Running head: EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 1

Effects of Collaborative Strategic Reading in Informational Text Comprehension

William Judd

Franciscan University of Steubenville

 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 2

Introduction

Teaching middle school is not an easy profession. Teachers are responsible for students

passing standardized tests, for giving students the opportunity to reach educational goals and

helping students grow intellectually. However, these responsibilities become much more onerous

when students do not have the reading skills they need to excel. According to McFarland et al.

(2018), in 2017 63% of students in the eighth grade were less than proficient in reading

(McFarland et al., 2018). From my own experience doing field experience in middle schools,

many students do not even read a text and simply try to answer comprehension questions by

searching for words in a passage or by just guessing. This dilemma is particularly frustrating for

teachers because students at the middle school age are expected to be able to start learning new

information independently, and it is not unusual for students to be expected to learn

independently through reading texts. The skill that keeps students engaged in the process of

reading so that they can find meaning in a text is comprehension. According to Reutzel and

Cooter, comprehension, in terms of Schema Theory, is the process of constructing meaning from

text by extracting information from the text the student is currently reading and using previous

knowledge (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012).

As a pre-service science and math teacher, the text that my future students are going to be

reading in my classes will most often be informational text. Informational text can be more

difficult for students than other kinds of text. Informational text may focus on a subject matter

which is unfamiliar to students and may use words to which students are unaccustomed. In this

article, information text is text which primarily imparts information and ideas, rather than a

story, as is in a narrative text.

 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 3

Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) is a multi-strategic activity which can be used to

help students with their comprehension. First created by Klingner, Vaughn, Boardman, and

Swanson, CSR involves before, during, and after strategies to help students with their

comprehension (Klingner, Vaughn, Boardman, & Swanson, 2012). CSR is a collaborative

activity which involves small groups of students working together. As stated by McCown and

Thomason, the first strategy is “Previewing,” which allows students to make connections with

previous learning experiences, by making predictions, by brainstorming, by analyzing text

structure, and/or by analyzing text structure (McCown & Thomason, 2014). This strategy is also

useful for comprehension because students can be less intimidated by a text before they read it.

The Click and Clunk strategy allows students to recognize when they can comprehend the text,

and when they cannot (Reutzel and Cooter, 2012). According to a study by Denton et al. (2015),

this skill of self-monitoring, also known as metacognition, is one skill which students who

adequately comprehend text display (Denton et al., 2015). The strategy, “Get the Gist,” focuses

on finding significant elements of the text and understanding it as a whole (McCown &

Thomason). In addition, the elaborative interrogation found in the last step of CSR gives students

the opportunity to connect information into schemas (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012).

Purpose

Because informational text is difficult for students, and CSR is an activity for assisting

with comprehension, perhaps CSR would be effective in improving comprehension in students.

Perhaps CSR affects students differently or helps students with only certain aspects of

comprehension. How does CSR affect middle schoolers’ comprehension of informational text?

My study used a control group and a treatment group to test my research question. The

treatment group responded to prompts before, during, and after reading the text with discussion
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 4

and written responses. After reading the texts and completing the prompts, these students

completed the assessment. The control group read the text without the prompts and completed

the same assessment as the treatment group. The independent variable of this study was the use

of CSR and the dependent variable was the students’ performance on the comprehension

assessment.

I expected that CSR would positively affect students’ comprehension of informational

text. From my own experience, learning activities which engage me are those which affect me

most. I thought that the level to which CSR would engage students would correspond to how it

affects students’ comprehension. Because CSR in this study both required students to discuss and

write, I thought students would be very engaged in the process. I hoped my finding could help

provide me with information with which I could formulate strategies to help students with

standardized testing, since I considered the reading passage and assessment questions to be

mostly similar to those in a standardized test.

Review of Literature

Recognizing the differences between satisfactory and poor comprehenders can be a

difficult task. Teachers could assume that students have difficulty with comprehension because

they lack necessary skills such as motivation, attention, or vocabulary. However, Denton et al.

