Developing Reading Comprehension

Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.
x
Volume 00, Issue 00, 2012, pp 1–21
Developing reading comprehension

through collaborative learning
Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and Nancy Mazón

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México
Karen Littleton
The Open University, UK
Maricela Vélez
Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México
The present study explores the development and promotion of reading comprehension
in primary school students, in the context of the implementation of an educational pro-
gramme called ‘Learning Together’ (LT). The programme, which centred on collab-
orative learning activities, was designed to promote oral and written communication
in primary school Mexican children. Analyses revealed that children who participated
in the LT programme, in comparison with students in a control condition, produced
higher-quality written summaries of texts they had read, both when working in teams
and when working individually. This suggests that the LT participants appropriated
and transferred the text comprehension strategies promoted, so that they could apply
these strategies effectively not only in collaborative contexts but also independently,
that is, in a self-regulated and autonomous fashion. The theoretical and practical im-
plications of the work are discussed in relation to understanding and promoting oracy
and literacy processes in primary school students.
The main aim of this study was to explore the development and promotion of reading
comprehension in primary students, in the context of the implementation of an educa-
tional programme called ‘Learning Together’ (LT). The programme centred on collabora-
tive learning activities, and aimed to promote oral and written communication, including
reading comprehension strategies, in Mexican primary school children. In order to evaluate
the effectiveness of the programme, two parallel versions of a psycholinguistic task, called
the ‘Test of Textual Integration’ (TTI), were administered to children who were working
in either experimental and control conditions at the beginning and end of the academ-
ic year. The task was complex and involved children reading three authentic texts taken
from different published sources (a newspaper report, an encyclopedia entry and an inter-
view from a magazine), all addressing a related theme. Children were required to write an
Copyright © 2012 UKLA. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2 ROJAS-DRUMMOND, MAZÓN, LITTLETON and VÉLEZ
integrated summary and to include an original title. The design of the educational pro-
gramme, and novel procedures for data analyses, were informed by sociocultural and dis-
cursive approaches to understanding oracy and literacy. Allied analytic procedures permit-
ted a detailed account of how children produced summaries or ‘macrostructures’, based on
Van Dijk and Kintsch’s model of text comprehension (1983; see ‘Method’).
One version of the TTI was solved in triads (TTI-G), while the other one was under-
taken individually (TTI-I). In order to complete both versions of the task, children had to
comprehend the three texts provided, as well as to construct a new – original – one and its
corresponding title, by abstracting and integrating the most important information from the
three texts they had read. In order to produce their summary, children also had to make lo-
cal and global inferences from their knowledge of the world and the characteristics of texts,
and to change the linguistic registers of the texts provided in order to produce a coherent
summary. This included transforming the text of the interview, presented in direct speech,
into reported speech, so that the style was congruent with that of the text being created.
In addition, in order to solve the group version of the task, children had to collaborate and
communicate orally so as to coordinate their collective efforts. Thus, the individual and
group production of these comprehensive summaries represented complex activities that
allowed detailed analyses of the development of diverse text comprehension and produc-
tion strategies in the children. At the same time, the individual version of the task permitted
an assessment of the appropriation of these strategies by the children over time, after they
had participated in the educational programme called LT.
As part of the school activities, children in the experimental condition participated in
the LT programme over a period of 7 months. The programme, which centred on a vari-
ety of collaborative learning activities, explicitly promoted productive strategies: (a) for
collaborating and discussing in groups using dialogic styles of interaction; and (b) for
comprehending and producing texts of different genres, including literary, periodistic and
expository texts. The progress of these children’s oracy and literacy processes over the
school year was compared to that of an equivalent group of children who only participated
in the regular, ongoing classroom literacy-related activities during the same period of time
(control group). Detailed analyses enabled an exploration of the role of collaboration and
dialogic activities in promoting reading comprehension, in the broader context of oracy and
literacy educational practices.
Antecedents
Sociocultural perspectives for understanding oral and written communication

The study reported here is underpinned by a commitment to a sociocultural approach
to conceptualising processes of learning and development, including oracy and literacy.
Inherent in the sociocultural approach is the notion that if we are to understand the nature
of thinking, learning and development, we need to take account of the intrinsically so-
cial and communicative nature of human life. Sociocultural theory posits that intellectual
development is an interactional accomplishment rooted in communicative practices, and
that education is enacted through the interactions between novices and experts, as well
as among peers, reflecting the historical development, cultural values and social practices
of the societies and communities in which educational institutions exist (Cole, 1996;
Daniels, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Wells, 1999; Wertsch, 1998). Education
and cognitive development, including the processes by which children become literate, are
Copyright © 2012 UKLA

DEVELOPING READING COMPREHENSION 3
therefore seen as cultural processes, whereby knowledge and meanings are ‘co-constructed’
as joint interactional accomplishments. Knowledge is not only possessed individually but
also shared among members of communities – with people constructing knowledge and
understandings jointly, through their involvement in events and social practices which are
shaped by cultural and historical factors. Within such cultural practices, language plays a
key role as a mediator of activity, on both the social and psychological planes (Vygotsky,
1978, 1987).
Studies of communication in educational settings have analysed dialogical interac-
tions between teachers and students and among peers (e.g., Alexander, 2000; Edwards &
Mercer, 1987; Littleton & Howe, 2010; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Rojas-Drummond &
Mercer, 2003; Wells, 1999). In the case of peer interactions, analyses have focused on the
potential value of collaboration and peer group discussions. Researchers have differed in
their assessments of the educational value of putting children into small groups to work
and talk together. On the one hand, experimental and observational studies have dem-
onstrated the distinctive potential of collaborative talk in problem solving and learning,
including curriculum-related activities (Littleton & Häkkinen, 1999; Littleton & Light,
1999; Rojas-Drummond, Hernández, Vélez & Villagrán, 1998; Teasley, 1995). On the
other hand, observers of collaborative activity have reported that most of the talk observed
in classrooms is off-task, uncooperative and of little educational value (Alexander, 2004;
Bennett & Cass, 1989; Galton, Simon & Croll, 1980). But this is not quite the paradox that
it seems. Closer consideration of relevant evidence suggests that some ways of collaborat-
ing and talking in group activities are of special educational value, but that such ways are
relatively uncommon in classrooms.
Our explanation for the relatively low educational value of much group work and talk in
classroom contexts has been that children are not commonly taught about ways of talking
effectively together, or helped to develop specific dialogic strategies for thinking collective-
ly (Mercer, 1995; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Rojas-Drummond, 2000; Rojas-Drummond
& Mercer, 2003; Wegerif, Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 1999). In contrast, the quality of
children’s discussion when engaged effectively in collaborative activities in the classroom
can be related to the idea of ‘Exploratory Talk’, a way of using language dialogically
for reasoning which was first identified by Douglas Barnes (e.g., Barnes & Todd, 1995).
According to Mercer (2000, p. 98), ‘Exploratory Talk is that in which partners engage
critically but constructively with each other’s ideas. Relevant information is offered for
joint consideration. Proposals may be challenged and counterchallenged, but if so reasons
are given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is sought as a basis for joint progress.
Knowledge is made publicly accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk’. There are
good reasons for wanting children to use this kind of talk in group activities, because it
represents a distinctive social mode of thinking or ‘interthinking’ (Mercer, 2000; Mercer &
Littleton, 2007). Exploratory Talk constitutes a valuable kind of ‘coreasoning’, with speak-
ers working in accordance with ‘ground rules’, which help them share knowledge, evaluate
evidence and consider options in a reasonable and equitable way.
In this respect, intervention work by Mercer and colleagues (e.g., Mercer & Littleton,
2007; Mercer, Wegerif & Dawes, 1999; Wegerif, Mercer & Dawes, 1999) has enhanced
the use of ‘Exploratory Talk’ by British primary school children. Their results show that
this enhancement had a positive effect on children’s group and individual problem solving,
as well as in performance in academic areas such as Mathematics and Social and Natural
Sciences (Mercer, 2009; Rojas-Drummond & Mercer, 2003). Following these studies,
research undertaken in Mexican classrooms by Rojas-Drummond and her colleagues

