What We Are

Project CRISS Principles and Philosophy

Theoretical Base. To enhance student learning, CRISS employs several concepts drawn from cognitive psychology and brain research. First, students need to be aware of how they learn. They must self-monitor their learning to identify which strategies are the most effective for a given set of learning materials. Second, students must be able to integrate new information with prior knowledge. And third, students need to be actively involved in their own learning by discussing, writing, and organizing. These behaviors need to be taught by all teachers—across grade levels and curriculum areas—to maximize the acquisition of course information.

The CRISS Principles and Philosophy are designed to develop thoughtful and independent readers and learners. Fortunately, during the last 20 years, there has been explosive growth in understanding the processes which lead to successful readers. The following key principles drawn from this cognitive and social learning research provide students with a Framework for Learning.

  1. The concept of metacognition is the foundation of Project CRISS. Students who achieve well in school have heightened metacognition and a repertoire of self-regulatory behaviors. They know when they have understood, and they know how to employ a variety of strategies to attain meaning (Paris, Wasik, and Turner, 1991; Meichenbaum and Biemiller, 1998).

  2. Background knowledge is a powerful determinant of reading comprehension. Readers interpret text based on their own background or prior knowledge. Researchers tell us that integrating new information with prior knowledge is at the heart of comprehension. The richer our background, the richer is our comprehension. The more we bring to a reading situation, the more we can take away (Pearson and Fielding, 1991; Pressley, 2000).

  3. Reading for specific purposes positively influences comprehension (Narvaez, 2002). Also, orienting students to read or listen for specific information in a text influences what they recall (Pichert and Anderson, 1977; Anderson and Pichert, 1978). To be strategic, metacognitive readers, students must set their reading goals before reading. In this way, they can easily bring out appropriate background knowledge and monitor their learning to assure they have reached their comprehension goals.

  4. Good readers are actively involved in making sense of their reading. Learning happens when students actively process information through writing, talking, and transforming by using a variety of organizing strategies (Duke and Pearson, 2002; Keene and Zimmerman, 1997). Whenever we teach, we think about ways to actively involve our students. Moreover, thinking about active involvement has led to changes in our own conceptions about teaching. We aren't on stage very much, giving our lectures or asking hundreds of questions. Instead, our students are engaged in their learning and, in the process, they learn content more effectively.

  5. Students need many opportunities to discuss with one another. Learning is an active, constructive process and a social, interpersonal process. Work in brain research highlights the importance of students interacting with one another. Students create meaning by transforming information and by building their own connections. Discussion is essential to these constructive processes (Muth and Alvermann, 1999). We live in a social world and learn by interacting with others (Goldenberg, 1993; Wilkinson and Silliman, 2000). By pooling our understanding and talking about what we think we know, we develop deeper understandings.

  6. Students need many opportunities to write about what they are learning. Writing is integral to all learning (Santa and Alvermann, 1991; Blachowicz and Ogle, 2001). Each of us writes to understand. It is a way of knowing. If we can explain things to ourselves and others, we can claim knowledge as our own. Writing forces organization. It helps us to see clusters of information and hierarchies of ideas. It also helps us become metacognitive. Because it is such a powerful vehicle for learning and thinking, it is integrated into practically every component of Project CRISS.

  7. Good readers know a variety of ways to organize information for learning. The past thirty years of research in cognitive psychology, as well as more recent research about brain physiology, have demonstrated that learning and memory depend upon transforming information (Jensen, 1998). The more organized, the better remembered. Through Project CRISS, students learn flexible ways for processing information, including strategies such as Power Thinking, selective underlining, two-column notes, and concept mapping. They learn multiple ways to be strategic, metacognitive readers and learners.

  8. Good readers and writers have an intuitive understanding of the author's craft. They know how text structure aids comprehension. Strong research supports this idea that knowledge of expository and narrative text structures plays an important role in comprehension (Goldman and Rakestraw, 2000).

  9. Students learn to become strategic when teachers teach these processes directly through explanation and modeling. Most students do not know how to learn. We have to show them how. When introducing a new strategy, we need to take the stage. We show, tell, model, demonstrate, and explain not only the content, but the process of active learning. Duffy and his colleagues learned from their research that the process of teacher modeling and guided practice leads to pronounced effects in the improvement of comprehension (2002).

