










































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2024, Vol. 46(1), pp. 20–33 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.136 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

Research Article  

 
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Susan Green, District Literacy Specialist, Rock Hill Schools, Rock Hill, SC; email sgreen@rhmail.org. 
Dr. Maryann Mraz, Professor, Reading and Elementary Education Department, University of North Carolina at 
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC; email memraz@uncc.edu. 
 

The Effects of Question-Answer-Relationship 
(QAR) Instruction on Standardized Reading 
Comprehension Test Scores of Third-Grade 
Students 
 
Susan Green 
District Literacy Specialist, Rock Hill Schools, Rock Hill, SC 

Maryann Mraz 
Reading and Elementary Education Department, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC  

 
ABSTRACT 

Despite many school reform initiatives designed to ensure reading proficiency for all 
students, recent reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP) reveal that only 37 percent of fourth-grade students and only 34 percent of 
eighth-grade students performed at or above the proficiency levels measured in 
reading (NAEP, 2017). This quantitative study used a non-equivalent control group 
design to examine the impact of direct instruction of the Question-Answer-
Relationship (QAR) strategy on standardized reading test scores of third-grade 
students. It also specifically examined the impact of direct instruction of the QAR 
strategy on traditionally underserved students' standardized test scores. A two-way 
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted. Adjusted marginal mean post-
test scores in the group receiving treatment of the QAR strategy (64.580) were 
higher than the mean post-test scores of students who did not receive QAR 
instruction (56.382). Adjusted marginal mean post-test scores of students who did 
not receive QAR instruction (56.382). Adjusted marginal mean post-test scores of 
historically underserved students showed no significant differences (60.05 and 
60.90, respectively). In addition, adjusted marginal mean post-test scores of 
historically underserved and non-historically underserved students who received 
QAR instruction showed no significant differences (54.48 and 58.29). 

KEYWORDS 

reading 
comprehension; 
reading 
proficiency; 
metacognition; 
QAR (Question-
Answer-
Relationship); 
historically 
underserved 
students; 
standardized 
reading tests; 
high-stakes 
standardized 
testing 

 
espite many school reform initiatives designed to ensure reading proficiency for all 
students, recent reports from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
reveal that only 32 percent of fourth grade students and only 31 percent of eight grade 

students performed at or above the proficiency levels measured in reading (NAEP, 2022). Poor 
performance on standardized reading tests can result in negative consequences for students, 
including limiting student learning, tracking, creating negative self-perceptions, and contributing 
to increased drop-out rates (National Council of Teachers of English, 2014). Although the negative 
impacts of standardized testing are felt by all students, the impact is especially severe for 
historically underserved students and students of low socio-economic status (SES). Differences 
between the scores of students with different backgrounds, including ethnic, racial, gender, 
disability, and income, are marked on standardized tests. The National Center for Education 

D 

mailto:sgreen@rhmail.org
mailto:memraz@uncc.edu


Green & Mraz 21 
 

Statistics reported that by the end of fourth grade, African American, Latino, and poor students of 
all races are two years behind their wealthier, predominantly white peers in reading and math; by 
eighth grade, they have slipped three years behind, and by the twelfth grade they are four years 
behind (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). 

Demonstration of reading proficiency on standardized reading tests involves answering 
questions. Classroom reading instruction, however, does not always provide direct instruction in 
questioning skills. Raphael and Pearson (1985) contend that direct instruction in strategies for 
answering specific types of questions can advance comprehension. The Question-Answer 
Relationship (QAR) taxonomy was developed as a way for students to learn where information 
may be found to answer comprehension questions (Ezell et al., 1996). QAR is a way for students 
to understand that the answer to a question is directly related to the type of question asked. QAR 
categorizes questions according to where the answers can be found. In the Book questions will be 
literal because the answer will be contained in the text. In my Head questions will be inferential 
because the answer will require information that is not contained in the text (Cummins et al., 2012). 
This method of categorizing questions according to their answer source is intended to support 
comprehension (Kinninburg & Prew, 2010).  

QAR is a valuable, well-known strategy that can be used to transport students to think 
deeply and analytically about text and prepare them for standardized testing while still focusing 
on higher-level thinking (Raphael & Au, 2005). Educators work to guide students to become more 
tactical thinkers by helping them understand their metacognitive processes. In the QAR 
framework, students analyze the question-answer relationship while becoming more aware of their 
metacognitive strategies as a step toward better reading comprehension (Raphael & Pearson, 
1985). Research has shown that by grade three, children scoring significantly below the norm on 
achievement tests will continue to experience failure throughout their academic years (Ezell et al., 
1996). Today, standardized testing in literacy education is common. For test-takers, the ability to 
locate and recall information in the text is crucial for success on standardized tests. The primary 
deficiency of students’ responses on high-stakes tests is the failure to support answers (Gunning, 
2006). Students need to know how to return to a passage to locate details, verify information, and 
find text evidence to support their answers. Lower-level questioning involves students locating 
information directly stated in the passage. Higher-level questioning involves students drawing 
inferences and making conclusions from information in the passage. QAR can be adapted to test-
taking in assisting students in locating sources of information and differentiating questions based 
upon question-answer classification (Gunning, 2006). Students can learn which questions are 
textually explicit and know they can go to the passage and find the information they need. Students 
can learn which questions are textually implicit and know they must make inferences based on 
information contained in the passage. 

