The Responsive Teacher: An Exploration of Teachers’ Dialogic Behaviours Throughout Their Gradual Release of Responsibility-Inspired Reading Lessons

Abstract

As standardised, scripted reading lessons become more prevalent, an important issue has arisen: what flexible, contextually responsive, student-centred affordances of teaching instruction may be lost if teachers feel compelled to restrict their teaching to scripted practice? To establish a baseline for evaluating the dialogic flexibility of such programs, this study presents a thematic analysis of the unscripted behaviours of three Australian primary school teachers across different grades (Foundation, Year 4, and Year 5/6) during their Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR)-inspired reading lessons. Findings revealed distinct variability in the application of modelled, shared, and guided reading, showing that teachers adapt their micro-moves in response to student interjections and real-time needs even when using the same instructional approach. These results highlight the inherent flexibility of unscripted GRR lessons and provide a framework for teachers to reflect on their own (or colleagues’) responsive practices.

Keywords

responsive teaching adaptive teaching gradual release of responsibility primary scripted curricula reading education

Introduction

Responsive teachers often address student diversity by adapting lesson content, communication methods, and student groupings (Kourea et al., 2018; Piazza et al., 2015; Tomlinson, 2017; Vaughn, 2019). In reading education, many use the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model to shift the responsibility of learning from teacher to student through “I-do”, “we-do”, “you-do” stages of instruction, to build student competence and independence over time (Australian Education Research Organisation [AERO], 2024; Seely Flint et al., 2014). This study focuses on the flexible everyday application of the GRR, which is characterised by a bidirectional “ebb and flow of scaffolding” rather than a rigid sequence (Shanahan et al., 2019, p. 57).

Australia has embraced the US-developed GRR framework (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) since the 1990s (Hill & Crévola, 1999). However, the instructional landscape is now shifting both domestically and abroad as governments increasingly favour scripted curricula – pre-packaged lesson plans that dictate teacher and student actions (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020). Initially applied in remote Indigenous communities to support disadvantaged children (Pearson, 2021), the use of scripted curricula is now expanding due to a broader push for consistent (Grace, 2023), compulsory (Mitchell, 2020) common practice (Carroll, 2024) for all.

While scripted lessons may provide useful supports for teachers with limited expertise (Fitz and Nikolaidis, 2019), a rigid focus on program “fidelity” (e.g. Hartnett-Edwards, 2010, p. 217; Lane & Contesse, 2022, p. 35; Timberlake et al., 2017, p. 47) risks stifling the responsive classroom dialogue and real-time assessments essential for guiding children through the reading process. This process depends heavily on a reader’s individualised schema, which encompasses their background knowledge, experiences, and interactions with teachers, peers, and texts, alongside their capacity for meaningful, critical, ethical, creative, and empathetic engagement (Blank & White, 1986; Lian et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2021). Consequently, prioritising rigid script adherence over these factors risks undermining the contextually responsive and student-centred nature of the GRR model.

Teaching and Learning

The original GRR model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) was inspired by a range of studies, including (1) the works of Vygotsky and (2) studies into how children learn to read (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Pearson et al., 2019). Understanding these foundations demonstrates how the model’s theoretical underpinnings closely align with research into responsive teaching.

Child Development – A Vygotskian Perspective

Vygotsky’s (1988; 1999) research highlights that chronological age, or the “age-grade lockstep” (Gagné, 2011, p. 16), is an unreliable developmental indicator since growth is uniquely shaped by a child’s history. This requires teachers to create learning environments that are responsive to a student’s unique set of developmental needs, past experiences, and learning trajectories (Nicholas, 2022), a goal supported by research into human cognitive architecture that allows for strategically structured yet flexible instruction (e.g. Sweller, 2012). The GRR model provides a framework for this adaptability, allowing teachers to monitor reading skills and organise instruction into three key stages: modelling (I-do), guided practice (we-do), and independent application (you-do) (AERO, 2024; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). By integrating explicit instruction, scaffolding, and peer collaboration (Pearson et al., 2019), this versatile model has expanded beyond reading comprehension into other areas such as science education and teacher professional development (Fuentes & Casinillo, 2024; Pearson et al., 2019).

