothesis, N=8)
Bio 119
Spring 2016 Read Text More
Understand Text
More
Pergams
Elaborating
My
“Translating”
Helped Reading
In General
Prefer Class This
Way
mean 4.07 4.29 4.79 4.21 3.29
2-tailed P 0.006 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.3649
(1-sample t-test w/3 as null hypothesis, N=14)
Bio 122
Fall 2016 Read Text More
Understand Text
More
Pergams
Elaborating
My
“Translating”
Helped Reading
In General
Prefer Class This
Way
mean 4.25 3.83 4.75 3.75 3.58
2-tailed P 0.0004 0.0172 <0.0001 0.0688 0.0116
(1-sample t-test w/3 as null hypothesis, N=12)
TOTAL 4.15 4.09 4.79 3.93 3.35
2-tailed P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0437
(1-sample t-test w/3 as null hypothesis, N=34)
14
Journal of College Science Teaching
TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY
When pooled (N = 34), responses
to all ve questions were positively
signicant, and all but one highly so
(2-tailed p < .0001). The question
that was positively significant but
not highly so was “I prefer a class
conducted this way over a class with
lecture and PowerPoints” (p = .0437).
The authors attempted to imple-
ment the RA-TA strategy in larger
classes (17, 18, 19, 29, and 32 stu-
dents), but opted not to pursue it,
based on an observed lack of student
engagement. In these larger classes,
instructors subjectively felt it was
difcult to get through the material
without substantially losing student
attention. Further research could
verify and refine this observation.
When class sizes were >15, students
had to wait too long for their turn
to read again and lost focus. It was
concluded that this RA-TA approach
is most effective in smaller classes
with fewer than 15 students.
Conclusions
Studies published within other con-
texts provide compelling evidence
for the value of RA as a learning
tool. However, most of this research
focuses on its use with younger stu-
dents. By contrast, RA is used much
less often in middle school, high
school, and postsecondary educa-
tion. Instructors in these settings
are increasingly facing pressure to
demonstrate their effectiveness as
measured by student performance
on tests (Serani & Giorgis, 2003).
RA may be viewed as too slow to
produce immediate results on ex-
aminations. In conversations with
colleagues, the authors heard a few
instructors state that they did not
have time for RA. This attitude may
partly arise from the pressure felt by
some college instructors to cover
extensive curricula in a short time.
Another comment that the authors
encountered was that RA is too “ju-
venile” or “basic” and thus is not ap-
propriate for college.
Despite these objections to RA,
the use of an RA-TA approach for
teaching science is supported by
research on the value of scaffolding
(Lin et al., 2012). Specically, RA and
TA include the three elements found
in scaffolding: visual representa-
tions, social interactions, and written
prompts. Although Lin’s ndings ap-
plied to grammar school students, the
ndings of the current study together
with Duncan’s (2015) study of the
value of RA in adults suggest that RA-
TA is useful for adult learners as well.
Significant, positive responses
from students to the postclass survey
indicate that the use of the RA-TA
method enhanced their learning ex-
periences. However, some classes
did not show a signicant positive re-
sponse to the process of “translating”
the text. This is consistent with previ-
ous research that suggests that scaf-
folding methods should be tailored to
the needs of the students being taught
(Lin et al., 2012). In accordance with
this need for tailored scaffolding, the
authors discontinued the process of
“translating the text” when students
expressed that the process was unap-
pealing and unhelpful.
Another important goal of scaf-
folding is for students to develop
independence in performing learned
skills through the process of descaf-
folding (Collins et al., 1989). In the
current study, this was assessed by
student responses to the fourth ques-
tion on the postcourse survey, “In
general, I learned how to read difcult
texts with greater comprehension.”
Although the responses to this ques-
tion for one class missed signicance
by a very small margin, there was a
significant, positive finding in the
pooled data. This supports the idea
that descaffolding is effective. Future
research might focus on examining
descaffolding more directly, perhaps
by using an assessment tool to mea-
sure students’ ability to comprehend a
scientic passage on their own.
A practical drawback is that the RA
method may be difcult to implement
in a larger class setting (>15 students).