Research shows that one of the most effective ways to improve students’ achievement and 
to reduce the literacy achievement gap is to promote metacognition and higher-level thinking 
skills; however, historically underserved students and students of low SES are more likely to be 
instructed in basic skills rather than higher-level thinking processes (Gunning, 2006). QAR can 
serve as a vehicle to teach higher-level thinking skills while preparing students for high-stakes 
tests without sacrificing high-quality instruction (Raphael & Au, 2005). Studies have shown that 
direct instruction in metacognitive strategies, like QAR, assists students in reaching high levels of 
literacy. In this era of high-stakes standardized testing, it is imperative that teachers not only focus 
on skills to promote a high level of literacy development but also provide support for minority 
students as they navigate standardized assessments. QAR instruction, when used effectively in the 



22 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

context of high-quality literacy instruction, can increase metacognition and provide students with 
a high-level strategy to increase reading comprehension and reading proficiency. QAR instruction 
may also serve as a strategy to increase scores on standardized reading tests, which would promote 
increased educational opportunities for all. 
 
Purpose and Theoretical Framework 
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of direct instruction of the Question-Answer 
Relationship (QAR) strategy on standardized reading test scores of third-grade students. Findings 
were intended to provide analysis of standardized test scores and the impact of QAR as an 
intervention that will serve not only to increase standardized test scores but also increase 
educational opportunities for all students, including historically underserved students, whose 
educational opportunities have been greatly limited by poor performance on standardized tests. 
The following questions guided this study: 

Research Question 1: Do students who received QAR instruction do better on 
standardized reading assessments than students who do not receive QAR 
instruction? 
Research Question 2: Is the impact of the QAR treatment the same for historically 
underserved and non-historically underserved students? 
Prior research has focused primarily on QAR as a strategy to improve reading 

comprehension. There is little research directly linking QAR to improved standardized test scores 
(Cummins et al., 2012; Kinniburg & Baxter, 2012; Raphael & Pearson, 1985). This study 
examined QAR as a strategy to improve standardized test scores, which is critical in this era of 
high-stakes testing. Furthermore, there is no research focusing specifically on the effect of QAR 
on standardized test scores of historically underserved students or students of low socio-economic 
status (SES).  

This study used two theoretical frameworks to examine the impact of QAR as an 
intervention to increase standardized test scores and, in turn, educational opportunities. Piaget’s 
Cognitive Constructivism provides a strong framework for QAR instruction as an intervention to 
increase student knowledge and comprehension skills. Constructivism is a theory of learning 
anchored in the belief that students learn by actively constructing their own knowledge. It is an 
active process where learners construct meaning through a process of involvement and interaction 
with their environment. Cognitive constructivism focuses on the importance of the mind in 
learning and the development of cognitive structures in learners (Schcolnik et al., 2006). Piaget’s 
terms accommodation and assimilation are used to describe the interaction between mind and 
environment in the learning process. Learners use their cognitive structures to interpret the 
environment and assimilate new information into their existing cognitive schemas. Assimilation 
is limited to the extent of the existing schemas until cognitive structures modify based on new 
knowledge. Learning is continuous, and cognitive structures are always in process as the mind 
interacts with the environment (Mohapatra et al., 2015). 

Michel Foucault’s Power as Knowledge Theory provides a powerful lens through which 
to examine the effects of QAR as a strategy not only to improve the standardized test scores of 
third-grade students but also as a method of empowering all students through increased educational 
opportunities. Michael Foucault, a postmodern theorist, explored the ways in which political power 
was subtly invested in the mechanisms of knowledge in the modern world (Lemert, 2016). For 



Green & Mraz 23 
 

Foucault, power and knowledge were not seen as separate entities but as irrevocably connected. 
Knowledge is always an exercise of power, and power is always a function of knowledge.  

Foucault believed power was everywhere, dispersed throughout society, and able to shape 
individuals within society. He believed that power and knowledge were constructed by truths 
created within societies and that these truths became a standard set of rules accepted by societies, 
providing power to those who had the status to create these truths. Foucault believed that these 
truths were reinforced through societal institutions, like schools, but believed that these truths were 
not static but rather marked by a constant battle where individuals pushed the boundaries of power 
(Lemert, 2016).  