How Children Learn to Read

While the Australian curriculum outlines a general reading trajectory, individual progress is heavily influenced by past experiences, and sociocultural, emotional, cognitive, and physical factors (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c; Compton‐Lilly et al., 2020; McArthur et al., 2022; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2021). Consequently, effective teachers must balance knowledge of the standard reading components children need to master to read a range of text types, with the expertise to navigate each child’s distinct, multidimensional learning journey (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020; Francis et al., 2018). This comprehensive approach ensures students develop both foundational reading skills in phonics, oral language, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency, and the agentic dispositions required to be literate actors in their own lives (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2017; ACARA, n.d.-c; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rowe & National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Australia), 2005).

Effective application of this knowledge requires pedagogical expertise, the absence of which may result in teachers relying on scripted curricula to ensure student needs are met (Hammond, 2022). However, while scripts offer a “quick fix” for limited expertise (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020 p. 197) and can support low-progress readers during interventions (Buckingham et al., 2014), their standardised design does not inherently foster responsiveness to students’ individual differences. Moreover, such curricula do not support teachers’ developing capacity to determine how, why, and when to adapt instruction for a diverse classroom (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020; Holt, 2022).

Responsive Teaching

Responsive teaching treats student diversity as a vital learning resource (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2020). Educators address diverse needs, including disability/ies, learning difficulties, socioemotional factors, and student potentials, by adapting content, processes, products, and environments through flexible teacher-led or peer-supported groupings (Kourea et al., 2018; Nicholas et al., 2024; Piazza et al., 2015; Vaughn, 2019). Engagement is strengthened by tailoring communication and texts to reflect students’ culturally diverse backgrounds and life experiences, linking familiar concepts to new learning (Debnam et al., 2023; Gillispie, 2021; Hilaski, 2020; Kelly et al., 2021; Sharp & Johnson, 2016). This necessitates realigning explicit teaching models to leverage student strengths, such as when collaboration and oral tasks were incorporated in a teacher’s literacy program for Torres Strait Islander students in place of other tasks that would traditionally have been completed independently and/or in written form, based on their feedback on her pedagogical practice (D’Aietti et al., 2021).

Responsive teaching also prioritises flexible language practices and active dialogue over prescriptive methods (Beck et al., 1996; Kelly et al., 2021; Linan-Thompson et al., 2018). Dialogic approaches, including literature circles, read-alouds, and reciprocal reading, are crucial for facilitating reading comprehension through linguistic discourse (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020; Hoover & Tunmer, 2018; Williams, 2016). Specifically, teacher-led instructional conversations that use varied question types and turn-taking to scaffold learning ensure that instruction adapts to students’ language needs rather than adhering to rigid, exact procedures (McIntyre & Hulan, 2013; Piazza et al., 2015).

The Metacognitively Responsive Teacher

Although no universal method for responsive reading instruction exists (Debnam et al., 2023), a teacher’s metacognitive competencies, such as monitoring and regulating during instruction, are fundamental to the practice (Parsons et al., 2018). These competencies enable in-the-moment adaptations that help students develop skills, make connections, or challenge existing understandings (Vaughn, 2019). Consequently, a teacher’s pedagogical know-how would be significantly enhanced with the aid of mechanisms that facilitate these responsive decisions and reflections on practice.