(e.g., Rojas-Drummond, Gómez & Vélez, 2008; Rojas-Drummond & Peon, 2004; Rojas-
Drummond, Pérez, Vélez, Gómez & Mendoza, 2003) has confirmed that ‘Exploratory
Talk’ is particularly effective in enhancing group and individual problem solving abilities,
as well as explicit reasoning in the form of argumentation in primary school children. In
the present study, we extended the application of these procedures to the domain of literacy
by promoting explicitly ‘Exploratory Talk’ as an integral part of the collaborative learn-
ing and literacy activities children engaged in throughout the implementation of the LT
programme.
Literacy, reading and writing

Literacy processes, including reading and writing, have been studied following mainly cogni-
tive (e.g., Kingston, 1997), discursive (e.g., Van Dijk, 1997; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) and
sociocultural approaches (e.g., Lewis, 2001; Street, 2005). In this paper, we work within a
sociocultural perspective while also drawing upon some discursive models (Van Dijk & Kintsch,
1983) that, in our view, complement the former to account for these processes.
Sociocultural approaches to literacy, on the one hand, emphasise that children learn to
be literate by participating in a variety of social practices that take place in specific cultural
and institutional contexts. For example, Brian Street (1993, 2005), in his ‘new literacy
studies’, emphasises that understanding reading and writing processes requires taking ac-
count of the social and cultural practices in which these processes are embedded. Using
ethnographic methods, he has carried out in-depth analyses of the literacy practices that
occur in a diversity of cultural settings, including the uses and meanings of literacy by
participants, as well as the consequences of participating in such practices.
Cognitive and discursive perspectives on literacy, on the other hand, emphasise that
learning to comprehend and produce texts involves becoming competent in the use of
sophisticated cognitive and communicative strategies. One of the most influential models
for explaining reading comprehension following these perspectives has been that of Van
Dijk and Kintsch (1983) (e.g., Van Dijk, 1997). The model assumes that readers create a
‘situation model’, which is an abstract representation of the content and context of the text
in a possible world. This is achieved by working in parallel with three types of processes.
The reader creates a text base or ‘microstructure’ by analysing the various propositions
of the text. A proposition refers to a predicate plus one or more arguments. This process
allows the reader to establish reference and co-reference and gives the text local coherence.
In addition, the reader also has to establish global coherence to get at the gist or essence of
the text. Thus, he or she works simultaneously to establish this coherence by applying two
sets of complementary strategies: (a) those for abstracting the ‘superstructure’ of the text
(i.e., the underlying organisation); and (b) those for establishing its ‘macrostructure’ (i.e.,
the essence of the text). In relation to the superstructure, the types that have been described
in the literature as the most common for expository texts include definition, comparison–
contrast, problem–solution and cause and effect (Meyer, 1984). In reference to macrostruc-
tures, the reader arrives at the essence or synthesis by applying three types of complemen-
tary ‘macrostrategies’: (a) suppression: where the reader eliminates irrelevant or redundant
propositions; (b) generalisation: where the reader substitutes a series of propositions for a
more general one or of a higher order; and (c) construction: where the reader infers new
propositions that are implicit in the text, enriching the text as a whole and integrating its
content to achieve global coherence. Lastly, in order to establish the ‘situation model’ the
reader also makes use of his or her previous knowledge, including knowledge about the

world, about the type of discourse, its function, the genre, the rhetorical resources used, the
context or communicative situation, the purpose for reading, etc.
There are very few studies that have used the model to study the development of stu-
dents’ capacity to construct macrostructures, and most of these studies are with older chil-
dren or adults. These studies indicate that this capacity develops throughout the lifespan,
and that children experience particular difficulties with applying sophisticated macrostrat-
egies beyond copy-delete or suppression (as defined above; Brown & Day, 1983; Vieiro &
García-Madruga, 1989; Williamsa, Taylor & Decany, 1984). Even fewer studies have used
the model to promote explicitly students’ capacity to construct macrostructures, and these
have been conducted mainly with college students (e.g., Sherrard, 1989).
In our line of research on literacy, we have integrated facets of the sociocultural and
discursive approaches reviewed above. As part of this integration, we have adopted van
Dijk and Kintsch’s model that affords a framework for analysing children’s cognitive and
discursive strategies for text comprehension and production. We have found that Mexican
primary school children mostly use rudimentary strategies such as copy-delete or suppres-
sion, and that public schools do not promote explicitly students’ abilities for synthesising
texts (e.g., Mercado, Rojas-Drummond, Weber, Mercer & Huerta, 1998; Rojas-Drummond,
Gómez, Márquez, Olmos, Peón & Vélez, 1999). However, these abilities can be success-
fully promoted by collaborative learning procedures (Rojas-Drummond, Hernández, Vélez
& Villagrán, 1998). In the context of this prior work, we have developed a method for
carrying out fine-grained analysis of the quality of the macrostructures produced by the
children, based on Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model. The method assesses this qual-
ity in terms of: (a) main ideas, (b) organisation – superstructure and (c) sophistication of
macrostrategies. As part of the present study, we refined this method. We also developed
and evaluated a more comprehensive programme to promote reading comprehension based
on collaborative learning, embedding this promotion in the broader context of enhancing a
variety of oracy and literacy social practices (see ‘Method’). Such research is vital, given
that functional illiteracy is very widespread among the student populations, including in
Mexico, as demonstrated by several international and national studies (e.g., Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2001, 2004, 2010; Mazón, Rojas-
Drummond & Vélez, 2005; Rojas-Drummond et al., 1999). Thus, the programme to be
described next was designed to contribute to understanding and tackling some of the chal-
lenges associated with functional illiteracy for Mexican primary students.
The context of the study: the ‘Learning Together’ educational programme