(2015) ran a study to actually test how satisfactory and poor comprehenders read. How do

adequate and poor comprehenders differ in applied conscious text processes, and how do genre

and text difficulty affect these two kinds of comprehenders? Three hundred and ten seventh,

ninth, and eleventh-grade students participated in the study and were assigned to read either a set

of narrative or informational texts. Based upon a comprehension pretest, each student in these

groups was then either categorized as an adequate or poor comprehender and was given an
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 5

accessible and challenging text according to their comprehension skills. Each text was written

with size 14 font on standard printing paper with a prompt line following the first sentence.

Students read the text orally and paused their reading when they encountered a prompt line and

orally responded. Responses to prompts were transcribed verbatim and utterance breaks were

also noted. Student’s responses were classified as acceptable or unacceptable in an inference

generation category, as well as a self-monitoring category. Using canonical discriminant

analysis, the poor comprehenders of both genre group were found to be significantly less able to

self-monitor than the adequate comprehenders, specifically in the informational text group. Poor

comprehenders in the information text group had significantly lower scores in inference

generation than in any other sub-group. Text difficulty had a greater effect on adequate

comprehenders than on poor comprehenders (Denton et al., 2015).

What I found most worthy about this article was its purpose. Understanding the

differences between the processes used by satisfactory and non-satisfactory comprehenders is a

vital step in finding intervention which will help non-satisfactory comprehenders gain the skills

they need to comprehend text adequately. This topic is essential for reaching students who

struggle most with comprehending; however, IEP and ELL students were excluded from this

study to control factors which could affect comprehension, aside from reading processes. As the

article recommends, future research should study what skills would be best to teach students who

have difficulty with comprehension. I thought that future research could also study more

processes than inference generation and monitoring. This was one aspect of the study which I

thought could have definitely been improved upon. However, this article is helpful for my own

research because I now know that generating inferences is a process I should focus on.
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 6

Group dialogue and activities are great tools for helping students comprehend narratives,

especially when each student can bring a unique contribution to the discussion. Literature circles

are a fantastic way to engage students because each student is assigned a specific role in a group.

Since informational text is a genre that is being used more commonly in elementary school,

Diane Barone and Rebecca Barone (2016) wanted to explore using literature circles to help

students read informational text. How do literature circles affect students’ comprehension when

reading informational text? Sixty-one fifth grade students who were familiar with literature

circles participated in this study. Students were broken up into 10 groups and each member was

given a role. These roles were cycled so that students could practice skills associated with each

role. These roles were the director, who developed questions based on the chosen text with

which to ask and engage the group; the inventor, who created a text feature such as a glossary,

graph, or chart; the mapper, who used a graphic organizer to share pertinent information; the

word wizard, who found new and interesting vocabulary from the text and shared their

meanings; the nonfiction fact finder, who collected three facts from the reading to share; and the

visual viewer, who drew an image connected to the group’s reading. Each group decided which

texts would be their first and second choices and their teacher, Rebecca Barone, was able to

accommodate for requests of each group. Barone used literature circles in this manner for two

weeks and found that students not only enjoyed performing these roles, but the group members

often synergistically participated in each other’s roles. Barone found that students seemed to

want to hear each other’s contributions and often referred to the text for clarification. Students

also seemed to have enjoyed the informational texts that they read because students immediately

borrowed books that other groups read, once the study was over and the books were returned to
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 7

the school library. In addition, students explored a greater variety of words, which in turn helped

them better understand the text they were reading (Barone & Barone, 2016).

I found this article very enjoyable to read because it explored a collaborative method that

I was unfamiliar with, but which seems to be very helpful in the classroom since every student is

given a role in which he or she can contribute. In addition, the integration of graphic organizers

and text features was an impressive way to enrich group reading. One thing that was lacking in

the article was that I could not find a direct answer to the research question, which was

specifically referring to how students’ comprehension was affected by literature circles. Instead,

the authors simply provided the conclusion that this particular activity worked well for students

when reading informational text. Perhaps a future study could include a pretest and a post-test

which could measure students’ growth in reading comprehension. In addition, future studies

could try using literature circles for informational text with students in middle school or high

school, and determine whether this collaborative method is as effective as it is in late elementary

school.