Situating the Study

While prior research on responsive teaching emphasised flexible language and sociocultural relevance, this study investigates the unscripted affordances of GRR-inspired reading lessons within standard time constraints (i.e. the duration of a typical reading lesson). This inquiry takes place in the context of increasing use of scripted reading programs (e.g. InitialLit: MultiLit Pty Ltd, 2021; MacqLit: MultiLit Pty Ltd, 2016 in Australia; Success for All: Evans et al., 2010 in the US). Acknowledging that the authors of these programs may not have intended for the programs to be mandated for use with entire classes of students, or have ruled out off-script moments that leave teachers free to respond to students’ needs, the reality of implementation may focus on fidelity at the expense of flexibility (see Costigan, 2008; Evans et al., 2010; Tanguay et al., 2025). By analysing teachers’ micro-moves during reading instruction (i.e. the “ebb and flow of scaffolding” (Shanahan et al., 2019, p. 57)), this study sought to identify the student-centred affordances of the GRR model and to establish a baseline for comparing scripted and unscripted instruction. Furthermore, video analyses across diverse age groups and groupings in the one school were used to explore the “barometer of agency” (Nicholas, 2022) in action, further described in the Analytical Framework section below, as a mechanism for supporting teacher reflections on practice.

Methods

Participants

This study involved 44 participants (41 children and three teachers) at an urban Victorian primary school where 55% of students had a language background other than English in the year of study (ACARA, 2023). Between 2017 and 2022, the school’s National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results consistently exceeded national reading averages (ACARA, 2023).¹ Teachers Jane (Foundation – the first year of school), Tara (Year 3/4), and Sarah (Year 5/6) nominated a segment of time when they planned to use a GRR-inspired lesson, with two teachers recorded twice. Sarah demonstrated a transition from shared to guided reading, while Tara illustrated how she adapted her guided reading between small-group and one-on-one settings.

Data Collection

Teachers were recorded engaging in typical practice using self-selected texts. All of the children took part in their lessons as they normally would, so as not to be excluded from their everyday learning. However, only the data (recorded and transcribed interactions) of children for whom consent had been given was used in this study. The recordings comprised two whole-group (Foundation and Year 5/6), two small-group (Year 4 and Year 5/6), and one one-on-one segment (Year 4), with the Year 5/6 segments conducted back-to-back during a single lesson. Jane (Foundation) used an enlarged version of the picture storybook Hairy Maclary from Donaldson’s Diary (Dodd, 1983) to teach rhyme, while Tara (Year 4) focused on fluency/tone using The Witches (Dahl, 2007) for her one-one session and vocabulary through an article about the influence of the internet for her small group. Sarah (Year 5/6) focused on vocabulary for both segments, using a Roald Dahl biography for the whole group and an article on television and violence for the small group.

Ethics

Approved by the Deakin University Human Ethics Research Ethics Committee, this study presents pseudonymised data, collected with the informed consent of all participating teachers and children’s guardians. To ensure transparency, the school principal and all participants were granted full access to the video recordings prior to providing final consent (Table 1).

Table 1.

Participant Groups and Video Context

Teacher participants (n = 3)	Year level	Student participants (total n = 41)	Video context
Jane	Foundation	n = 19	Whole-group reading
Tara	Year 3/4 [only Year 4 students recorded]	n = 4	Small-group reading
Tara	Year 3/4 [only Year 4 students recorded]	n = 1*	One-on-one reading
Sarah	Year 5/6	n = 18	Whole-group reading
Sarah	Year 5/6	n = 7*	Small-group reading

Notes. * Student participants overlapped across multiple recordings with the same teacher.

Analytical Framework

Data analysis employed reflexive thematic analysis (TA), utilising the researchers’ subjectivity as a vital analytic resource to identify patterns in the findings (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This process was guided by the “barometer of agency”, a GRR-inspired framework designed to highlight how teacher and student interactions can drive instructional shifts throughout a single lesson (Nicholas, 2022). Originally developed to analyse how reading education teaching practices were described in six Australian Initial Teacher Education texts, this framework identified various GRR micro-cycles – including modelled, shared, joint, scaffolded, collaborative, and independent reading – enacted through specific micro-moves of practice within a single reading lesson or lesson segment, such as guided reading (Nicholas, 2022).