In the present study, sixth-grade children (11- to 12-year-olds) carried out various literacy
projects involving dialogical interactions and collaborative reading and writing. These
projects were generated in the context of the implementation of an educational programme
called ‘LT’. This has operated in several public primary schools in Mexico City for over
10 years. The purpose of the programme is to form ‘learning communities’ within primary
schools that foster the creation of close partnerships among children, teachers, parents and
university researchers. These communities encourage the active participation of all their
members in meaningful activities involving the co-construction of knowledge. In addition,
the programme seeks to promote social, cognitive, psycholinguistic, technological and
academic capabilities in primary students. Particular emphasis is placed on enhancing
functional oral and written communication (see Mazón et al., 2005; Rojas-Drummond,
Albarrán & Littleton, 2008; Rojas-Drummond, Gómez & Vélez, 2008; Rojas-Drummond

et al., 1998, 2003; Rojas-Drummond, Mazón, Fernández & Wegerif, 2006; Rojas-
Drummond, Littleton, Hernández & Zuniga, 2010).
The programme functions within school hours and the activities are carried out in paral-
lel with those of regular school. It consists of three modules designed to strengthen diverse
oracy and literacy abilities in the students. In the first module, activities are intended to
foster collaboration and effective oral communication, including importantly the use of
‘Exploratory Talk’. Briefly, with adult guidance, children are encouraged to collectively
generate certain ‘ground rules’ or strategies for using ‘Exploratory Talk’. Then, throughout
the whole programme, children adapt and apply these strategies for carrying out diverse
team literacy projects.
In the second module, the focus is on the promotion of strategies for comprehending
texts, following Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) model. Emphasis is placed on the use of
adequate strategies for comprehending texts and producing summaries with local and global
coherence, guided by the structure and rhetorical qualities of specific text genres (see Van
Dijk, 1997). The strategies promoted include those for abstracting main ideas and inferring
the texts’ underlying organisation or superstructure, as well as macrostrategies for arriving
at the gist of the text: suppression, generalisation, construction and integration. These are
complemented by inferential and discursive strategies for constructing a ‘situation model’
on the basis of the overall communicative situation, the purpose for reading as well as the
students’ prior knowledge.
In the third module, children carry out diverse team literacy projects that involve the com-
prehension and production of texts of different genres, including literary, argumentative and
informative. The projects generated in sixth grade, with 11- to 12-year-old children, are the
focus of the present study. As part of these projects children, organised in small teams, carry
out an investigation concerning a topic of their choice. Then they look for relevant information
in different sources, including books, encyclopedias, magazines, the Internet, etc. They also
summarise the information they selected, and integrate it to write an original article to be pub-
lished in a popular magazine. From the written articles, children create a multi-modal confer-
ence presentation using PowerPoint. The magazines and conferences are disseminated at the
end of the school year in a wide event called the ‘cultural fair’. In this event children present
to and discuss with the whole learning community, as well as a broader audience, the products
of their projects. This event contributes to rendering the projects meaningful and functional,
given their genuine communicative purposes and the interaction with interested interlocutors.
In addition, the projects encourage children to engage in authentic oracy and literacy social
practices with relevance beyond school (as opposed to these being merely school exercises).
Throughout the implementation of the LT programme, researchers collaborate with
teachers in order to promote the use of diverse instructional and learning strategies.
These were derived directly from sociocultural perspectives on learning and development
and included contributions made by our own prior research (Mercer & Littleton, 2007;
Rojas–Drummond, Albarrán & Littleton, 2008; Rojas-Drummond, Littleton, Hernández &
Zuñiga, 2010). The strategies included the following:
1. the creation of learning environments rich in social interactions between experts and
novices and among peers, where the diverse activities carried out are meaningful and
purposeful, and the learning is ‘situated’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003);
2. guided participation between experts and novices where adults scaffold children’s learn-
ing activities through dialogic styles of interaction (Alexander, 2008; Bruner, 1978;
Rogoff, 1990);

3. collaborative learning where peers engage in diverse creative projects, joint prob-
lem solving and co-constructing knowledge and understanding (Brown, Palincsar &
Ambruster, 1984; Littleton, Miell & Faulkner, 2004; Rojas-Drummond et al., 1998;
Rojas-Drummond, Albarrán & Littleton, 2008); and
4. promotion of effective strategies for oral and written communication among peers, in-
cluding the use of ‘Exploratory Talk’ (Mercer, 2000; Mercer & Littleton, 2007).
Method
Participants
A sample of 120 sixth-grade children (11- to 12-year-olds) from two equivalent public
primary schools located in Mexico City participated in the study. Sixty children came from
School 1, termed ‘experimental’, and they participated in the LT programme throughout
the year as described above, in parallel with their regular classes. The other 60 came from
School 2, termed ‘control’, and they continued with their regular classes only. The schools
were very geographically close, and both belonged to the same school district. The schools
were regulated by the same educational authorities and implemented the same, official
state curriculum, which in Mexico is very tightly prescribed and teachers follow it very
closely, guided by the same students’ textbooks. (Briefly, the curriculum is divided into
four main subject areas: Spanish, Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences; and
these are taught by the same teacher, in hourly classes distributed throughout the morning.)
Both schools had approximately 360 children distributed into 12 groups, with two groups
per grade. The director of School 1 volunteered to participate in the LT programme after
learning about it, and participation of the teachers within the school was also on a volunteer
basis (both teachers of sixth grade consented to participate).
The schools were equivalent in socioeconomic status (from middle to low). Both schools
had a similar distribution in terms of level of education and type of occupation of parents. In
both schools an equivalent percentage of parents had only finished primary education (ex-
perimental school: mothers 39%, fathers 26%; control school: mothers 34%, fathers 21%).
Only a small percentage of parents in both schools had undertaken professional studies
(experimental school: mothers 6%, fathers 18%; control school: mothers 7%, fathers 21%).
In both schools most parents were working-class labourers (experimental school: mothers,
52%, fathers 28%; control school: mothers 51%, fathers 25%). Only a small percentage
had a professional career or provided a professional service (experimental school: mothers
6%, fathers 13%; control school: mothers 6%; fathers 14%).
From this original sample, we selected randomly 24 children (12 ‘experimental’ and 12
‘control’), who were organised into four experimental and four control ‘focal triads’. This
enabled us to carry out in-depth microgenetic analysis of the children’s oracy and literacy
strategies while solving the group version of the TTI (see ‘Materials’). (All the appropriate
consent was obtained from the educational authorities, as well as from the parents.)
Setting
The educational programme LT was implemented in a multipurpose classroom within the
experimental school. This was especially designed for the purposes of the study, with mod-
ular furniture for collaborative work, computers and an equipped small library (such facili-
ties are not typically available in Mexican primary classrooms). The individual version of