Comprehension of informational text is not simply a capability that students have or do

not have. Perhaps by learning certain skills, students can find a greater connection with what

they are reading and thus obtain a deeper understanding of their text. McCown and Thomason

(2014) sought to help students learn these skills. How do the strategies in CSR help students’

comprehension and metacognitive awareness when reading informational text? The design of

this study was quasi-experimental pretest and posttest non-equivalent control group. The

participants for this study were fifth-grade students in the Georgia Department of Education. The

experimental and control groups were in separate schools but were otherwise similar except for

the experimental group using the collaborative learning techniques for the purposes of this study.
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 8

The collaborative learning technique for this study was called Collaborative Strategic Reading

(CSR). This technique consisted of the four strategies: Preview; Click and Clunk; Get the Gist, in

which students try to find the key points of the text; and Wrap Up, in which ask and answer their

own questions. Students in the experimental group used all four strategies throughout the study.

The two groups received their predetermined instruction techniques at least three times a week

for three months. Participants took the QRI-5, CRCT, and MARSI posttests for evaluation. After

analyzing the posttest scores of the participants, the only significance found concerning

comprehension was found on one test in the QRI-5 expository reading comprehension scores.

There was no significance found in metacognition skills between the groups.

I thought that the article was worthy because the authors were honest about the

conclusions of their research, even though the results were unexpected. At the same time, I was

surprised and dismayed that there were only a few differences between the experimental group

and the control group. When I first read about CSR, I thought that it was a great concrete way to

teach students skills which would increase their comprehension. However, the author made a

great point of acknowledging that three months may have not been enough time to make a

significant difference in reading comprehension and metacognition. I am glad that the

researchers used MARSI tests, which simply involves students evaluating themselves on a 5-

point scale. When researchers only use standardized tests or other similar tests, some students

may have low scores because of anxiety. However, one thing that was difficult about this study

was that the tests included no free response questions, which could have offered valuable insight

into how students were using the four steps of CSR when reading. I think that despite the

unimpressive results, more studies should explore CSR to test its efficacy. Future research

should also examine this comprehension strategy in high school since at this time many students
 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 9

begin to take more advanced classes with difficult informational text. In addition, future research

could also engage students in free response questions to understand how students are progressing

through the CSR process. I am glad that I reviewed this article because I learned a lot about

techniques which seem to have the potential to help students’ comprehension. I might use a

strategy similar to CSR in my own action research.

Methodology

Participants

Participants were 24 eighth grade students in an urban environment. I collected data from

these participants because these were the students I was working with during my early field

experience at my University. Students in the first-period class were my treatment group. Fifteen

students in the class participated in the treatment group, while the rest of the students were doing

other schoolwork. Students sat in groups of three or four to work silently so that they could

discuss the packet which I made. Nine students in the second-period class participated as

participants in my control group. These students were sitting together in groups of three or four,

due to the seating setup of the classroom in which they were in, rather than the nature of the

packet they were to complete.

Treatment Group

Each member of the treatment group used packets which included text with questions

prompting discussion and written responses, as well as a comprehension assessment. The packets

were printed with size 16 font to ensure that the text would be easy to read. Instructions were

clear in directing students to read the text silently and to converse and write responses to

prompts. The text which I selected was an excerpt from “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag,” by
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 10

Henry Petroski. This work was one of many Common Core text exemplars of informational texts

related to science, mathematics, and technical subjects for students in grade 6-8.

The questions I used followed the CSR format. The packet began by prompting students

to preview the text by predicting what the article would be about based on the title and by

defining a word in the title. The packet then presented the opening remarks of the text and the

first few sentences of the body of the text. The packet then instructed students to discuss words

or ideas in which they felt confident or found interesting (Clicks), as well as ideas or vocabulary

which they found confusing (Clunks). The section on “Clunks” prompted students to ask their

classmates for help understanding the confusing element in the text. The packet then presented

the rest of the body of the text, as well as the conclusion. The next prompt required students to

write the most significant ideas which they found in the text. The last question prompted each

student to ask their classmates a question which would stimulate discussion.

