Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
KWHHL:
A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION
OF THE KWL
AUTHOR
ABSTRACT
Struggling readers at the middle level need help using reading strategies
effectively in order to become strategic readers. Middle level teachers
need both to model and to teach how to use a variety of reading strate-
gies that will help struggling readers become independent. This article
deals with the development of the KWHHL strategy. The KWHHL was
used to engage eighth-grade struggling readers with the informational text
that they were reading in the classroom. Not only did the KWHHL
provide scaffolding while they were learning to use comprehension strate-
gies but it also promoted the use of differentiated learning.
STRATEGIC READING
Good readers use many strategies routinely while they are reading to help
them comprehend the material. However, poor readers either do not
know about or do not use these comprehension strategies effectively. It is
up to the middle level teacher to help readers, especially those who are
struggling, to become comfortable with reading strategies that make sense
57
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL SZABO
to them (Headley & Dunston, 2000; Ivey & Baker, 2004; Sweet & Snow,
2002). Consequently, it is important that the middle level teacher include
instruction in how to become a strategic reader.
However, there are also several limitations to KWL. First, it does not
encourage reflective thinking of background knowledge to determine if
what students “know” is correct. Second, it does not encourage devel-
oping questions during reading. Third, it does not encourage vocabulary
growth. And finally, it does not encourage students to look for an
emotional link or experiential link to the material being read.
Since the KWL’s appearance, several variations have emerged. Carr
and Ogle (1987) developed the KWL Plus, which incorporated semantic
mapping and summarizing procedures. Reid, Forrestal and Cook (1989)
developed the KWHLS, which helped students answer the questions,
“How will I learn it and work with others?” and “How will I share the
information I have learned?” Bryan (1998) developed the KWWL so that
students could answer the question, “Where can I learn this?” Moore,
Alvermann, and Hinchman (2000) developed the KWLS, which was
58
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
SZABO KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL
BACKGROUND
Development of the KWHHL was done while I was the reading specialist
teacher at the intermediate level. The intermediate building was the
eighth-grade center for the School District. All of my students were eighth
grade struggling readers who were placed in my Title I reading classes.
They were at least three years behind grade level according to the end-of-
the-year reading placement test given to them by the district at the end of
their seventh grade year.
During the school year, I explicitly taught how to use various reading
strategies using their science and social studies textbooks. For their inde-
pendent reading time, they chose to read narrative stories or short easy
informational text. I chose to teach reading using their content textbooks,
because the majority were having difficulty reading and understanding
them and were not doing well in their other classes.
59
60
Figure 1. Modified KWL Strategy
K W H H L
What do you know? What do you want to Head Words Heart Words What have you learned?
know?
(This is done before reading (Questions are developed by Head words are words that Heart words tell us what you When we read information
the text. Brainstorm by you both before and while confuse you. (When you read, feel. (Sometimes what we books, we read to learn.
thinking about what you reading in order to set a you may find words that you read makes us think of other Therefore, we need to think
already know about the topic purpose for reading) do not understand. Write the things that have happened to about what we read and
and write below.) sentence and underline the us – good and bad. Write what we already know criti-
word.) down the emotional word and cally
KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION
Positive Ideas/Thoughts: Before Reading: Head Words Heart Words & Why New Information Learned
1. 1. 1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3. 3.
Negative Ideas/Thoughts 4. 4.
1. While Reading 5. 5. “Stayed the same”
2. 1,
2. “Correct but added to”
Neutral Ideas 3.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
tion. Therefore, I decided to modify the KWL framework, using what I was
learning while reading current research on reading, comprehension and
vocabulary development.
61
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL SZABO
questions I or the whole class had developed, and they were not devel-
oping questions of their own while they were reading.
Therefore, I decided to divide the “W” column in half – labeling the
top half “before reading,” which contained the questions that were devel-
oped either by me or by the whole class. To encourage my students to
continually think about the text they were reading, the bottom half was
labeled “while reading.” Each student was instructed to record the ques-
tions he/she developed during reading. The students were encouraged to
leave room to write down the answers as they were found in the text.
62
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
SZABO KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL
groups to do the assignments. That way, they could help each other with
word meaning. For the second modification, I had each of them look at
their large list of words and choose only 3-5 words that they felt were
important for understanding of the text. Then, the third modification, had
us working as a whole class to develop a word wall using all the selected
words from the students. This allowed the students to share and compare
their words. Using this word wall became a great way to talk about and
review the words. It also helped to build the self-esteem of the students,
as they found that everyone contributed to the list, thus they were not the
“dummy” in the group.
63
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL SZABO
at relating the readings to emotions, they were on their own again. While
they worked independently, they were told to limit their responses to 2-3
emotional links. This helped them to understand how linking old experi-
ences to new material can make learning easier.
CONCLUSIONS
After using the KWHHL for a semester, I was excited, as I saw that the
learning experiences for these eighth graders were enhanced. The modifi-
cations seem to have worked, as all of my students had, to some degree,
benefited by using this modified format. First, they all started developing
their own questions. Moreover, by providing a place for question develop-
ment both before and during reading, the students said that they felt
forced to think of questions while reading to fill in the KWL worksheet, as
they did not want any empty spaces. While not optimal, this response was
acceptable, as I know that with repetition, the act of questioning while
reading will eventually become a habit.