the TTI was applied in the respective classrooms of each group. The group version was
applied to each triad separately in an empty classroom, so their work could be videotaped.
Materials
We developed two parallel versions of the TTI, so that one could be administered indi-
vidually (TTI-I) and the other one in triads (TTI-G). The TTI-I was administered to the
whole sample of 120 children, while the TTI-G was administered to the same children, but
organised in 40 triads (20 experimental and 20 control triads). Each version was adminis-
tered at the beginning and end of the academic year as pre- and post-tests, respectively, to
assess the effects of the LT programme. Both versions of the test involved presenting each
child (or triad) with three short texts extracted from three sources: one was taken from a
newspaper report, another one corresponded to an encyclopedia entry and a third consisted
of a brief interview taken from a magazine. These three texts were related in content. (For
the TTI-G all of them talked about the healing properties of dolphins; in the TTI-I they
referred to some of the special characteristics of anteaters.) Each child (or triad) was asked
to read the three texts and to construct a summary integrating the main ideas from these
three sources. They were also encouraged to write an original title for their summary (see
TTI in Appendix A).
The design of this test follows closely procedures derived from Van Dijk and Kitsch’s
(1983) strategic model (reviewed in ‘Antecedents’), and it is therefore valid for assessing
reading comprehension processes. The model of text comprehension was also used to estab-
lish equivalence between the two versions of the test in relation to: (a) number of propositions
in each text; (b) text genres; (c) type of superstructure of each text; and (d) type of macrostrat-
egies required to construct a macrostructure integrating the three texts. At the same time,
for each version, an ‘ideal’ macrostructure was generated by two expert readers (see proce-
dures in Rojas-Drummond et al., 1998). From the above procedures, we generated systematic
guidelines for evaluating children’s macrostructures (see ‘Analyses of data’). This and similar
tests have been used extensively in previous related studies, and inter-observer reliability
measures for evaluating macrostructures have in general been very high (ranging between
86% and 98%; see also Mazón et al., 2005; Rojas-Drummond et al., 1998, 1999, 2006).1
Design
We used a quasi-experimental, pre-/post-test design with control group. Treatment groups
were intact since they were not randomly assigned to each experimental condition. In re-
lation to the dependent variable, a set of partial and total scores was first obtained from
analysing the summaries written by the children in each version of the TTI. Then relative
gains were calculated for each set of scores (see below). The independent variable was the
‘Experimental Treatment’. (‘Tests’ was not included as a variable given that relative gains
were used for data analyses.)
Procedures
Intervention and data collection

We administered the pre- and post-tests of the TTI-I to the 120 children at the beginning
and end of the academic year, respectively. For each period, we also administered the
TTI-G to the 40 triads 1 week later. Video recordings were obtained of the interaction of

each of the eight ‘focal triads’ while they solved this task. Subsequently, the videos were
analysed and the conversation of each triad was transcribed verbatim, together with a de-
scription of the relevant context. This was done following established conventions and
procedures developed by Edwards and Mercer (1987).
Between administration of the pre- and post-tests, the experimental children participated
in the LT programme during school hours while control children followed their regular
classroom activities. The programme was conducted in 18 sessions of 90 minutes each,
distributed over a period of 7 months. For this purpose, each teacher, with his or her respec-
tive children (30 per group), came to the setting designed for the LT programme. During
each session the group teacher, supported by two researchers, promoted psycholinguistic
abilities related to oral and written communication in a variety of collaborative activities,
as described above. Module I lasted five sessions, Module II lasted six sessions, whereas
Module III was conducted over seven sessions (see ‘The context of the study: the ‘Learning
Together’ educational programme’).
Analyses of data
In terms of the written summaries produced by the children in both versions of the TTI,
the quality of the macrostructures generated was assessed following Van Dijk and Kitsch’s
(1983) strategic model of text comprehension. This was achieved through a propositional
analysis of an ‘ideal’ macrostructure resulting from summarising the three original texts,
produced by two expert readers. Based on these analyses, these experts, working indepen-
dently, qualified and assigned a pondered, partial score to the following four aspects:
1. Title: This aspect assessed to what extent the title proposed by the child (or triad) was
comprehensive, informative and concise (maximum score: 2).
2. Main ideas: This aspect evaluated which main ideas from the three original texts were
included in the summary produced by the child (or triad). The propositional analysis of
the ‘ideal’ macrostructure revealed a total of six main ideas (maximum score: 3).
3. Organisation of ideas: This aspect assessed the local and global coherence of the mac-
rostructure produced by the child (or triad). This was done based on evidence of or-
ganisation of ideas in terms of superstructure, as well as the use of linguistic markers
(maximum score: 2).
4. Level of expression: This aspect was evaluated by assigning a differential score de-
pending on the most sophisticated macrostrategy used by the child (or triad) in the
production of the summary: prestrategic level (indiscriminate copy) = 0; suppression =
1; generalisation = 2 and construction = 3 (maximum score: 3).
It is important to stress that our programme of research has shown that ‘level of expression’
represents a highly sensitive and fine-grained measure of children’s capacities to abstract,
synthesise and integrate information from the texts (see Rojas-Drummond et al., 1998). Fur-
thermore, according to Van Dijk and Kinstch (1983), these capacities are at the core of read-
ing comprehension processes. For these reasons, this score was singled out in the analysis of
data (see below). Similarly, the weighted scores were assigned in relation to the importance
of the processes involved, according to the model as well as our previous research.
The four partial scores were added up to produce a total score (maximum: 10). Inter-
observer reliability ranged between 89% and 98%. Relative gains of partial and total scores
were further calculated by subtracting the post-test scores from those of the pre-test. In

Table 1. Mean scores and statistical comparisons between treatment groups for each test.
Test Version Treatment group Statistical comparison Mean Standard error
Exp. Control t p difference difference
Pre-test TTI-G x̄ = 2.61 x̄ = 2.68 .123 >.902 6.644 × 10−02 .5391