After handing out the packets, I walked around the classroom to observe how students

were working through the packets and if they had questions. I noticed that some students worked

through the packet in a way that seemed to show they were exerting little effort, while other

students worked diligently and had engaging discussions with their peers.

Control Group

Each member of the control group used a packet which included the same Common Core

text and comprehension assessment as the treatment group. The control group’s packets had no

prompts. I made the packet with the idea that students would work individually, and the packet

had instructions that students would read silently. The packets were printed in 16 sized font to

ensure that the text would be easy to read.

EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 11

As I walked throughout the classroom, I noticed that students actually wanted to discuss

the reading and the assessment questions, even though the activity was intended to be silent. I

intervened when students started discussing because I wanted to analyzed how these students

performed without collaboration.

Assessment

The comprehension assessment at the end of both the treatment and control groups’

packets had a prompt for a written summary of the text. I included a summary in the assessment

to determine whether students would be able to determine and recall what ideas and details

would be both relevant to the text and significant (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). The summary was a

free response question because I wanted to assess each student’s individual meaning that they

constructed. The assessment also had a multiple-choice question requiring students to identify

the incorrect statement (fact check), a multiple-choice question requiring students to identify the

purpose of the text, and a multiple-choice question requiring students to interpret a comparison

made in the concluding sentences in the text.

I decided to have the assessment and the text in the same packet so that students could

refer back to the text if they needed further clarification from the text in order to answer

assessment questions. From my own experience, standardized tests which focus on

comprehension and other reading skills allow students to refer back to the reading passage in

order to answer test questions. In addition to understanding how CSR helps comprehension in

general, I hoped this study could inform me on how to help students with standardized tests.

Findings

I wanted to examine the treatment groups level of engagement in their discussions, so I

went through the packets that the treatment group filled out and read their written responses. In
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 12

general, I found that students were somewhat engaged with the text. To evaluate students’

engagement, I rated written responses based on accuracy, how much effort the responses

displayed, and whether the students’ writing responded to all elements of each prompt. Written

responses which displayed no effort or misrepresented the text were rated as 0s. Written

responses which showed at least minimum effort but did not fulfill all requirements in the

instructions or reflected some minor confusion were rated as 1s. Those written responses which

accurately represented the text, fulfilled all requirements in the instructions, and showed

adequate effort were rated as 2s. All students answered the two preview questions satisfactorily

with similar answers. Six students did not include the elements of their peers’ discussion in the

“Clicks” prompt and five students did not record how their peers’ helped them understand their

“Clunks.” Most students, on the whole, did not seem to be very engaged in the elaborative

interrogation portion of the packet. Students did not engage in prior knowledge which is

necessary for elaborative interrogation to affect comprehension (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012).

However, 80% of the treatment group was able to identify significant elements from the text.

I rated summaries which misrepresented the text with incorrect information and/or lacked

significant information as a 0. Summaries which contained significant information but did not

adequately summarize the main idea of the passage or contained misinterpreted information were

rated as a 1. I rated summaries which covered the main idea and displayed correctly interpreted

information as a 2. One of the most significant differences was in this section of the assessment.

I think the reason for this was because students in the treatment group were prompted to find

significant information in the text. This prompt may also be the reason why the majority of

students’ scores in the treatment group were rated as 1s and not 2s. Many students in this group
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 13

were able to find significant facts in the treatment group but were not able to summarize the text

as a whole.

Another part of the assessment which showed a significant difference between the control

and treatment group was the multiple-choice question which required students to determine the

purpose of the text. There was a 58% difference in students who selected the right answer

between these two groups. One potential reason why so many of students in the treatment group

performed well on this section could be because some students mentioned purpose in their

discussions. Three students mentioned discussing purpose in their groups. Unfortunately, I do

not know whether these students were in one group or if these students sat in three different

groups, so that up to three small groups, potentially 12 students, discussed purpose.