Using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) reflexive TA process: data familiarisation, systematic data coding, and the generating of initial themes, the researchers iteratively refined the Nicholas (2022) GRR teaching categories to better represent the observed classroom dynamics. For example, Modelled Reading was reclassified as Teacher Modelling or Explicit Instruction to describe teacher-centred moments where student engagement was not actively invited. Additionally, micro-moves associated with the Shared Reading approach were split into teacher-led and child-initiated/led discussions to distinguish between the two dialogic interactions. This analysis, detailed in Table 2, yielded a revised “barometer of agency” framework (Figure 6), which is explored in the Discussion and serves as the interpretive lens for the study’s results.

Table 2.

GRR-Inspired Categories, Descriptions, and Examples from Recorded Reading Lessons

Reading micro-moves		Descriptions	Examples from data
I-do	Teacher modelling or explicit instruction	Teacher takes centre-stage during the lesson in a way that does not appear to expect or invite active engagement from students (e.g. no pausing in delivery).	Teacher: “It means (reads dictionary definition for the word voracious) unable to be satisfied”.
We-do	Teacher-led discussion	Shared discussion between the teacher and student/s, led or initiated by the teacher.	Teacher: “Do you know what dialogue is?”
	Teacher-led discussion		Angelo: “Like, when a character is talking in the story”.
	Joint reading	Teacher and student/s reading aloud in unison.	Teacher/children (together, as teacher points to each printed word in a big book) “Hairy Maclary from…”
	Child-initiated discussion	Shared discussion between the teacher and student/s, led or initiated by the child.	Owen: “What does suspense mean?”
	Child-initiated discussion		Teacher: “Suspense means something big is happening on this next page”
You-do	Child demonstrating reading behaviours	The student/s reads and thinks aloud, in the presence of the attentive teacher. This allows the teacher to offer support, but only if/when needed or desired.	Juan: It says that “most people with access to the internet spend at least a couple of hours a day online and sometimes much more” [reading from text].
	Peer collaboration	Two or more students read, and/or discuss a text together without any teacher support.	The microphone primarily followed the teacher. This example was based upon observations of student behaviour that followed the instruction: “…you three are going to work out what comportment means… I’ll give you a couple of minutes. Chatter to each other. See if you can work it out”.
	Child independent reading	Students read silently as part of a shared experience. This silent, independent activity does not allow for, invite or appear to expect teacher/peer input or support.	Student seen silently gazing at a text following the instruction: “I’m going to put on the five-minute timer and you guys are going to read yourself for five minutes”.

Data Analysis and Researcher Positionality

Analysis was a collaboration between Researcher #1 (an educator with 20+ years’ experience as a primary teacher and Teacher Educator, and the author of this article) and Researcher #2 (a linguist expert in adult-child interaction across a range of international contexts). Leveraging our subjectivities as analytic resources, we negotiated coding categories via a shared spreadsheet that listed each participant in column A, their corresponding talk (each lesson’s transcript) in column B, and the categories along columns D+. Column C was used to record researcher notes and observations. Once the categories were agreed upon, each transcript (and its categories) was mapped against a timeline that captured the duration of each teaching approach in sequence over the course of the lesson (as shown in Figures 1 –5) as a means of capturing the ebb and flow of the approaches that were used across a single lesson segment. Each lesson segment was mapped against a duration of 30 minutes to allow for direct comparisons between recordings.

Figure 1.

Coded interactions between a teacher and Foundation students during whole-group reading

Figure 2.

Coded interactions between a teacher and Year 5/6 students during whole-group reading

Figure 3.

Coded interactions between a teacher and Year 4 students during small-group reading

Figure 4.

Coded interactions between a teacher and Year 5/6 students during small-group reading

Figure 5.