−02
TTI-I x̄ = 1.88 x̄ = 1.95 .248 >.805 6.667 × 10 .2689
Post-test TTI-G x̄ = 5.0 x̄ = 3.24 −4.715 <.0001 −1.7571 .3727
TTI-I x̄ = 4.12 x̄ = 1.20 −10.503 <.0001 −2.9208 .2781
Table 2. Summary produced by triad 1 during pre-test (the transcription was translated from Spanish and
respects the original text).
In the coasts of ireland lives since 14 years ago a dolphin called fugy. There are numerous stories of
persons who say that fungy starts to make something when he notices that somebody is sad or worried.
However, it is difficult to explain how a dolphin who lives in the coasts of ireland. We knew that you
swam with the dolphin Fungy this made you feel very good. I didn’t feel like playing, like learning, nor to
talk to my friends
Pondered scores: 0 + 1.5 + 0 + 1 = 2.5
order to assess the effect of the experimental treatment, mean relative gains of each experi-
mental group were compared. For comparing total scores, Student’s t-test for independent
samples was used, whereas for partial scores we applied Chi-square tests.
The use of relative gains is justified since statistical analyses showed that treatment
groups were homogeneous in the pre-test for both the TTI-G (t = .123; p < .902) and the
TTI-I (t = .248; p < .805). A complete report of means of each treatment group in each test,
as well as statistical comparisons, is presented in Table 1.
As can be seen, the experimental and control groups do not differ significantly in the pre-
test for either version of the test. In comparison, in the post-tests the experimental group
performed significantly better than the control group in both versions of the test. These
results are totally congruent with those obtained using relative gains (see below).
Results
By means of exemplification, we will first provide, at the micro level, an analysis of the
written summaries created by experimental triad 1 in the pre- and the post-test of the TTI-
G. Then we will move on to the macro level by providing data of the written summaries of
the whole sample of 40 triads in the TTI-G, and 120 children in the TTI-I. This will include
comparisons of the experimental and control groups in relation to: (a) total scores; (b) partial
scores; and (c) scores obtained specifically in ‘level of expression’ (see above).
Micro level
In order to exemplify the data obtained in the written summaries at the micro level, we next
present the summaries produced by experimental triad 1 in the TTI-G in the pre-test (Table
2) and in the post-test (Table 3). These summaries were assigned scores following the
procedures described under ‘Method’. As part of these analyses, comparisons were made
between the three original texts of the TTI-G (see Appendix A), and the summary produced
by the children, in order to identify the information that was copied versus created.

Table 3. Summary produced by triad 1 during post-test (the transcription was translated from Spanish and
respects the original text).
The benefits of the dolphin
In the coasts of Ireland there is a dolphin that has the name of Fungy, this mammal is very friendly and affable
since he helps people to have more encouragement so that they can go ahead. Such is the case of a child who
suffers from cerebral palsy, this child swam with Fungy and thanks to this, he carried on with his therapies.
Pondered scores: 2 + 3 + 2 + 3 = 10
In the pre-test there was not a title at the beginning of the summary, so the score for this
aspect was 0. A comparison between the information contained in the three original texts and
the pre-test summary in Table 1 shows that, in respect of the main ideas, the children copied
three of them from the original texts, so they got a score of 1.5. In relation to organisation,
children simply copied segments of information from each text, but without linking the ideas
and in some cases the ideas were incomplete or truncated (see, e.g., lines 3–4). This resulted
in a text that lacked local and global coherence; therefore they obtained a score of 0.0. Lastly,
the most sophisticated macrostrategy used to create their summary was suppression, given
that they copied parts of the original texts while eliminating some of the information. This co-
py-delete strategy was particularly inefficient when confronting the interview in the original
third text, given that the children simply copied unconnected parts of the dialogue, without
transforming it to reported speech (see lines 4–5). Thus, their score for ‘level of expression’
was 1.0. The total score obtained was therefore 2.5/10.0. As a way of comparison, in Table 3,
we present the summary produced by the same triad 1 in the post-test.
In this post-test summary there was a title that is relevant, informative and concise, given
that it reflects the essence that can be abstracted from the relations between the three original
texts. Therefore, they got a score of 2. A comparison between the information contained in
the three original texts and the post-test summary in Table 3 shows that, regarding the main
ideas, it was possible to identify the essence of the six main ideas from the three original
texts, so the score for this aspect was 3.0. In relation to organisation, the text showed local
and global coherence since the ideas were organised, integrated and linked with linguistic
markers (e.g., ‘this mammal’, ‘such is the case of’, ‘this child’ and ‘thanks to this’). There-
fore, they obtained a score of 2. Finally, the children managed to distance themselves from
the original texts by integrating the essence from the three texts into a single, coherent sum-
mary. This required them to infer information not provided, as well as to change the original
linguistic register, particularly from the third text (transform a dialogue to reported speech –
see lines 2–4). The most sophisticated macrostrategy used was construction, which included
inferring the central fact that the dolphin motivated the child to ‘carry on with his therapies’
(see lines 3–4). Thus, their score for ‘level of expression’ was 3.0. The total score obtained
was 10.0/10.0. Therefore, comparisons between the summaries produced by triad 1 in each
test evidenced a substantial increase in the quality of the text written in the post-test in com-
parison with that in the pre-test, in the four aspects evaluated (title, main ideas, organisation
and level of expression). The results presented here were confirmed by those obtained by the
whole sample of children, as will be shown in the next section.
Macro level
In this section, we will present results for the entire sample of 40 triads (TTI-G), and 120
children (TTI-I). The order of presentation will be: (a) total scores; (b) partial scores; and
(c) scores obtained particularly for ‘level of expression’.

Figure 1. Mean relative gains obtained by each treatment group in the Test of Textual Integration (TTI-G).
Total score.
Figure 2. Mean relative gains obtained by each treatment group in the Test of Textual Integration (TTI-I). Total score.
In relation to total scores, Figure 1 illustrates results for the TTI-G, and Figure 2 for the
TTI-I. Each score corresponds to the mean relative gains obtained by each treatment group
between the pre- and post-tests.
For the TTI-G, results in Figure 1 show highly significant differences in mean relative
gains, favouring the experimental group (n = 40, t = 10.81, df = 1, 38; p < .0005). For the
TTI-I, results in Figure 2 also reflect the same overall tendency (n = 120, t = 10.50, df = 1,
118; p < .0005). This means that, for both the group and individual versions of the test, the
summaries for the experimental group were of much better overall quality that those of the
control group, after the former participated in the LT programme.
The total score represents the sum of the four partial scores previously defined: title,
main ideas, organisation and level of expression. Figure 3 illustrates these scores for the