One surprising finding was that students in the control group scored less than 10% higher

than the treatment group. Unfortunately, three students in the treatment group misinterpreted the

wording of the fact check multiple-choice question and selected more than one answer. These

three students’ answers to these questions were not taken into account in finding the percentage

of students who correctly selected the right answer to this question. Nevertheless, the CSR

process did not show an effect on students’ ability to understand remember or find facts in the

text and interpret comparison.

 EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 14

Students who selected the correct multiple choice answer

90%
80%
80%

70%
Percentage of students

60% 55%

50% 47%

40% 33%
30% 25%
22%
20%

10%

0%
Fact Check Question Purpose Question Comparison Question

Control Treatment

Summary Assessment Scores of Summary Assessment Scores of

Control Group Treatment Group
Scored 0
Scored 2 13%
22% Scored 2
27%

Scored 1
11%

Scored 0
67%

Scored 1
60%

Scored 0 Scored 1 Scored 2 Scored 0 Scored 1 Scored 2

EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 15

Recommendations

One limitation of my research was that there were an uneven number of students in the

control and treatment group. Originally, I had an equal number of students in each group, but on

the day I had planned to hold my study, a number of the students were absent. If I had more

students in my control group, my results would have more accurately shown the affect that CSR

has on reading comprehension. In addition, if I were able to hold my research with several other

relatively similar control groups and treatment groups, I would have stronger findings.

However, my data shows that CSR helps middle school student identify significant

elements in informational text and helps students identify the purpose of text. My literature

reviews show that collaborative strategies can sometimes be helpful for students’ comprehension

of informational text. In addition, during-reading strategies can be helpful for students because it

allows them to self-monitor and make inferences.

One element of the assessment that I would recommend changing for future similar

studies would involve separating the text from the assessment. Perhaps the proctor could collect

the text and then hand out the assessment so that students would have to rely on memory to

answer the written response and multiple-choice questions. These findings could be used in

conjunction with my own findings in this article to determine how the CSR strategies help

students form memory structures.

Before I did the study, I thought I could use my findings to inform myself how to help

students with standardized tests. However, I realized afterwards that this study would not be able

to be used for this purpose because an element of my research question was about how a

collaborative activity affects comprehension. Even though the CSR process involves students

working individually at certain points, collaboration is an integral part of CSR, which students
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 16

cannot usually engage in when taking standardized tests. If a teacher or researcher was

intentionally trying to find ways to help students with reading comprehension on standardized

tests, he or she would need to change the methodology. In a future study, a teacher or researcher

could use an activity similar to CSR which has before, during, and after strategies, but does not

include collaboration. Students could fill out a packet similar to the one I used in this study

except with instructions not to collaborate.

To ensure that students follow the CSR activity appropriately, students may need more

assistance than they received in my study. From looking at the elaborative interrogation written

responses, many students were not sure what kind of questions they should be asking each other.

In addition, several students did not write a response to their “Clunk,” which makes me wonder

if their classmates ever helped these students with their confusion. Even though my instructions

in the packets were very clear, perhaps further explanation could have ensured that students

would better engage in the strategies of CSR. Future studies could better explain CSR to students

through modeling each strategy or by practicing the strategies in the classroom before

conducting the study.

Future studies should focus on wording which is appropriate for the participants. After

conducting the study, I realized that the reason why a few students were confused about one of

my assessment questions was because of the way in which I worded the question. Although

formal writing is expected in a research study, colloquial language may be more appropriate for

middle-aged students to understand.

Another way that future studies could better study the effects of CSR and similar

collaborative activities is through recording the groups students are in. Being able to understand

which students discussed what subjects would be very helpful in studying written responses to
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 17

prompts and performance in the assessment. From reading through the treatment group’s

packets, I had the impression that some groups were more engaged than others. Tracking

engagement of groups, as well as what students in each group discussed collectively would allow

teachers or researchers to make more conclusions on how discussion assists students in their

comprehension.
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 18

References

Barone, D., & Barone, R. (2016). “Really,” “Not possible,” “I can’t believe it”: Exploring

informational text in literature circles. Reading Teacher, 70(1), 69–81.

