Author says i say

Running head: THE AUTHOR SAYS/I SAY READING STRATEGY 1
The Author Says/I Say Reading Strategy
Kyle A. Guzik
The College of William & Mary

THE AUTHOR SAYS/I SAY READING STRATEGY 2
The Author Says/I Say Reading Strategy
Research Summary
The Author Says/I Say (ASIS) strategy uses a chart to guide students in constructing
meaning from a written text (Beuhl, 2014). A teacher using this strategy should begin by
introducing the ASIS chart. The chart has four sections that elicit five comprehension processes:
“questioning (‘I wonder…’), determining importance (‘The author says…’), making connections
to prior knowledge and inferring (‘I say…’), and synthesizing new understandings (‘And so…’)”
(Buehl, 2014, p. 76). The teacher should then model the strategy with a think-aloud (Buehl,
2014). The teacher should talk his or her way through the text and model how his or her thinking
is modified as if in conversation with the author. The students should then be provided with
multiple opportunities to practice use of the strategy (Buehl, 2014). The chart can be modified to
focus directly on argumentation. In this variation the “I wonder...” section is removed so that
there are three sections: “The author argues…,” “I say…,” and “And so….” The ASIS strategy
can be further modified through a variation called the “Say Something Read-Aloud” (Buehl,
2014, p. 77). Students are placed in pairs and one student reads a paragraph from the text. The
other student listens to the reader and then says something about the text. This could include a
comment on interesting material, making a prediction, wondering about something stated,
identification of confusing information, or a relation of information in the paragraph to personal
experiences or background knowledge (Buehl, 2014). The students take turns switching roles as
they read the text. This simulates the act of conversation between the reader and the author. The
advantages of the ASIS strategy include the following: “students are continually reminded that
reading involves a mental conversation between an author and a reader,” “students are provided
with cues that guide them into accessing implicit layers of meaning that necessitate inferential

thinking,” and “students verbalize their understandings as they sum what they have gained from
their reading.” This paper will identify insights gained from three studies that relate to the
cognitive processes involved in the ASIS strategy for the purpose of explaining why the strategy
will aid students in learning.
The Say Something Read-Aloud variation of the ASIS strategy engages students in
dialogue about the text. Ketch (2005) provides a framework for understanding how engaging
students in conversation aids comprehension. Ketch (2005) explains “students actively engaged
in the conversation process can, over time, become reflective, critical thinkers” (p. 8). Ketch
would agree with Buehl that effective implementation of conversation in the classroom requires
teachers to model cognitive strategies and provide opportunities to practice their use. If
implemented correctly, conversation can foster acquisition of comprehension (Ketch, 2005).
Ketch (2005) explains that readers make connections during the process of
comprehension. Ketch (2005) explains, “it is these connections to the text, to the world, to
background information, and to experiences (schema) that make readers feel like the characters,
connect to the story, or remember similar experiences” (p. 8). In addition, readers ask questions
while reading. According to Ketch (2005), “readers come up with their own questions about
what they have read. These questions guide the reader to search for additional information.
Students should be asked, on a regular basis, to become aware of their own questions” (p. 9).
Determining importance is also key to comprehension. Readers sort through text and take note
of relevant information while disregarding extraneous facts (Ketch, 2005). Ketch (2005)
elaborates, “conversation about what is important helps students sort through all the hierarchy of
information presented in the text” (p. 9). Ketch has not conducted formalized studies but
defends her arguments with “observations, intuitions, reflections, reading, conversations, action

research,” and thoughts gained from 30 years of experience working with kindergarten through
sixth-grade students. For Ketch (2005) conversation is a mechanism which enriches and refines
one’s knowledge: “hearing ideas discussed orally from another’s point of view increases
understanding, memory, and monitoring of one’s own thinking. The oral process helps students
clarify and solidify their thoughts” (p. 10). These benefits suggest a direct course of action:
“classrooms should be places where students think out loud and are asked by the teacher to share
why and how they came to their beliefs” (Ketch, 2005, p. 10).
Ketch provides specific observational evidence for the important role of conversation in
comprehension. Ketch (2005) visited “a classroom of fifth-grade students in a school with a
98% free and reduced-cost lunch classification” (p. 11). Ketch observed an effective social
studies teacher who made his students aware of cognitive strategies such as making connections,
determining importance, and asking questions, and modeled effective use of these strategies in
conversations about a text. The students studied the industrial revolution and read a passage
about the emergence of assembly lines in businesses. After reading the passage, a student
“inferred that that the United States was changed due to workers lining up for work” (Ketch,
2005, p. 11). The teacher led a group discussion in which students raised their hands and
explained why they agreed or disagreed with this inference. They students then discussed the
text in pairs. The ensuing conversations allowed the students to clarify and answer questions
about the text. Some students related the text to their personal experiences; they had parents or
relatives who worked on assembly lines in factories. The opportunities for reflection afforded by
the conversations allowed the students to develop a much more nuanced understanding of the
role assembly lines played in influencing the development of American industry. Ketch (2005)
notes “the teacher could have easily told the students the meaning of the passage but they would