Figure 3. Mean relative gains obtained by each treatment group in the Test of Textual Integration (TTI-G).
Composite scores.
Figure 4. Mean relative gains obtained by each treatment group in the Test of Textual Integration (TTI-I).
Composite scores.
TTI-G, and Figure 4 for the TTI-I. Each score corresponds to the mean relative gains ob-
tained by each treatment group between the pre- and post-tests.
For the TTI-G, Figure 3 shows that the experimental group, in comparison to the control
group, obtained higher relative gains between tests in each partial score. Differences were
highly significant in relation to main ideas (n = 40, ␹2 = 18.835, df = 1, 38; p < .0005);
organisation (n = 40, ␹2 = 22.856, df = 1, 38; p < .0005) and level of expression (n = 40,
␹2 = 10.832, df = 1, 38; p < .0005). The difference corresponding to ‘title’ showed a similar

Figure 5. Level of expression by each treatment group in each test. Test of Textual Integration (TTI-G).
tendency, but without reaching significance (n = 40; ␹2 = 6.213, df = 1, 38; p = .184). For
the TTI-I, results in Figure 4 also reflect the same overall tendency, but the differences were
even more marked since ‘title’ also produced significant results (title: n = 120, ␹2 = 31.64,
df = 1, 118; p < .0005; main ideas: n = 120, ␹2 = 67.34, df = 1, 118; p < .0005; organisation:
n = 120, ␹2 = 55.16, df = 1, 118; p < .0005; and level of expression: n = 120, ␹2 = 53.87,
df = 1, 118; p < .0005).
In relation to ‘level of expression’, Figure 5 illustrates results for the TTI-G, and Figure 6
for the TTI-I. The score reflects the most sophisticated macrostrategy used by each triad
in creating their summary, assessed in four levels: prestrategic; suppression; generalisation
and construction. Each graph presents the percentage of triads whose summaries reflected
each of the four levels, for each treatment group in each test.
For the TTI-G, the graph in Figure 5 indicates that the control group improved mainly
in the use of rudimentary macrostrategies between the pre- and post-tests, and especially
suppression. In contrast, the experimental group improved in all levels of expression, in-
cluding the use of the most sophisticated macrostrategies, and especially construction. For
the TTI-I, results in Figure 6 show a similar pattern, with an even more marked tendency
for the experimental group to improve in the use of the most sophisticated macrostrategies,
including generalisation and construction. In contrast, the control group actually performed
even more poorly in the post-test than in the pre-test, increasing sharply in the prestrategic
level and not improving in any other level.
Discussion
Results of the analyses of the changes observed in children’s written communication in
the experimental condition after their participation in the LT programme, in contrast to the
students in the control, address the central aim of the study, related to the analysis of the
development and promotion of reading comprehension in primary school children.

Figure 6. Level of expression by each treatment group in each test. Test of Textual Integration (TTI-I).
Results showed that, in general, the children who participated in the LT programme
produced summaries of better quality than the students in the control condition, not only
when working in triads, but also independently. This better quality reflected significant
improvements in the LT students’ capacity to abstract the gist of the texts they read, includ-
ing going beyond the information provided by generating inferences. At the same time,
they were able to produce better integrated and organised summaries or ‘macrostructures’;
that is, their texts were more local and globally coherent and included the use of linguistic
markers to link the ideas. In addition, students in the experimental condition improved in
the use of a wider range of macrostrategies, including more sophisticated ones such as
generalisation and construction. In contrast, students who had not participated in the LT
programme showed almost no improvement across the academic year, or improved only
in the use of rudimentary macrostrategies such as suppression of information, which tend
to be privileged as part of school practices in official Mexican schools (e.g., INEE, 2007;
Mercado et al., 1998; Rojas-Drummond, 2000).
It is important to highlight that, all throughout the intervention, children worked in small
groups. The results from both versions of the TTI suggest that the students who participated
in the LT programme, in contrast to students in the control condition, eventually appropriated
and transferred the collaborative, dialogical and text comprehension and production strate-
gies promoted, so that they could apply these strategies effectively in contexts different from
those used during intervention. Furthermore, they could apply them not only when working
in teams, but also independently, that is, in a self-regulated and autonomous fashion.
As a central part of the LT programme, children were encouraged to collaborate in small
groups and communicate effectively using dialogic styles of interaction, including ‘Ex-
ploratory Talk’ (Mercer, 2000; Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Taking the present and previous
results in combination, we can propose that these dialogic styles were partly responsible
for promoting effective literacy strategies in the students (see Mazón et al., 2005; Rojas-
Drummond, 2000; Rojas-Drummond et al., 2006, 2010). These dialogic styles seem to
have been appropriated by the students when discussing, reading and writing in small
groups, as well as when reading and writing independently.
The promotion of oral and written communication took place in the context of collab-
orative activities where children talked in groups as they read and wrote a variety of texts.

These activities were an integral part of comprehensive projects that emulated genuine
social oracy and literacy practices. Results suggest that oracy and literacy are intimately
interwoven, and support each other in a dynamic and iterative fashion (see also Rojas-
Drummond et al., 2006, 2010). In the literature, these processes have commonly been ana-
lysed and/or promoted mainly in isolation. The present study underscores the advantages
of enhancing talking, reading and writing as interrelated and meaningful social practices.
When interpreting the results as a whole, it is important to stress that the LT programme
enhanced collaboration abilities in conjunction with oral and written communication. For
this reason, we can surmise that the gains made by children in the experimental condition
on both the group and individual versions of the TTI could be attributed not only to the
collaborative abilities promoted, but to the combination of these abilities and those related
to oracy and literacy.
Findings regarding the generally poor performance displayed by control children
throughout the academic year (including the fact that they performed less well in the post-
test than the pre-test of the TTI-I) indicate that the abilities involved in comprehending,
constructing and integrating information from a variety of texts are not enhanced adequate-
ly or are addressed poorly as part of the regular, established classroom practices. In fact,
a substantive report made by the National Institute of Evaluation (INEE, 2007), suggest
that some teachers attempt to promote reading comprehension mainly though rote learning
exercises, and in some cases meaningless tasks, where the use of written language is not
functional in the sense that the activities are carried out mainly for the sake of completing
the requisite Spanish textbooks. This poor performance in text comprehension, which is
also reflected in Mexican national and international evaluations such as EXCALE (INEE,
2006) and PISA (OECD, 2010; PISA, 2003), is an ingrained problem in the national edu-
cational state system. This problem is in turn indicative of significant indices of functional
illiteracy that prevail among the population.
The LT programme can potentially contribute, even if only at a modest scale, to ameli-
orate some of the problems described above, in conjunction with appropriate educational
reforms. These coordinated efforts could, in the medium term, enable children to participate
more competently and autonomously as members of their communities of practice both
inside as well as outside of school. In addition, it is important to highlight that the children
who participated in the LT programme improved significantly in the capacity to integrate
information from different types of texts. This is a particularly relevant repertoire to develop
given that many academic tasks, especially from high school onwards, require that students
comprehend and integrate information from a variety of written and electronic sources.
Thus, the LT programme could also contribute to achieve this central educational goal.
The methods of evaluation and analyses of literacy processes generated as part of this
research, and particularly those for assessing the creation of summaries or macrostructures
based on Van Dijk and Kitsch’s theoretical model, represent a distinctive and original con-
tribution. These methods allowed us to analyse these literacy processes in a detailed, sys-
tematic and comprehensive fashion. In Mexico, we lack sensitive instruments for assessing
reading comprehension, and the present methods can be adapted to develop standardised
and other tests.
In addition, in the present study, a longitudinal perspective allowed for evaluation of the
effects of children’s participation in an educational programme such as LT on oracy and
literacy processes over time. As we argued in the antecedents, according to sociocultural
theory education is enacted through dialogue and intellectual development is an interac-
tional accomplishment rooted in communicative practices. The work reported in this paper

