Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)



First Advisor

Earl H. Cheek, Jr


The purpose of the mixed multiple case study was to explore scaffolding at home and school. Strategic instructional procedures, metacognitive strategies use, and homework procedures were examined during reading instruction and home assistance for progress. The participants are as follows: (a) The three principals setting the school's instructional tone; (b) The three reading teachers providing modeling, coaching, and encouragement during lesson presentation and feedback; (c) The six students (two fifth graders in each of the three reading classrooms) depending upon assistance for comprehension task completion; and (d) The six family members assisting with homework. The school sites were selected with stratified sampling of low, average, and high socioeconomic status. The students were selected for their nonsuccessful comprehension task completion and were expected to transfer metacognitive strategies use from discussion during lesson presentation to reading comprehension assignments; thus, demonstrating a self-monitoring procedure. The principals recommended teachers who had similar approaches to teaching reading. The teachers recommended students who needed to strengthen metacognitive strategies for reading success. The students were administered five reading attitudinal scales for metacognitive awareness or usage and reading interests. The classroom observations focused on specific strategic procedures for the metacognitive components that resulted in reading scaffolding. The quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments were both researcher-designed and simple effects matrices for single subject and cross-cases analysis and interpretation. Quantitative analysis consisted of frequency distributions, medians, standard deviations, percentages, means, and percentiles. The principals, teachers, and family members were administered questionnaires for the interview process which was analyzed with the Spradley Developmental Research process (Spradley, 1980). Consent for the study and IRB assurances were gained through personal contact with the subjects. Pseudonyms protected the identity of school sites and subjects. A principals' meeting began with a procedural overview and discussion of the study's logistics. Each teacher's and student's interventions (days 4--6 of the study) informed the participants of instructional components. All subjects were treated with respect and courtesy. Adjustments were made according to participants' needs, and no risks occurred.