Although he believed that the relationship between power and knowledge was constraining 
and often limited behaviors, he also recognized the potential it also held to open new ways of 
thinking and behaving. Foucault recognized the potential for power to be a productive force in 
society, believing that power produces a reality that shapes individuals within societies through 
the attainment of knowledge (Lemert, 2016). Foucault viewed power as a fully socialized 
phenomenon and contended that power and the norms it creates are so embedded within our society 
that they tend to be unthinkingly followed by individuals who fail to fully realize the control it has 
over their daily actions (Lemert, 2016). He focused not only on the power of institutions and their 
ability to discipline but also on how these norms often create advantages for some while placing 
many at a great disadvantage. 
 
Relevant Literature  
Metacognition can be defined as the process of monitoring or regulating cognition or “thinking 
about thinking” (Wilson & Smetana, 2009, p. 20). It refers to the awareness of the cognitive 
process involved in thinking. Metacognition in reading is multifaceted. It involves constructing 
meaning from text, recognizing when comprehension fails, and choosing appropriate strategies to 
increase comprehension. Metacognition includes the readers’ knowledge of the reading process as 
well as command of the strategies related to reading (Raphael, 1982). 

Research studies have been conducted to explore the relationship between metacognition 
and reading proficiency. Early studies concluded that younger students and emergent readers had 
metacognitive deficits in reading (Myers & Paris, 1978). Subsequent studies explored the effects 
of classroom interventions that provided explicit instruction in reading strategies and reading 
strategy use to improve metacognition and reading comprehension. Students who received 
metacognitive training showed an increased awareness of effective reading strategies and 
improved performance on reading tasks (Cross & Paris, 1988). 

Reading is a metacognitive process. Within text comprehension, readers must not only 
derive meaning from text content but also integrate new knowledge with background information 
from the readers’ prior knowledge (Soodla et al., 2016) to engage in higher levels of thinking and 
understanding. The use of reading strategies plays an important role in reading and reading 
comprehension. Proficient readers can use a variety of strategies and can apply appropriate reading 
strategies in various contexts. Strong metacognitive knowledge allows readers to be successful on 
reading comprehension tasks because students engage in strategic reading. They know how and 
when to use good reading strategies that are most effective for the task (Soodla et al., 2016).  

The QAR taxonomy, first described by Pearson and Johnson (1978) and further developed 
by Raphael and Pearson (1985), is a metacognitive strategy used to improve reading 
comprehension by identifying questions according to their relationship to two primary sources of 
information: the reading material and the reader’s background knowledge. It requires students to 



24 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

think about the relationship between the text and the questions. Using the QAR strategy, students 
can understand the question type, which correlates with knowing how to find the information to 
answer the question. 

Raphael (1986) categorized QAR questions according to where the answers can be found. 
In the Book questions are literal because the answer is contained in the text. In My Head questions 
are inferential because the answer requires information not contained in the text. There are four 
types of question–answer relationships: 

• Right There: The answer can be found in one place in the text.  

• Think and Search: The answer can be found in a few places in the text.  

• Author and You: The answer cannot be found in the text. The reader must use 
information in the text and find the answer in their head. 

• On My Own: The answer cannot be found in the text. The answer is developed 
from the reader’s background knowledge. (Raphael, 1986) 

In the QAR framework, students analyze the question-answer relationship while becoming 
more aware of their metacognitive strategies as a step toward better reading comprehension 
(Raphael & Pearson, 1985). Research supports the use of QAR in elementary school classrooms 
to increase the answering abilities and the reading comprehension skills of students (Ezell, 1992; 
Ezell et al., 1996; Raphael & Au, 2005). The level of awareness that comes with the classification 
of questions leads to success in answering reading comprehension questions. 

While many studies explored QAR as a strategy to increase students’ reading 
comprehension skills, there are few that focus on QAR as a strategy to improve performance on 
standardized reading tests. Standardized tests require students to answer questions that are both 
textually explicit and textually implicit in nature, which require students to perform both lower-
level and higher-level thinking about text (Wang, 2006). Researchers are just beginning to examine 
QAR as a framework for comprehension instruction that would not only raise students’ reading 
comprehension skills but also improve students’ performance on standardized reading tests. In this 
era of high-stakes standardized testing, it is imperative that teachers not only focus on skills to 
promote a high level of literacy development but also provide support for all students as they 
navigate standardized assessments. 
 