not have engaged in the thinking process or practiced how to use the cognitive strategies to gain
meaning” (p. 11). Implementation of conversation had the added benefit of engaging all students
in the class in the lesson.
The Say Something Read-Aloud strategy is a specific method for developing student
conversation about a text. This strategy is effective because the act of conversation allows
students to use specific cognitive strategies. Instruction that incorporates conversation increases
student engagement and allows students to comprehend a text with greater depth as well as an
independence that develops as a consequence of the students figuring out the meaning of the text
on their own rather than by passively receiving meaning explicitly provided to them by the
teacher. The basic ASIS strategy can be modified to encourage conversation by having students
work in pairs and discuss their reasons for responding to each section in the chart.
Better understanding of the effective implementation of the ASIS strategy can also be
gained by making comparisons between this strategy and a strategy that uses similar cognitive
processes: the Observation/Inference (OI) chart. Nokes (2008) identifies the OI chart as a tool
that is effective for increasing student comprehension of nontraditional texts. Nokes (2008)
described how archeologists read the text of unusual polished bones to make the inference that
the bones were polished by the rough interiors of prehistoric cooking pots. These archaeologists
made careful, detailed, and specific observations. They then “used their observations and their
background knowledge to make logical inferences that explained what they observed” (Nokes,
2008, p. 538). In the “Author Says…” section of the ASIS strategy, students make observations
about facts or claims presented by the author. In the “I say…” section students use their
background knowledge to relate the content of the text to their personal experiences. In the
“And so…” section students relate the author’s ideas to their own; this process may include the

creation of inferences. Students make inferences when they “read between the lines to sense the
underlying meanings that are conveyed implicitly by a text” (Nokes, 2008, p. 540). Buehl gives
limited guidance on the specifics of how students should complete each section of the ASIS
chart. One way to make this strategy more meaningful for the purposes of comprehension is to
encourage students to explicitly develop inferences.
How can this been done effectively with the ASIS chart? First teachers should be aware
of the following relationships between good readers and the use of inferences. Proficient readers
base their inferences on information found in the text (Nokes, 2008). In addition, proficient
readers draw on appropriate background knowledge when making inferences (Nokes, 2008).
Proficient readers also make inferences that are parsimonious, that is, they find simple
explanations for what they observe in the text (Nokes, 2008). These three relationships give an
idea of what teachers should look for when evaluating student inferences found in an ASIS chart.
Teachers should also consider how the advantages of the OI chart can be similar to those
of the ASIS strategy. The OI chart provides visible reading instruction (Nokes, 2008). This
means that the OI chart allows a teacher to provide explicit instruction in making inferences.
The OI chart helps students think deeply about a text (Nokes, 2008). In addition, the OI chart
helps students become metacognitive (Nokes, 2008). It can be argued that the ASIS strategy can
have similar advantages if teachers encourage students to describe observations in the “Author
says…” and “I say…” sections, and to create inferences in the “And so…” section. This will
require the students to use similar cognitive processes as the students would use when filling out
the “Observations” and “Inferences” sections of the OI chart. However, this will only occur if
the teacher models how to make inferences in the “And so…” section. Students should not use
the “And so…” section to simply restate and summarize their observations. The OI chart