One suggestion is to split larger
classes into smaller groups. However,
given that RA-TA is very dependent
on having a single expert reader, split-
ting classes would probably not work
unless there was an additional expert
reader. Also, without an expert reader
we do not recommend RA-TA for use
outside the classroom, such as study
halls or peer tutoring. Finally, future
studies by the authors will involve
comparison of same-course sections
in which RA-TA is used in one and
lecture-based instruction is used in the
other. This will allow for a measure of
the impact that RA-TA has on learning
outcomes in addition to its impact on
learning experiences. These future
studies will also use more detailed
surveys given at both the beginning
and end of the semester. ■
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the 34 students in
this study for their patience and re-
sponses, and thank Larry Aronson for
proofreading.
References
Brabham, E. G., & Lynch-Brown, C.
(2002). Effects of teachers’ reading-
aloud styles on vocabulary acquisition
and comprehension of students in
the early elementary grades. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94,
465–473.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., &
Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American
community college (6th ed.). San
15Vol. 47, No. 5, 2018
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S.
E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the craft of reading, writing
and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick
(Ed.), Knowing learning, and
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert
Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillside, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dreher, S. (2003). A novel idea: Reading
aloud in a high school English
classroom. The English Journal, 93,
50–53.
Duncan, S. (2015). Reading aloud in
Lewisham: An exploration of adult
reading-aloud practices. Literacy, 49,
84–90.
Eskey, D. E. & Grabe, W. (1988).
Interactive models for second
language reading: Perspectives on
instruction. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine,
& D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive
approaches to second language
reading (pp. 223–238). Cambridge
England, Cambridge University
Press.
Grabe, W., &. Stoller F. L. (2011).
Teaching and researching: Reading
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and
instruction: Theory into practice (6th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Hale, A. D., Skinner, C. H., Williams,
J., Hawkins, R., Neddenriep, C.
E., & Dizer, J. (2007). Comparing
comprehension following silent and
aloud reading across elementary and
secondary students: Implications
for curriculum-based measurement.
Behavior Analyst Today, 8, 9–23.
Kelly, P. R. (1995). Round robin reading:
Considering alternative instructional
practices that make more sense.
Reading Horizons, 36, 99–115.
Klapper, J., (1992). Preliminary
considerations for the teaching of
foreign language reading. Language
Learning Journal 6, 53–56.
Leung, C. B. (2008). Preschoolers’
acquisition of scientic vocabulary
through repeated read-aloud events,
retellings, and hands-on science
activities. Reading Psychology, 29,
165–193.
Lin, T., Hsu, Y., Lin, S., Changlai, M.,
Yang, K,. & Lai, T. (2012). A review
of empirical evidence on scaffolding
for science education. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 10, 437–455.
Rog, L. J. (2001). Early literacy
instruction in kindergarten.
Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in
thinking: Cognitive development
in social context. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Serani, F., & Georgis, C. (2003).
Reading aloud and beyond: Fostering
the intellectual life with older readers.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
If you are interested in submitting
a manuscript to one of JCST’s
columns or have a question or
comment regarding an article,
please contact the appropriate
editor at the following addresses:
The Two-Year
Community
Apryl Nenortas
Butler Community College
El Dorado, KS 67042
anenortas@butlercc.edu
Please submit directly to JCST’s
electronic submission system
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/
nsta)
Column Editors
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language
and the challenge of reading for
learning about science. Science, 328,
450–452.
Trelease, J. (2013). The read-aloud
handbook (7th ed.). New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Oliver R. W. Pergams (opergams@ccc.
edu) is an associate professor in the De-
partment of Natural Sciences, Olive-Har-
vey College, City Colleges of Chicago, and
a visiting professor in the Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Illinois
at Chicago. Charmaine E. Jake-Mat-
thews is a visiting lecturer in the Depart-
ment of Psychology at Purdue University
Northwest in Hammond, Indiana, and a
psychotherapist at Urban Wellness Coun-
seling in Chicago. Liza M. Mohanty is an
associate professor in the Department of
Natural Sciences, Olive-Harvey College,
City Colleges of Chicago.
Research and
Teaching
Ann Cutler
Editor
acutler@nsta.org
Please submit directly to JCST’s
electronic submission system
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.
com/nsta)
The Case Study
Clyde F. Herreid
Department of Biology
State University of New York
Bualo, NY 14260-1300
herreid@bualo.edu