Second, I believe that my students’ vocabulary had grown, as they
appeared to be more comfortable using their hard words both orally in
64
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
SZABO KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL
group discussions and in their journal writings. The hard words in the “H”
column provided a way to honor individual learning as it helped my
students to study words that were important to them in a meaningful way
(Katch, 2004). As the majority of the students choose different words, we
were able to use the word wall to study a variety of words in context and
students were able to help each other with the word meanings. As they
chose the words they wanted to learn and to add to the word wall, they
became engaged in the reading, which in turn increased their comprehen-
sion of the text (Juel & Deffes, 2004). They found that they did have some
control over their own learning and began to feel successful.
Third, my students did learn how to link the text to emotions and
experiences. Even though this was a difficult and frustrating task, they
persevered. Through class discussions, each student also found that
listening to others share how they linked their personal experiences to the
text helped him/her to understand and bring new meaning to what he/she
was reading.
So, as the year came to a close, I believed that the KWHHL was a
success. There was evidence of students’ growth not only through the tests
they were taking and the semester grades they were receiving but in the
oral and written language that they were using both in class discussions
and in their writing journals. Because they were forced to use the words
in a variety of ways, they claimed ownership of the words. However,
more importantly these struggling readers were starting to behave like
good readers. Continually being open to changing the format of the
KWHHL, as we encountered problems with its usage, allowed the
students to become comfortable with choosing and/or adapting strategies
that work best for them.
However, after developing and using the KWHHL, several questions
remain. First, what provides the most powerful vocabulary learning expe-
rience (choosing their own words, learning about peer’s words through
class discussion or preteaching of vocabulary words by the teacher)?
Second, although we know that one’s understanding is improved if the
reading is linked to past experience, can we become so involved in
finding emotional/experiential links to what is being read that we hinder
our understanding of the new material? Third, does using the KWHHL
enhance the learning of non-struggling readers?
REFERENCES
Allen, J. (2004). Tools for Teaching Content Literacy. Portland, ME: Stenhouse .
Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2004). Vocabulary lessons. Educational Leadership, 61,
66-69.
65
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL SZABO
Butcher, K., & Kintsch, W. (2003). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In: A.F.
Healy & R.W. Proctor (Eds.) Handbook of Psychology (pp. 575-595). NY: Wiley.
Bryan, J. (1998). K-W-W-L: Questioning the known. Reading Teacher, 51, 618-620.
Carr E., & Ogle, D. (1987). KWL Plus: a strategy for comprehension and summarization.
Journal of Reading, 30, 626-631.
Ciardiello, A. (2000). Student questioning and multidimensional literacy in the 21st
century. The Educational Forum, 64, 215-222.
Duke, N. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61, 40-44.
Ganske, K., Monroe, J., & Strickland (2003). Questions teachers ask about struggling
readers and writers. The Reader Teacher, 57, 118-128.
Graves, M., Juel, C., & Graves, B. (2003). Teaching reading in the 21st Century. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. (2004). Creating literacy: Instruction for all students in grades 4 to 8. Upper
Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Headley, K. & Dunston, P. (2000). Teachers’ choices of books and comprehension strate-
gies as transaction tools. The Reading Teacher, 54, 260-268.
Ivey, G., & Baker, M. (2004). Phonics instruction for older students? Just say no.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 61, 35-39.
Juel, C., & Deffes, R. (2004). Making words stick. Educational Leadership, 61, 30-34.
Karolides, N.(1997). Reader response in elementary classrooms: Quest and discovery.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Katch, J. (2004). The most important words. Educational Leadership, 61, 62-64.
Lubliner, S. (2004). Help for struggling upper-grade elementary readers. The Reading
Teacher, 57, 430-438.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary
grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Moore, D., Alvermann, D., & Hinchman, K. (2000). Struggling Adolescent Readers: A
Collection of Teaching Strategies. Newark, DE. International Reading Association.
Neubert, G., & Wilkins, E. (2004). Putting it all together: The directed reading lesson in
the secondary content classroom. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository
text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.
Reid, J., Forrestal, P., & Cook, J. (1989). Small group learning in the classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rhoder, C., & Huerster, P. (2002). Use dictionaries for word learning with caution.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 731-734.
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration. New York: The Modern Language
Association of America.
Schallert, D., & Martin, D. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and
students do in the language arts classroom. In: J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.
Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts (pp31-
45). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
66
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 34(3) SUMMER 2006
SZABO KWHHL: A STUDENT-DRIVEN EVOLUTION OF THE KWL
Sturtevant, E., & Linek, W. (2004). Content Literacy. OH: Prentice Hall.
Sweet, A., & Snow, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension: An inquiry
based case approach. In: C.C. Block, L.B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom
practices (pp. 17-53). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey Bass & International Reading Assoc.
Szabo, S. (2004). The KWL: A tool to help teacher candidates connect theory and prac-
tice. Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators, 8, 62-74.
Willner, E., Harden, C., Christensen, A., Kelly, K., Sowell, D., Kluth, P., Darmody-
Lathan, J., Lenters, K., & El-Hindi, A. (2003). Body parts reading: Giving your two
cents’ worth. The Reading Teacher, 56, 526-28.
67