provides instruction on making inferences, models the making of inferences, and provides an
opportunity for guided practice, and independent practice of making inferences (Nokes, 2008).
The ASIS strategy can also perform these functions.
Nokes provides evidence for the effectiveness of the OI chart by describing its use in a
class he taught on civil rights. Nokes (2008) had his students create an OI chart after viewing
Norman Rockwell’s 1967 painting Moving In. Nokes describes his students’ observations of the
painting:
Students observe that this painting shows a moving van in a neighborhood with
well-groomed yards and nice houses. Furniture is being moved out of the van. In
front of the van a well-dressed African American boy and girl stand facing two
white boys and a white girl who are in their play clothes. The white children are
leaning forward, with curious stares. The black children are leaning backward
with curious stares. The black boy is holding a baseball mitt. One of the white
boys also holds a baseball mitt and is dressed in a baseball uniform. The black
girl is holding a white cat. One of the white boys is holding a black dog on a
leash. (Nokes, 2008, p. 548)
The class infers that “the black children are moving into a white, upper class neighborhood,”
“there appears to be some tension between these new children and the children who live in the
neighborhood,” and that “this tension may be based on race” (Nokes, 2008, p. 543). Nokes then
directs the class to use their observations and inferences about the narrative of the painting to
make inferences about the state of race relations in this time period. The students can then use
their charts to write a paragraph “explaining what lessons this painting has for us today and how
it applies to our lives” (Nokes, 2008, p. 544). Like the OI chart, the Author Says/I Say strategy

uses a simple chart format. However, both strategies can be used to document comprehension of
complex topics in a text. Both strategies can be paired with a summative writing task to further
expand comprehension.
Teachers who use the ASIS strategy to explore an author’s arguments should be mindful
of the way readers understand and remember arguments. Britt and Larson (2002) found that
presentation order affects the reading rate and later recall of simple two-clause arguments. “An
informal argument entails providing one or more reasons (datum or premise) with the intent of
persuading the audience to accept the truth of a refutable conclusion (claim)” (Britt & Larson,
2002, p. 795). Britt and Larson found that it makes a difference whether the claim or the reasons
supporting the claim are presented first.
Britt and Larson (2002) conducted three experiments with undergraduate students at
Northern Illinois University. They created sample text with either a claim-first argument
(“recycling should be federally mandated because recycling saves the environment”) or a reason-
first argument (“because recycling saves the environment, recycling should be federally
mandated”) (Britt & Larson, 2002, p. 798). The students read a series of these arguments on a
computer that showed them one argument at a time. The students were then “given a surprise
cued recall task to measure how the presentation order of the arguments influenced their memory
of the argument elements” (Britt & Larson, 2002, p. 798). Britt and Larson found it took the
students significantly less time to read the arguments ordered with the claim first. They were
also able to remember more about the arguments they had read when the arguments were ordered
claim first. According to Britt and Larson (2002) “this finding supports the hypothesis that the
representation of argumentative texts is focused around a claim” (p. 801).

In their second experiment Britt and Larson (2002) tested “whether the difference
between argument presentation orders was the result of the reason being syntactically
subordinated by manipulating the explicitness of the connection between the argument elements”
(p. 802). They needed to check whether the presence of a connector such as “because”
influenced participants reading of the arguments. An example claim-first argument with this
condition controlled reads “recycling should be federally mandated. Recycling saves the
environment” (Britt & Larson, 2002, p. 803). An example reason-first argument reads
“recycling saves the environment. Recycling should be federally mandated” (Britt & Larson,
2002, p. 803). Britt and Larson were then able to investigate presentation order alongside
connector explicitness (the inclusion or exclusion of the connector). Britt and Larson (2002)
again found that claim-first arguments were read faster and better remembered.
In their third experiment Britt and Larson (2002) examined “whether the quality of a cue
can influence claim identification” (p. 804). Consider the difference between (1) the national
highway speed limit is 65 miles per hour; (2) the national highway speed limit is probably 65
miles per hour; (3) the national highway speed limit should be 65 miles per hour (Britt & Larson,
2002, p. 804). The cue word “should” indicates the presence of an argument and Britt and
Larson wanted to see if this activated the participants’ argument schemata. The authors created a
series of argument statements to investigate the relationship between argument order (reason-
first vs. claim –first order) and claim marker (with “should” vs. without “should”) (Britt &
Larson, 2002). Britt and Larson (2002) found that “when claims are marked with a modal that
clearly identifies it as a claim, arguments are read more quickly and recalled better in claim-first
order” (p. 806). An important conclusion drawn from analysis of the three experiments is that
“argument processing is initiated by the parsing of a clause or sentence. If any semantic,