Methodology 
A non-equivalent control group design was used for this study. Established third-grade classrooms 
were assigned to treatment or control groups. Students in both groups were pre-tested with a 
standardized reading test. Students in the treatment classrooms received six weeks of direct 
instruction in QAR. At the end of the six-week period, students in both groups were post-tested 
with a comparable standardized reading test. The research questions guiding this study were: 

Research Question 1: Do students who received QAR instruction do better on standardized 
reading assessments than students who did not receive QAR instruction? 
Research Question 2: Is the impact of the treatment the same for historically underserved 
and non-historically underserved students? 
The population of this study was comprised of third-grade students and teachers from eight 

third-grade classrooms in two elementary schools in a rural community in the south. The choice 



Green & Mraz 25 
 

of schools in this study was purposeful. The two schools share similar student achievement levels 
and demographics. Third-grade classrooms were chosen specifically for this study since third 
grade is the first year of standardized testing in the state. The first elementary school that 
participated in this study had a school population of 590 students, with an average of 19 students 
in each third-grade classroom. Overall achievement indicators showed that 68% of students had 
achieved proficiency on recent past standardized state reading assessments. Ethnicity data for 
School One reported that the school was comprised of approximately 76% white students and 24% 
historically underserved students (UCPS Enrollment and Ethnicity Data, 2018).  

The second elementary school that participated in this study had a school population of 604 
students, with an average of 17 students in each third-grade classroom. Overall achievement 
indicators showed that 70% of students had achieved proficiency on recent past standardized state 
reading assessments. Ethnicity data for School Two reported that the school is comprised of 
approximately 74% white students and 26% historically underserved students (UCPS Enrollment 
and Ethnicity Data, 2018). 

Four third-grade classrooms from each school participated in this study. All four third-
grade classrooms at School One were assigned as treatment classrooms, and all four third-grade 
classrooms at School Two were assigned as control classrooms. Teachers in treatment classrooms 
participated in professional development on the use of QAR in the classroom and adhered to a six-
week QAR instructional plan created by the researcher. Teachers completed daily rubrics during 
the six-week instructional period to self-report on their QAR classroom instructional practices. 
Teachers in treatment classrooms met with the researcher for two hours prior to the beginning of 
each of the four phases of the six-week intervention period for professional development, which 
included directives, clarification, and support. Teachers in treatment and control classrooms were 
not permitted to use QAR as an instructional strategy prior to this intervention. Teachers in control 
classrooms had agreed not to use QAR during this instructional intervention period.  
 
Data Collection and Analysis 
A non-equivalent control group design was used for this study, and instrumentation included pre- 
and post-assessments published by Triumph Learning, which included full-length assessments that 
mirror the format, question type, and rigor of the State End-of-Grade Standardized Reading 
Assessment. These provided students with grade-level appropriate text to answer standardized 
reading comprehension questions that require application of both lower and higher-order thinking 
skills. Test developers used the Common Core State Standards to determine text complexity when 
selecting reading passages and employed quantitative measures and guidelines for making 
qualitative decisions about passages and questions included in each standardized reading 
assessment (Triumph Learning, 2015). Both pre- and post-assessments contained six reading 
selections, which included fiction, non-fiction, folktale, and poetry passages with corresponding 
multiple-choice questions for each passage. The forty-four multiple choice questions included 
questions from three of the QAR question types: Right There, Think and Search, and Author and 
You. The final QAR question type, On My Own, is not included in pre- or post-assessments since 
the answer would be developed solely from the reader’s background knowledge and is not included 
on standardized reading assessments. The pre-assessment contained 44 multiple-choice questions: 
19 were text-based (Right There or Think and Search), and 25 were inferential (Author and You). 
The post-assessment contained 44 multiple-choice questions: 19 were text-based (Right There or 
Think and Search), and 25 were inferential (Author and You). 



26 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

 Principals at the two participating schools were provided with copies of both pre-and post-
assessments prior to the implementation of this study. Classroom teachers were provided with 
these pre- and post-assessments immediately prior to both assessments being administered in 
treatment and control classrooms. The pre-test assessments were administered by all eight third-
grade classroom teachers the week prior to the six-week instructional intervention period. The 
post-test assessments were administered by all eight third-grade classroom teachers the week after 
the six-week instructional intervention period. Students in all classrooms had to complete pre and 
post-assessments in one testing session, and no students, including Exceptional Children (EC) or 
English-Language Learners (ELL), were excluded. Pre- and post-tests were scored by the 
researcher. Students received credit for correct answers on both assessments, and scores were 
calculated. Quantitative data analysis involving descriptive and inferential statistics was used to 
examine student scores and draw comparisons between groups. 
 Research has shown that QAR is a strategy that can be successfully implemented within 
existing instructional reading frameworks when teachers are provided with adequate professional 
development in QAR. Teachers in treatment classrooms participated in a two-hour professional 
development session prior to pre-test measures. During this professional development session, 
teachers were introduced to the QAR strategy, and each question type was explained and 
discussed. Teachers made materials to be used in their classrooms during the six-week 
instructional intervention phase, which included anchor charts and question cards to be categorized 
according to the QAR taxonomy as part of daily QAR classroom instruction. In addition, teachers 
were provided with a detailed four-phase plan and materials that they used to guide instruction 
during the six-week instructional intervention period and a copy of Two for One: Using QAR to 
Increase Reading Comprehension and Improve Test Scores (Green, 2016), which provided further 
clarification of each phase. Each phase (Table 1) of instruction took place within current classroom 
reading instructional frameworks and included a minimum of six days of instruction in the use of 
QAR. The four teachers in the treatment classrooms met at the beginning of each phase of the six-
week instructional intervention period to discuss QAR classroom instructional strategies for each 
phase. Teachers were also provided with guidance and support from the researcher during these 
meetings to ensure classroom instruction would align with the instructional plan and at the end of 
each day of the six-week instructional classroom intervention of, QAR teachers completed a daily 
rubric where they self-reported on QAR classroom instruction. Teachers in treatment classrooms 
scored themselves on teaching behaviors for each phase of the instructional intervention. 
 