Barth, A. E., & Elleman, A. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a multistrategy inference

intervention for middle-grade struggling readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing

Services in Schools, 48(1), 31–41.

Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., … Carter, S.

(2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders

reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research

Quarterly, 50(4), 393–416.

Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading

instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research

Quarterly, 48(1), 9–26.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A, & Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it!: Boosting

comprehension with collaborative strategic reading. Jossey-Bass

McCown, M. A., & Thomason, G. B. (2014). Informational text comprehension: its challenges

and how collaborative strategic reading can help. Reading Improvement, 51(2), 237–253.

McFarland, J., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Barmer, A., Cataldi, E. F., Mann, F. B., & Ossolinski, M.

(2018, May 23). The Condition of Education 2018 (T. Nachazel & W. Smith, Eds.).

Ramsay, C. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2015). Reading perspective: Can it improve middle school

students’ comprehension of informational text? Journal of Educational Research, 108(2),

81–94.
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 19

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2012). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the

difference. Pearson.
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 20

Appendix A

Follow these instructions in order.

1. Based upon the title, “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag,” What do
you think this text will be about? Discuss with your classmates and
write one sentence about what your group said.

2. What is evolution? Discuss with your classmates and write one

sentence about what your group said.

3. Read the beginning of the passage silently:

Petroski, Henry. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.” American
Scholar 72.4 (Autumn 2003).
That much-reviled bottleneck known as the American supermarket
checkout lane would be an even greater exercise in frustration were it
not for several technological advances. The Universal Product Code and
the decoding laser scanner, introduced in 1974, tally a shopper’s
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 21

groceries far more quickly and accurately than the old method of
inputting each purchase manually into a cash register. But beeping a
large order past the scanner would have led only to a faster pileup of
cans and boxes down the line, where the bagger works, had it not been
for the introduction, more than a century earlier, of an even greater
technological masterpiece: the square-bottomed paper bag. The
geometry of paper bags continues to hold a magical appeal for those of
us who are fascinated by how ordinary things are designed and made.
Originally, grocery bags were created on demand by storekeepers, who
cut, folded, and pasted sheets of paper, making versatile containers
into which purchases could be loaded for carrying home.

4. Find an idea or a statement in the text that you have read so far
that clicks (just makes a lot of sense to you or something you find
interesting). Share your “Click” with your peers and write it down
below as well as one of your group member’s “Clicks.”
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 22

5. Find an idea or word in the text that is a “Clunk” (something that

doesn’t make sense to you) and share it with your table mates to
try to understand the “Clunk.” Write down your “Clunk” and how
your table helped you understand the text.

6. Finish Reading the Passage Silently:

The first paper bags manufactured commercially are said to have been
made in Bristol, England, in the 1840s. In 1852, a “Machine for Making
Bags of Paper” was patented in America by Francis Wolle, of
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. According to Wolle’s own description of the
machine’s operation, “pieces of paper of suitable length are given out
from a roll of the required width, cut off from the roll and otherwise
suitably cut to the required shape, folded, their edges pasted and
lapped, and formed into complete and perfect bags.” The “perfect
bags” produced at the rate of eighteen hundred per hour by Wolle’s
machine were, of course, not perfect, nor was his machine. The history
of design has yet to see the development of a perfect object, though it
has seen many satisfactory ones and many substantially improved ones.
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 23

The concept of comparative improvement is embedded in the paradigm

for invention, the better mousetrap. No one is ever likely to lay claim to
a “best” mousetrap, for that would preclude the inventor himself from
coming up with a still better mousetrap without suffering the
embarrassment of having previously declared the search complete. As
with the mousetrap, so with the bag.