evidences the benefits that can accrue from the design and creation of a rich, purposeful
literacy learning environment, informed by sociocultural theory and research, that provides
opportunities for dialogic interactions between experts and novices and among peers.
That said, there is a need for future work to establish more explicit connections be-
tween micro-analytical work, centred on the discursive and cognitive processes which
sit at the heart of literacy phenomena, and more macro-analytical research on the key
roles of the historical, cultural and institutional contexts that frame these processes when
viewed as social practices. Learning is a process of engagement with culturally elabo-
rated and socially mediated reality. As demonstrated by sociocultural research, the mac-
ro- and microprocesses that shape such learning are potentially powerful in their effects
(Daniels, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990, 2003; Rojas-Drummond et al.,
2010; Wenger, 1998). Our assertion is that the harnessing of both macro- and micropro-
cesses is essential for enhancing children’s learning of oracy and literacy, as well as the
effectiveness of their school-based education.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in this paper was supported by the Dirección General de Asuntos
del Personal Académico of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (DGAPA-
UNAM) (PAPIIT Project Number: IN301-110) for the years 2010–2012. The authors
wish to express their gratitude for this generous support. We would also like to thank
the Ministry of Education in Mexico, as well as all the staff and students within the par-
ticipating schools, for their commitment to the programme of research. Professor Rojas-
Drummond and Professor Littleton would like to thank the Faculty of Education at the
University of Cambridge, UK for hosting them as Visiting Scholars while the manuscript
was being completed. Professor Rojas-Drummond’s Visiting Scholarship was funded by
the National Council of Science and Technology in Mexico (CONACYT Project Number:
160873), as well as the DGAPA-UNAM.
Note
1. Students’ previous knowledge was not evaluated formally. Before each test, students were simply asked if they
knew about dolphins (TTI-G) or anteaters (TTI-I), and they all responded positively. However, the degree of
difficulty of the test does not reside in this knowledge (given that the topic is treated in a nonspecialist fashion).
Rather, the challenge resides in the child’s capacity to display psycholinguistic abilities related to synthesising
and integrating information from three texts of different genres, as well as changing direct speech into reported
speech so as to give the overall summary global coherence.
References
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Alexander, R. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching. (1st edn). Leeds: Dialogos.
Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Bennett, N. & Cass, A. (1989). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil under-
standing. British Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/0141192890150102.

Brown, A. & Day, J. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00003-3.
Brown, A., Palincsar, A.S. & Ambruster, B. (1984). Inducing comprehension-fostering activities in interactive
learning situations. In H. Mandl, N. Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of texts. (pp.
255–287). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In R. Jarvella & W.J.M. Levelt (Eds.), The child´s
conception of language. (pp. 241–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom.
London: Methuen.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Teinberg (Eds.),
Processes in writing. (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Galton, M., Simon, B. & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the primary classroom (The ORACLE Report). London: Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul.
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación [INEE] (2006). El aprendizaje de la expresión escrita en la
educación básica en México (Electronic version). Retrieved from http://www.inee.edu.mx/.
Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación [INEE] (2007). El aprendizaje en tercero de primaria en
México. Retrieved from http://www.inee.edu.mx/.
Kingston, A.J. (Ed.) (1997). Toward a psychology of reading and language. Athens: The University of Georgia
Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lewis, C. (2001). Literacy practices as social acts: Power, status, and cultural norms in the classroom. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Littleton, K. & Häkkinen, P. (1999). Learning together: Understanding the processes of computer-based col-
laborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches.
(pp. 1–20). Pergamon: Oxford.
Littleton, K. & Howe, C. (Eds.) (2010). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive inter-
action. London: Routledge.
Littleton, K. & Light, P. (Eds.) (1999). Learning with computers. London: Routledge.
Littleton, K., Miell, D. & Faulkner, D. (Eds.) (2004). Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn. New York:
Nova Press.
Mazón, N., Rojas-Drummond, S.M. & Vélez, M. (2005). Efectos de un programa de fortalecimiento de habili-
dades de comprensión de textos en educandos de primaria. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 22(1), 91–102.
Mercado, R., Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Weber, E., Mercer, N. & Huerta, A. (1998). La interacción maestro-alumno
como vehículo del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en la escuela primaria. Morphé, 8, 15–16.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Philadelphia, PA:
Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza & A. Perret-
Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices. London: Springer.
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-cultural approach.
London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom.
British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–113.
Meyer, B. (1984). Text dimensions and cognitive processing. In H. Mandl, N. Stein & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learn-
ing and comprehension of texts. (pp. 255–287). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First
results from PISA 2000. Retrieved from http://www.caliban.sourceoecd.org.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First
results from PISA 2003. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/55/02340.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students
know and can do – student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1).
PISA (2003). Reading literacy. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. London: Oxford University Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M. (2000). Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican
classrooms. In H. Cowie & G. van der Aalsvoort (Eds.), Social interaction in learning and instruction: The
meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge. (pp. 193–213). Exeter: Pergamon Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Albarrán, D. & Littleton, K. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction
of oral and written texts. In K. Littleton, S. Rojas-Drummond & D. Miell (Eds.), Collaborative creativity: A
sociocultural perspective. Thinking skills and creativity, 3(3), 177–191. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.008.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Gómez, L.M., Márquez, A.M., Olmos, A., Peon, M. & Vélez, M. (1999). Desarrollo de
macroestructuras en niños de primaria. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 17, 13–32.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Gómez, L. & Vélez, M. (2008). Dialogue for reasoning: Promoting exploratory talk and
problem solving in the primary classroom. In B. van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers & R. van der Veer (Eds.),
The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural-historical activity theory. (pp. 319–341). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Hernández, G., Vélez, M. & Villagrán, G. (1998). Cooperative learning and the acquisition
of procedural knowledge by primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 8, 37–61. doi:10.1016/S0959-
4752(97)00001-7.
Rojas-Drummond, S., Littleton, K., Hernández, F. & Zúñiga, M. (2010). Dialogical interactions among peers in
collaborative writing contexts. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and
promoting productive interaction. Advances in learning and instruction. London: Erlbaum.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Mazón, N., Fernández, M. & Wegerif, R. (2006). Explicit reasoning, creativity and co-
construction in primary school children’s collaborative activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 84–94.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.06.001.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M. & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learn-
ing. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.06.001.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M. & Peon, M. (2004). Exploratory talk, argumentation and reasoning in Mexican primary
school children. Language and Education, 18(6), 539–557. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.06.001.
Rojas-Drummond, S.M., Pérez, V., Vélez, M., Gómez, L. & Mendoza, A. (2003). Talking for reasoning among Mexican
primary school children. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 653–670. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00003-3.
Sherrard, C. (1989). Teaching students to summarize: Applying textlinguistics system. An International Journal
of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(89)90055-9.
Street, B. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B.V. Street (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to
literacy. (pp. 1–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. (2005). Recent applications of new literacy studies in educational contexts. Research in the Teaching
of English, 39(4), 417–423.
Teasley, S. (1995). The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207–220.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.207.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction
(Vol. I). London: Sage Publications.
Van Dijk, T.A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Vieiro, P. & García-Madruga, J. (1989). An analysis of story comprehension through spoken and written summa-
ries in school-age children. Reading and Writing, 9(1), 41–53. doi:10.1023/A:1007932429187.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech (trans. S. Sochinenii). In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The
collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology. (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical inves-
tigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9, 493–516.
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4.
Wegerif, R., Rojas-Drummond, S. & Mercer, N. (1999). Language for the social construction of knowledge: Comparing
classroom talk in Mexican pre-schools. Language and Education, 13, 133–151. doi:10.1080/09500789908666764.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williamsa, J., Taylor, M. & de Cani, J. (1984). Constructing macrostructure for expository text. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1065–1075. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1065.