Table 1: Phases Within the Six-Week Instructional Period   

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 
Introduce and Model QAR Model QAR with 

Subcategories 
QAR with Just Right Text QAR with Sample Test 

Questions 

Teachers introduced the 
concept of QAR, 
explaining that answers to 
reading comprehension 
questions can be found in 
two places: in the text and 
in the reader’s mind. 

Teachers began 
instruction in all four 
categories of QAR; 
explaining the two 
categories of In the Book: 
Right There and Think and 
Search and the two 
categories of In my Head: 
Author and You and On 
My Own. 

Teachers modeled, using a 
shared text, how to 
complete the QAR graphic 
organizer provided by the 
researcher. 

Teachers modeled how to 
classify and answer 
standardized reading 
comprehension questions. 



Green & Mraz 27 
 

Teachers used the QAR 
anchor chart provided by 
the researcher to introduce 
only the two main 
categories of QAR: In the 
Book and In my Head. 

Teachers used a shared 
text and periodically 
stopped and asked 
questions to model 
classifying questions 
according to QAR and 
QAR vocabulary. 

Teachers had students 
complete the QAR graphic 
organizer with questions 
created around a reading 
passage provided by the 
researcher. 

Teachers provided students 
with a reading selection and 
students classified (labeled) 
and answered questions 
using the QAR strategy. 

Teachers used a shared 
text and periodically 
stopped and asked 
questions to model 
classifying questions 
according to QAR and 
QAR vocabulary. 

Teachers encouraged 
students to use QAR 
vocabulary to classify and 
develop questions on their 
own for all four categories. 

Teachers monitored student 
responses and provided 
clarification for students who 
had difficulty correctly using 
the QAR strategy. 

Teachers monitored student 
classifications and answers 
and provided clarification for 
students who had difficulty 
using the QAR strategy to 
answer standardized 
reading comprehension 
questions. 

Teachers encouraged 
students to use QAR 
vocabulary to classify and 
develop both categories of 
questions on their own. 

   

 
Quantitative data analysis involving descriptive and inferential statistics was used to examine 
student scores and draw comparisons between groups. To answer both research questions, a two-
way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed. Treatment or control status served as 
one independent variable, and historically underserved or non-historically underserved status 
served as the second independent variable. The pre-test served as the covariate. 

This study used a quasi-experimental control design to examine the impact of QAR on 
standardized reading test scores of third-grade students. It is important to delimit the boundaries 
of this investigation to interpret the results and potential future impacts most accurately. The use 
of a quasi-experimental design limits the generalizability of the findings. Participants included 
students from schools in the same cluster within a rural county in the southeast. The choice of 
schools and classrooms was purposeful and sought to strengthen the validity of this study since 
the two schools share similar student demographics and include a similar number of historically 
underserved students. However, schools and classrooms were also chosen for convenience. The 
researcher was employed as a third-grade teacher in the treatment school and served as both a 
researcher and a participant, implementing the six-week instructional intervention in her own third-
grade classroom. 
 Since the researcher in this study was also a participant, the dual role of the researcher must 
be addressed. As a teacher in one of the treatment classrooms, the researcher provided QAR 
instruction to her students. One can assume that although the researcher did not use QAR as an 
instructional strategy prior to the six-week instructional intervention period, her knowledge of the 
strategy was extensive. While the use of a shared scripted instructional plan and a teaching rubric 
for self-reporting classroom instruction served to mitigate the inconsistencies resulting from the 
researchers’ knowledge of the strategy, it is important to note this as a limitation of this study.  
This study also specifically examined the impact of direct instruction of the QAR strategy on 
historically underserved students. The findings of this study and implications for historically 
underserved students may not be generalizable since there was a small sample of historically 
underserved students included as participants in this study. 
 