7. Identify and write what you thought were the most significant or
important ideas in the passage.

8. Write a question that you can discuss with your classmates about
the text. Go around your group and have each group-member ask
their question and discuss possible answers to the questions.
Write down your question, one answer to your question below,
and something you learned from someone else’s question.
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 24

9. In two or three sentences, summarize “The Evolution of the

Grocery Bag.”

10. Which of the following statements is not supported by the texts?

a. Without the paper bag, a decoding laser scanner would not

be able to prevent the congestion at check-out lines.

b. The first manufactured paper bags were made in Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 25

c. Paper bags have been manufactured for over 150 years

d. Paper bags have been used for over 150 years

11. The purpose of this text is to

a. Explain how paper bags are made

b. Discuss how paper bags are useful modern-day grocery

stores

c. Explain the history of an item used in modern times

d. Predict how paper bags will evolve

12. The last paragraph ends the passage by

a. Claiming that one day someone will develop the best tool.

b. Explaining the usefulness of grocery bags by comparing

them to mousetraps.

c. Admitting that there will never be a perfect design.

d. Mousetraps will not be further developed

EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 26

Appendix B

1. Silently read the following passage

Petroski, Henry. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.” American Scholar

72.4 (Autumn 2003).
That much-reviled bottleneck known as the American supermarket
checkout lane would be an even greater exercise in frustration were it
not for several technological advances. The Universal Product Code and
the decoding laser scanner, introduced in 1974, tally a shopper’s
groceries far more quickly and accurately than the old method of
inputting each purchase manually into a cash register. But beeping a
large order past the scanner would have led only to a faster pileup of
cans and boxes down the line, where the bagger works, had it not been
for the introduction, more than a century earlier, of an even greater
technological masterpiece: the square-bottomed paper bag. The
geometry of paper bags continues to hold a magical appeal for those of
us who are fascinated by how ordinary things are designed and made.
Originally, grocery bags were created on demand by storekeepers, who
cut, folded, and pasted sheets of paper, making versatile containers
into which purchases could be loaded for carrying home. The first paper
bags manufactured commercially are said to have been made in Bristol,
England, in the 1840s. In 1852, a “Machine for Making Bags of Paper”
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 27

was patented in America by Francis Wolle, of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

According to Wolle’s own description of the machine’s operation,
“pieces of paper of suitable length are given out from a roll of the
required width, cut off from the roll and otherwise suitably cut to the
required shape, folded, their edges pasted and lapped, and formed into
complete and perfect bags.” The “perfect bags” produced at the rate of
eighteen hundred per hour by Wolle’s machine were, of course, not
perfect, nor was his machine. The history of design has yet to see the
development of a perfect object, though it has seen many satisfactory
ones and many substantially improved ones. The concept of
comparative improvement is embedded in the paradigm for invention,
the better mousetrap. No one is ever likely to lay claim to a “best”
mousetrap, for that would preclude the inventor himself from coming
up with a still better mousetrap without suffering the embarrassment
of having previously declared the search complete. As with the
mousetrap, so with the bag.

2. In two or three sentences, summarize “The Evolution of the Grocery

Bag.”
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 28

3. Which of the following statements is not supported by the texts?

a. Without the paper bag, a decoding laser scanner would not be
able to prevent the congestion at check-out lines.
b. The first manufactured paper bags were made in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania
c. Paper bags have been manufactured for over 150 years
d. Paper bags have been used for over 150 years

4. The purpose of this text is to

a. Explain how paper bags are made
b. Discuss how paper bags are useful modern-day grocery stores
c. Explain the history of an item used in modern times
d. Predict how paper bags will evolve

5. The last paragraph ends the passage by

a. Claiming that one day someone will develop the best tool.
b. Explaining the usefulness of grocery bags by comparing them to
mousetraps.
c. Admitting that there will never be a perfect design.
d. Mousetraps will not be further developed
EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 29

Raw Data

Treatment Group Scores

EFFECTS OF CSR ON COMPREHENSION 30

Control and Treatment Group

Assessment Scores