  10. Students come to understand by attacking a topic in a variety of ways. Our conception of understanding goes beyond knowing the specific information in a piece. It is a matter of being able to do a variety of "thinking" activities with a topic, such as explaining, finding examples, producing evidence, generalizing, and representing the topic in a new way (Perkins and Blythe, 1994). CRISS strategies are designed to help students build understanding. We want our students to carry out a variety of learning activities that not only show understanding of a topic, but aid students in advancing a topic beyond what they already know.

  11. Given that all the pieces of the Principles and Philosophy need to be in place for learning to happen for students, CRISS developed a Framework for Teachingthe CRISS Strategic Learning Plan—to help teachers organize their lessons. The plan guides teachers to pick significant content, set clear goals and objectives, assess student learning, plan for instruction through the effective use of strategies, and reflect (both teachers and students) on the learning process.

Project CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies (CRISS) promises to give you a "grocery store" of ideas which "operationalize" the above principles and philosophy. Choose those that make the most sense for you. You aren't going to put everything in the cart. As you walk down the aisles, think about how these ideas can be adapted to your own situation. Add your own ingredients. Change strategies to fit your various domains, whether it is a science lab, a hands-on activity in mathematics, a field trip, or a short story. Take what we offer. Shape it. Mold it. Give students control, so they leave your classroom with knowledge and power over their own learning.

Back to top

References

    Anderson, R. C. and J. W. Pichert. 1978. Recall of previously unrecallable information
  • following shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
  • 17:1-12.

    Blachowicz, C. and D. Ogle. 2001. Reading comprehension: strategies for independent
  • learners. New York, NY: Guilford Press

    Duffy, G. 2002. The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. Block and M.
  • Pressley (eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices (p. 28-41).
  • NY: Guilford Press.

    Duke, N. and P. D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading
  • comprehension. In A. Farstrup and J. Samuels. What research has to say about
  • reading instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Goldenberg, C. 1993. Instructional conversations: promoting comprehension through
  • discussion. The Reading Teacher. 46(4):316-326.

    Goldman S. and J. Rakestraw. 2000. Structural aspects of constructing meaning from
  • text. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
  • Research, Vol III: 311-335. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Jensen, E. 1998. Teaching with the brain in mind. VA: Association for Supervision and
  • Curriculum Development.

    Keene, E., and S. Zimmerman. 1997. Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a
  • Reader's Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Meichenbaum D. and A. Biemiller. 1998. Nurturing Independent Learners: Helping
  • Students Take Charge of Their Own Learning. Mass: Brookline Books.

    Muth, K.D., and D. Alvermann. 1999. Teaching and learning in the middle grades.
  • Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Narvaez, D. 2002. Individual differences that influence reading comprehension. In C.
  • Block and M. Pressley(eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-based practices.
  • 158-175. NY: Guilford Press.

    Paris, S., B. Wasik, and J. Turner. 1991. The development of strategic readers. In M.
  • Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research,
  • Vol II:609-640. NY: Longman.

    Pearson, P. D. and L. Fielding. 1991. Comprehension instruction. In M. Kamil, P.
  • Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol
  • II:815-860. NY: Longman.

    Perkins, D. and T. Blythe. 1994. Putting Understanding Up Front. Educational
  • Leadership, 51(5):4-7.

    Pichert, J. W. and R. C. Anderson. 1977. Taking different perspectives on a story.
  • Journal of Educational Psychology, 69 (4):309-315.

    Pressley, M. 2000. What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L.
  • Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
  • research, Vol III:545-561. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Santa, C. and D. Alvermann (Eds.) 1991. Science learning: processes and applications.
  • DE: International Reading Association.

    Wilkinson, L. C., and E. R. Silliman. 2000. Classroom language and literacy learning. In
  • M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
  • Reading Research, Vol. III: 337-360. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  • Associates.

Back to top
 

© Copyright 2008. Project CRISS. Helping Teachers Teach and Learners Learn.
A Production of SnowDog Web Development.
877-502-7477 (toll free)
or by e-mail
Contact us by phone or e-mail and we will
point you in the right direction.