28 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

Results 
One hundred thirty-one students participated in this study between School One and School Two. 
Descriptive Statistics are included in Table 2. 
 
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Reading Assessment Scores of Historically 
Underserved and Non-Historically Underserved Students in Control and Treatment Groups 

 Pre-Standardized Reading Assessment Post-Standardized Reading Assessment 

 No QAR QAR No QAR QAR 

 Min N-Min Min N-Min Min N-Min Min N-Min 

M 52.85 61.53 53.14 61.78 49.70 60.37 61.09 65.80 

SD 18.63 18.21 18.73 20.68 20.32 17.90 19.78 18.98 

N 20 38 22 51 20 38 22 51 

Note. Min = Historically underserved; N-Min = Non-Historically underserved 

Measures were taken to ensure fidelity of implementation. It was established that prior to 
the study, QAR was not being used as an instructional strategy in any of the eight third-grade 
classrooms participating in this study. The teachers at School One, who were responsible for 
providing QAR instruction in their classrooms, participated in professional development prior to 
providing direct instruction of QAR in the classrooms.  

All four teachers in the treatment classrooms followed a scripted plan for QAR instruction 
and used identical materials with their students. Teachers in treatment classrooms were also 
required to complete a daily teaching rubric to self-report on QAR classroom instruction. All four 
teachers reported high levels of alignment between the instructional plan and classroom 
implementation of QAR classroom instruction. Results of the Self-Reporting Teaching Rubric are 
outlined in Table 3. The numbers in each Likert Scale category show how many teachers self-
reported the frequency in which they engaged in the tasks listed on the rubric in each classroom 
for each teaching segment. 
 
Table 3: Teaching Rubric Scores: Self-Reporting on Classroom Instruction for Treatment 
Classrooms for Each Teaching Segment 

 Never Rarely A Few Times Frequently Often 

Room 1 0 0 2 3 194 

Room 2 1 0 0 0 198 

Room 3 4 0 3 6 186 

Room 4 2 0 0 0 197 

Note. Total number of teaching segments = 199 



Green & Mraz 29 
 

There was not a statistically significant two-way interaction between condition and 
ethnicity on post-test standardized reading comprehension scores while controlling for pre-test 
standardized reading comprehension scores, F(1,126) = 1.97, p = .163, partial η2 = .015. According 
to Cohen (1988), this indicates a small effect size. Therefore, an analysis of the main effects for 
condition (no QAR and QAR) and ethnicity (historically underserved and non-historically 
underserved) was performed. 
 There was a statistically significant main effect for condition F(1,126) = 15.007, p < .001, 
partial η2 = .106. Adjusted marginal mean post-test scores in the group receiving treatment of the 
QAR strategy (64.58) were higher than the mean post-test scores of students who did not receive 
QAR instruction (56.38). According to Cohen (1988), this indicates a medium effect size. There 
was not a statistically significant effect for ethnicity, F(1,126) = .153, p = .697, partial η2 = .001. 
According to Cohen (1988), this indicates a small effect size. Adjusted marginal mean post-test 
scores of historically underserved and non-historically underserved students showed no significant 
differences (60.05 and 60.90), respectively. In addition, adjusted marginal mean post-test scores 
of historically underserved and non-historically underserved students who received QAR 
instruction showed no significant differences (54.48 and 58.29), respectively. 
 
Discussion 
This quantitative study examined the impact of direct instruction of the QAR strategy on 
standardized reading test scores of third-grade students. It also specifically examined the impact 
of direct instruction of the QAR strategy on historically underserved students’ standardized test 
scores. The results will be discussed around the research questions and hypotheses guiding this 
study:  

Research Question 1: Do students who received QAR instruction do better on standardized 
reading assessments than students who did not receive QAR instruction? 
In seeking to answer research question one, the results of this study show a significant 

difference in students’ mean scores on the post-test between third-grade students who received six 
weeks of QAR instruction and those who did not. Students who were in treatment classrooms had 
significantly higher mean scores (64.58) on the post-test compared to students in the control group 
(56.38). These results support the use of QAR to improve standardized reading test scores of third-
grade students. Providing students with instruction in the metacognitive skill of classifying 
questions according to the location of the answer (text-based or inferential) assisted students in 
navigating standardized-type reading questions and increased student performance on a 
standardized reading comprehension test.  

Research Question 2: Is the impact of the treatment the same for historically underserved 
and non-historically underserved students? 
In seeking to answer research question two, the results of this study do not show a 

significant difference in students’ mean scores on the post-test between historically underserved 
and non-historically underserved students. While results showed that historically underserved 
students benefitted from QAR instruction, students’ ethnicity did not impact the results of this 
study. Students benefitted from QAR instruction regardless of their ethnicity status. However, 
since the findings of this study support the use of QAR to improve standardized test scores of third-
grade students, this would include third-grade historically underserved students. QAR can be 



30 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

viewed as a viable strategy to increase standardized reading comprehension test scores of both 
historically underserved and non-historically underserved students. 