syntactic and pragmatic cues are present to signal that a claim has been encountered, then an
argument schema is activated” (Britt & Larson, 2002, p. 807).
This study has important implications for teachers using the ASIS strategy to investigate
arguments. The study indicates that readers will be more likely to remember the details of an
argument when the argument is presented claim first. Teachers should therefore encourage
students completing the “Author argues…” section to find the authors claim first and then list
any reasons that the author gives to support the argument. The chart should also be filled out
from left to right with “Author argues…” first, followed by “I say…” and then “And so….” This
procedure makes it more likely that students will remember and comprehend arguments they
have read in the text by activating the students’ schemata for argument processing.
Results
The lesson was successful in that it provided evidence of the class’ reactions to the
reading strategy; however, all of the objectives of the lesson were not met. It took the class
significantly longer to read and respond to the warm up activity than anticipated. In fact, the
warm up activity took up the bulk of the class. Many students started to read the Saisselin article
but none completed the reading and worked on the ASIS chart for the main reading. Evidence
for the students’ responses to the reading strategy comes from student completion of the
handouts that were intended to be a warm up.
The students conducted interesting conversations about the reading. Student engagement
was high. For the “Author Says…” section, the students selected quotes from the text where
they felt that the author was making a claim. An example student response: “Q: Haven’t you
simply called this glass of water an oak tree? A: Absolutely not. It’s not a glass of water
anymore. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is an oak

tree.” The text features numerous claims. The students consistently found sections of the text
where the author was making a claim. In the example above the author claims that the work of
art is an oak tree regardless of what term is used to describe the piece. The students were able to
identify and record claims made by the author independently.
The students also worked independently to record their responses to the author’s claims
in the “I Say…” section. Student responses in this section reveal a diversity of opinions about
the author’s claims. Students gave opinions about the nature of art. One student wrote: “the
artist sees it as artwork, since it took creativity to see things others cannot. Creativity is what art
is about.” Some students questioned the basic premise of the work: “I don’t know how the artist
sees an oak tree. He says he has changed the physical substance but I don’t see a change.” A
few students expressed limited support: “it’s obviously a glass of water, but only an oak tree in
the artist’s mind.” Some students demonstrated an understandable confusion regarding the
concept: “the artist did not create the oak tree. He created the glass of water that changed into
the oak tree. Therefore, neither the oak tree or the glass of water exist other than in the fictional
visual representation.” The primary purpose of the piece is not visual representation for aesthetic
appreciation; this response may be an example of a student misinterpretation of the piece. Many
students agreed with some of the basic premises of the art work and were able to generate
sophisticated justifications for their agreement: “the fact that the artist says that perceiving this
glass of water as the particular oak tree he sees is unperceivable and inconceivable enforces the
concept that something has changed about the glass and now the onlooker will perceive this glass
differently.” The students were able to meaningfully voice their opinions about the authors
claims independently.

The students were able to work with their partners to explain what they had learned from
reading the text in the “And So…” section. Some students created inferences of varying quality.
Compare “the artist has the power to bend and twist the title and piece of work and how the artist
uses these influences commands how the viewer will perceive his/her work. The viewer is then
influenced by these influences and their perception of things after viewing the work will be
changed” with “things take different forms. The name and physical appearance can give all
other glasses a stigma, but what’s in a name, as Shakespeare said. Just as a name doesn’t define
a person, a physical appearance does not define a form.” Both responses read between the lines
to identify implicit meanings in the text but the second response is much more specific than the
first. The second response also effectively relates the reading to another text. Many responses to
this section functioned more as summaries: for example, “art is whatever the maker/viewer
perceives it to be. Art is a conceptual idea,” and “that is why he continues to say that the glass of
water is no longer water but an oak tree.” The students’ responses generally depicted what they
had learned from the text. The range of responses indicate that most students took time to create
meaningful reflections. The instructions asked the students to describe what they had learned.
The instructions could be improved to describe what inferences are and to give examples. This
would most like increase the number of student responses that generate inferences.
Although the students worked productively, the class time passed quickly and the class
did not have time to finish reading the article that was the intended main topic of the lesson. It
was useful to have a PowerPoint presentation prepared as it allowed me to address some of the
main ideas of the reading in a short period of time. The strategy also motivated students to share
their responses with the class. In my previous visit most students were reluctant to raise their
hands and contribute to a discussion. The ASIS strategy allowed the students to practice talking