Appendix A
Test of textual integration – group version (TTI-G; translated from Spanish).
INSTRUCTIONS:
Imagine you are asked to write a note in the school bulletin on an interesting topic, which
has occurred in real life. So you decide to investigate about a topic in different written
sources and you find the three texts that appear below. You read these texts and write a brief
summary of the most important information you investigated. The summary will help you
to write your note.
Read carefully the following three texts, they all refer to a related topic. The texts cor-
respond to a note in a newspaper, a note in a book and an interview in a magazine. Write
a summary in the space provided, trying to integrate the most important information from
the three texts. Add a title to your summary.
Note in a newspaper
In the coasts of Ireland, a dolphin named Fungy has been living for 14 years. This dolphin
is quite friendly and playful; he likes to swim near people and allows them to scratch his
belly and rub his back. There are numerous stories from people who say that Fungy starts
to do something when he notices that someone is very sad or worried. In this situation the
dolphin approaches them, jumps or puffs as if to make them feel that he understands their
grief and is with them.
Note in a book
People who study the behavior of animals comment that there are many cases of pets that
have such a close relationship with their owners, that they can perceive their master’s mood
and react to comfort them. However, it is difficult to explain how a dolphin that lives in the
coasts of Ireland perceives the suffering of unknown people and reacts to calm the pain of
those humans who have contact with him.
Interview in a magazine
(In the home of a child with brain paralysis who swam with Fungy)
Reporter: We know that you swam with Fungy the dolphin, and this made you a lot of
good. Tell us about this.
Child: Before swimming with Fungy, it was very hard for me to do my exercises so that
I could be able to walk, in spite of other people’s help. I did not feel like playing,
learning, or talking with my friends. I was very sad.
Reporter: How did Fungy help you?
Child: I never thought that an animal could understand what was happening to me, and
when the dolphin pushed and pushed me, like saying “move on!”, I understood
that it was up to me to do things in order to achieve progress.
Write your summary in the space below:

___________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Sylvia Rojas-Drummond has been a Professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico
for over 30 years, where she directs the Laboratory of Cognition and Communication. She obtained
her PhD in Experimental and Developmental Psychology at the University of Tennessee, USA. She
has received the ‘Fulbright Scholar’ and ‘Distinguished Professor’ awards. Her main areas of re-
search include: interaction and discourse for knowledge construction; teaching, learning and devel-
opment; oracy and literacy school practices, and the effects of the implementation of educational
innovations to enhance these processes in primary schools. She has numerous international publica-
tions in these areas.
Nancy Mazón works as a Lecturer in the Faculty of Psychology at the National Autonomous Univer-
sity of Mexico. She has worked there for over 15 years. Her research interests include the develop-
ment of oral and written communication in primary school children as well as the implementation of
educational programmes to enhance these processes.
Karen Littleton is Professor of Psychology in Education at The Open University, UK where she is
Director of The Centre for Education and Educational Technology. Her research explores the sig-
nificance of dialogue for children’s development and learning. She is the Editor of the International
Journal of Educational Research and Editor in Chief of the Routledge ‘Psychology in Education’
book series. Her most recent book (with Christine Howe) Educational Dialogues was published by
Routledge in 2010.
Maricela Vélez has been a researcher at the National Pedagogical University of Mexico for over 20
years. Her research interests include the development of language and cognition in primary school
children, including oracy and literacy processes. She also works on the design and implementation of
teacher professional development programmes to enhance classroom-based teaching–learning pro-
cesses, with a specific focus on oracy and literacy.
Received 18 November 2011; revised version received 16 January 2012.
Address for correspondence: Sylvia Rojas-Drummond, Director of the Laboratory of

Cognition and Communication, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Av. Universidad 3004, Copilco-Universidad 04510, Coyoacán, Mexico, DF,
Mexico. E-mail: silviar@unam.mx

Developing Reading Comprehension

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Reading Comprehension

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Research in Reading, ISSN 0141-0423 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01526.

Developing reading comprehension

Sylvia Rojas-Drummond and Nancy Mazón

Sociocultural perspectives for understanding oral and written communication

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Literacy, reading and writing

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

The context of the study: the ‘Learning Together’ educational programme

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Intervention and data collection

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Pre-test TTI-G x̄ = 2.61 x̄ = 2.68 .123 >.902 6.644 × 10−02 .5391

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

The benefits of the dolphin

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Test of textual integration – group version (TTI-G; translated from Spanish).

Write your summary in the space below:

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

Received 18 November 2011; revised version received 16 January 2012.

Address for correspondence: Sylvia Rojas-Drummond, Director of the Laboratory of

Copyright © 2012 UKLA

You might also like