Of utmost importance to the paradigm of best practices in literacy education, this study 
presented evidence to substantiate the benefits of QAR in improving standardized reading 
comprehension test scores of third-grade students. Students in the treatment classrooms had 
substantially higher mean scores on the post-assessment measure after six weeks of direct 
instruction in the QAR strategy than students in the control classrooms. The results have 
instructional and theoretical implications for practice. 

Instructional implications include support for direct instruction in metacognitive skills to 
increase students’ reading performance and proficiency. In this study, direct instruction in 
metacognition, involving the awareness of the relationship between reading comprehension 
questions and the sources of information to answer questions correctly, resulted in increased 
reading performance on a standardized assessment. Students who received direct instruction in 
metacognition showed an increase in awareness of effective reading strategies, which resulted in 
improved performance in reading tasks. As a result of increasing students’ metacognitive 
knowledge, students employed strategic reading behaviors. The findings of this study align with 
previous studies concluding that direct instruction and use of metacognitive strategies facilitate 
students’ understanding of critical cognitive processes and promote students’ reading 
development. 

In addition, instructional implications include support for the use of QAR to increase 
students’ reading comprehension skills. Students in this study who used the QAR strategy were 
more successful in answering reading comprehension questions than students who did not receive 
QAR strategy instruction. QAR was easily implemented within established literacy classroom 
frameworks and a six-week instructional period provided students with the ability to correctly 
classify and answer text-based and inferential questions within a reading comprehension selection. 
The findings of this study align with others that have established QAR as a method to increase 
students’ awareness of sources of information to improve reading comprehension question-
answering skills and could be easily implemented within established classroom instructional 
frameworks to enhance students’ performance on reading comprehension tests. 

This study also highlights the importance of providing instruction in higher-level critical 
thinking skills. QAR instruction focuses on the relationship between questions and answers and 
provides students with procedural knowledge to practice both lower-level and higher-level reading 
and thinking skills. Students were instructed to employ both lower-level and higher-level reading 
and thinking skills as part of this instructional intervention. QAR requires students to engage in 
lower levels of thinking by recalling text when answering text-based questions. However, QAR 
also requires students to employ higher levels of thinking like application, analysis, synthesis, and 
evaluation when categorizing and answering inferential questions. In addition to increasing 
students’ abilities to answer questions, QAR was also used to provide students with an opportunity 
to generate their own questions. Question generating and discussion around cognitive techniques 
allowed students to maximize the benefits of QAR as a higher-level metacognitive strategy. 

The instructional implications for educators working with historically underserved students 
are clear. While this study showed no statistically significant interaction effect between the QAR 
strategy and ethnicity, findings did support the use of QAR to improve standardized test scores of 
all students in this study. These findings support the use of QAR to increase non-historically 
underserved and historically underserved students’ test scores. There is significant research that 
shows one of the most effective ways to improve student literacy achievement is through 



Green & Mraz 31 
 

instruction of metacognition and higher-level thinking skills; however, historically, underserved 
students are more likely to be instructed in basic skills rather than higher-level thinking processes 
(Gunning, 2006). QAR can be viewed as a viable strategy to promote higher levels of literacy 
development for historically underserved students as well as a strategy to increase standardized 
test scores. 

Future research must adhere to a narrower focus where researchers examine different 
aspects of QAR and the effects on students’ development of higher-level literacy skills. Therefore, 
the next steps should include an examination of QAR in relation to students’ age, length of 
instructional intervention, longevity of skills, and the impact QAR has on different levels of 
readers. In addition, since standardized testing has become a seemingly permanent fixture in 
education, future research should examine the impact QAR instruction has on standardized test 
scores as well as the impact QAR has on historical groups of students. 
Future research should also explore the length of instruction required for the QAR strategy students 
to improve reading comprehension and promote higher levels of literacy development.  

Throughout the history of education, groups of students have struggled to show proficiency 
on standardized reading assessments. Differences between the scores of students with different 
backgrounds, including ethnic, racial, gender, disability, and income, are marked on standardized 
tests. The consequences associated with low standardized test scores extend far beyond testing, 
limiting opportunities for higher education and future employment. Future research should also 
focus on uncovering strategies that would increase the performance of historically underserved 
groups of students, therefore mitigating the negative consequences associated with poor 
performance on standardized assessments. In this era of high-stakes standardized testing, it is 
imperative that researchers not only focus on skills to promote a high level of literacy development 
but also focus on support for students as they navigate standardized assessments, specifically on 
skills and strategies that target the learning needs of historically marginalized student groups. 