about the text and this may have given them more confidence to volunteer to respond in a class
discussion.
The strategy reminded me of the importance of teachable moments. As a teacher I am
sometimes too inflexible. I feel a strong desire to stick to the procedures of the lessons I so
carefully plan. However, while using this strategy I saw that the class was more or less
uniformly engaged in high level conversations about the nature of art. For that reason I chose to
allow the students to proceed at their own pace.
Conclusions
Implementation of this lesson revealed that the ASIS strategy takes a significant amount
of instructional time. At the same time, the strategy provides an important framework for
directing conversation. Because the students had a specific writing task to complete they were
motivated to engage each other and the teacher in conversation about the text and the big
questions it raises about the nature of art.
The background research suggests multiple ways to improve the strategy. Students
should be provided with explicit instruction on the nature of inferences and how they can be
generated from the text. This will allow the students to think more deeply about the text.
Teachers should model the process of creating inferences from the text if they want students to
be able to do this independently.
Students can also be made conscious of their own metacognition about argumentative
text. Students should be made aware that the structures used to phrase arguments influence their
ability to read the text and remember what it is about. Students should be encouraged to focus
on claims made in the text first and the reasons that support those claims second. Students

should be aware that the structures they use to analyze a text influence their comprehension of
the text.
Implementation of the strategy also demonstrated the power of student conversation
about a text. The students were able to make connections, ask questions, and determine
importance by engaging one another in dialogue. If the students had been directed to complete
their charts completely independently they might have been able to complete the task faster,
however there would have been less motivation to consider the meaning of the text in depth, and
therefore a likely drop in comprehension.
This lesson focused on only one variant of the ASIS strategy, the one concerned with
argumentation. The strategy can also be used with informational text and can more directly
encourage questioning by including the “I wonder…” section. The Say Something Read-Aloud
variant encourages even more conversation. If the results of this lesson provide any guide it is
likely that teachers should plan to spend a significant amount of instructional time when using
this strategy.
Instructional time is a precious resource. Some teachers may find it unacceptable to
deviate from a lesson plan because students are having conversations, regardless of how fruitful
those conversations may be. These teachers may recognize that student conversations can
achieve desirable learning outcomes but still feel pressure to cover as much content as possible.
The need to cover specific content should not be ignored; however, the ASIS strategy does not
have to be set aside by teachers with these concerns. One option is to align the reading as much
as possible to the instructional goal of the lesson. Teachers should go over the reading in
advance and determine what sections could be most usefully explored during class time through
student conversations. Teachers could limit the time spent using the strategy so that students

only discuss one specific section of the reading. The students can be informed that they have a
specific amount of time to complete one cycle of the strategy. The strategy could then be
repeated, perhaps as a warm-up, over multiple days. If students have time to practice the
strategy it seems likely they will learn to do it more efficiently.
At the same time, a principle benefit of this strategy is that it encourages students to
engage in productive conversation about a text. Teachers should recognize the value of a
strategy that motivates students to discuss a text for a specific purpose. Students produce a
product that documents their conversations. The strategy provides a framework for a more
complex class discussion. The teacher can alternate paired or small group discussion with whole
class discussion and ultimately this helps students learn how to find the meaning in a text
independently. Reading and understanding a text is like having a conversation with the author,
the ASIS strategy acknowledges this fact and is therefore an instructional strategy that is
authentic to the way students read and comprehend.

References
Britt, A. M., & Larson, A. A. (2003). Constructing representations of arguments. Journal of
Memory and Language, 48(4), 794-810. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. (4th ed.). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association
Craig-Martin, M. (1973). An Oak Tree. Retrieved from
http://www.michaelcraigmartin.co.uk/early-works/0lexq7wn6fey0y9nedl5qxn6ps6b2l
Ketch, A. (2005). Conversation: The comprehension connection. The Reading Teacher, 59(1), 8-
13. doi:10.1598/RT.59.1.2
Nokes, J. D. (2008). The Observation/Inference chart: Improving students' abilities to make
inferences while reading nontraditional texts. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51(7), 538-546.
Saisselin, R. G. (1976). Still-life paintings in a consumer society. Leonardo, 9(3), 197-203.

Author says i say

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Author says i say

Similar to Author says i say (20)

More from Kyle Guzik

More from Kyle Guzik (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Author says i say