This quantitative study examined the impact of direct instruction of the QAR strategy on 
standardized reading test scores of third-grade students. It also examined the impact of direct 
instruction of the QAR strategy on historically underserved students’ standardized test scores. The 
findings support the use of QAR to increase standardized test scores of both historically 
underserved and non-historically underserved students. The research presented provides educators 
with an additional strategy to support students’ reading comprehension and improve student scores 
on standardized reading assessments. This is essential since scores on standardized assessments 
can either open or close doors to educational opportunities that influence future success. 

 
References 
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence 

Erlbaum. 
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s 

metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 13–
142. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.80.2.131 

Cummins, S., Streiff, M., & Ceprano, M. (2012). Understanding and applying the QAR strategy 
to improve test scores. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 4(3), 18–25. https://
digitalcommons. buffalostate.edu/jiae/vol4/iss3/2 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131


32 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(1)  
 

Ezell, H. K. (1992). Use of peer-assisted procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension 
strategies to third-grade children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205–227. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899267 

Ezell, H. K., Hunsicker, S. A., Quinque, M. M., & Randolph, E. (1996). Maintenance and 
generalization of QAR reading comprehension strategies. Reading Research and 
Instruction, 36(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079609558228 

Green, S. (2016). Two for one: Using QAR to increase reading comprehension and improve test 
scores. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1466 

Gunning, T. G. (2006). Closing the literacy gap. Pearson Education. 
Kinniburg, L. H., & Baxter, A. (2012). Using question-answer relationships in science instruction 

to increase reading achievement of struggling readers and students with reading 
disabilities. Current Issues in Education, 15(2), 1–8. https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/
cieatasu/article/view/915 

Kinninburg, L. H., & Prew, S. S. (2010). Question answer relationships (QAR) in the primary 
grades: Laying the foundation for reading comprehension. International Journal of Early 
Childhood Special Education, 2(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.107956 

Lemert, C. (2016). Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (6th ed.). West View 
Press. 

Mohapatra, J. K., Mahapatra, M., & Parida, B. K. (2015). Constructivism: The new paradigm from 
theory to practice. Atlantic Publishers. 

Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 70(5), 680–690. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.70.5.680 

National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2022). Report on the condition of education 
2022 (NCES 2022-144). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf 

National Council of Teachers of English. (NCTE). (2014). How standardized tests shape—and 
limit—student learning. James R. Squire Office of Policy Research. 

Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. Holt, Rinehart, and 
Winston. 

Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teacher question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 
39(6), 516–522. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199149 

Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades 
and content areas. International Reading Association, 59(3), 206–221. https://doi.org/
10.1598/rt.59.3.1 

Raphael, T. E. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 
186–190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20198181 

Raphael. T. E., & Pearson, D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information 
for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002217 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899267
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079609558228
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1466
https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/%E2%80%8Ccieatasu/article/view/915
https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/%E2%80%8Ccieatasu/article/view/915
https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.107956
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.70.5.680
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2022/2022144.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199149
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/rt.59.3.1
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/rt.59.3.1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20198181
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002217


Green & Mraz 33 
 

Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2006). Constructivism in theory and in practice. English 
Teaching Forum, 1(4), 12–20. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107896.pdf 

Soodla, P., Jogi, A., & Kikas, E. (2016). Relationship between teachers’ metacognitive knowledge 
and students’ metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement. European Journal of 
Psychology of Education, 32(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0293-x 

Triumph Learning. (2015). Using standards-based programs to prepare students for next-
generation high stakes assessments: Common core performance coach English language 
arts [White Paper]. http://www.triumphlearning.com/research.html 

Union County Public Schools. (UCPS). (2018). Enrollment and ethnicity reports. U.S. Department 
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2022 Reading Assessment. 
https://www.ucps.k12.nc.us/Page/3030 

Wang, D. (2006). What can standardized reading tests tell us? Question-answer relationships and 
students’ performance. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(2), 21–37. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2006.10850185 

Wilson, N. S., & Smetana, L. (2009). Questioning as thinking: A metacognitive framework. 
Middle School Journal, 11(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2009.11461709 

 
 
Received: December 29, 2023 | Accepted: March 28, 2024 | Published: May 15, 2024 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107896.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0293-x
http://www.triumphlearning.com/research.html
https://www.ucps.k12.nc.us/Page/3030
https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2006.10850185
https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2006.10850185
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2009.11461709

	Purpose and Theoretical Framework
	Relevant Literature
	Methodology
	Data Collection and Analysis
	Table 1: Phases Within the Six-Week Instructional Period

	Results
	Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Standardized Reading Assessment Scores of Historically Underserved and Non-Historically Underserved Students in Control and Treatment Groups
	Table 3: Teaching Rubric Scores: Self-Reporting on Classroom Instruction for Treatment Classrooms for Each Teaching Segment

	Discussion
	References