Coded interactions between a teacher and a Year 4 student during one-on-one reading

Results

In response to the question of what responsive (i.e. flexible, contextually responsive, and student-centred) practices may be evidenced during unscripted GRR-inspired reading instruction, analyses of the unscripted lessons revealed that responsive GRR instruction is inherently non-linear and variable, with no two lesson segments identical or following a strict I-do, we-do, you-do sequence of delivery. Figures 1 –5 show that across all settings, teachers integrated: (1) an I-do-type approach to teaching: teacher modelling or explicit instruction; (2) we-do approaches to teaching: teacher-led discussion and child-initiated/led discussion; and a (3) you-do approach to teaching: child demonstrating reading behaviours. All of these approaches were used in each recording even though each recording was only one portion of a lengthier reading lesson. In the small-group contexts, there were also times when these approaches occurred concurrently, enabling students to collaborate (Year 5/6) or read independently (Year 4), applying a you-do-type approach, while the teacher was adopting I-do, we-do, or you-do approaches with others in the group (represented with dotted lines in Figures 3 and 4).

The variable sequences of application that were observed are described below, including instances when teachers:

(1) Incorporated a unidirectional I-do, we-do, you-do sequence of teaching;

(2) Shifted between the we-do, I-do approaches;

(3) Shifted between the we-do, you-do approaches;

(4) Incorporated child independent reading (you-do) into the lesson segment;

(5) Varied the predominant teaching approach that was used;

(6) Adopted an approach based on student interjections; and

(7) Adopted an approach based on student response.

A Linear I-Do, We-Do, You-Do Sequence of Teaching

Although the teachers typically moved bidirectionally, they occasionally adopted a linear I-do, we-do, you-do sequence of delivery. For example, in her Foundation whole-class segment (Figure 1), Teacher-Jane applied this approach reiteratively to highlight rhyme, character names, and repetition. While initially teacher-led, these discussions shortened as the lesson progressed, culminating in three rapid shifts from teacher modelling/explicit instruction, to joint, to children demonstrating reading behaviours (I-do, we-do, you-do) once the text’s patterns were firmly established:

Excerpt F-1

Teacher-Jane: (turns page and points at dog illustration) “Aaannnd-

Jane/children (joint): (Jane points to each printed word) -Hairy Maclary from-

Children: (Jane points to words in silence): -Donaldson’s Dairy”.

Conversely, with the more proficient Year 5/6 readers (Figure 2), the sequence was occasionally reversed (see transcript below). Here, Teacher-Sarah initiated a you-do phase with a student reading aloud, followed by a we-do class discussion, and concluded with an I-do explicit definition of the word “voracious”:

Excerpt Y5/6-1

[context: The text reads: “Imaginative, restless, and having a voracious appetite for adventure”. Teacher-Sarah points to the highlighted word “voracious”]

Teacher-Sarah: Voracious. Anyone got any thoughts? What do you think?

Li: Maybe large?

Teacher-Sarah: Large. Having a large appetite.

Daiyu: Maybe, choosy?

Teacher-Sarah: Choosy? A bit picky and a bit choosy. Anyone got any other thoughts? What do you think, Max?

Max: I was going to agree with like, large or big or something. Or hungry for something?

Teacher-Sarah: Hungry for something. It means (reads dictionary definition) “unable to be satisfied”.

Shifting Between the We-Do, I-Do Approaches

There were many instances where the teachers would oscillate between the we-do (teacher-led discussion) and I-do (modelling or explicit instruction) teaching approaches. This practice often involved using the we-do approach to prime students for upcoming instruction or modelling, or to foster personal connections with the text, as demonstrated by Teacher-Jane’s interaction with English language learner, Bao:

Excerpt F-2

Teacher-Jane: (pointing to illustration) Can you tell me what he’s doing? (directed at Bao)

Jack: Maybe he’s walking.

Teacher-Jane: (Looks at Jack) Thank you. (Turns back to face Bao). Bao?

Bao: He walking.

Teacher-Jane: He’s walking [Jane recasts Bao’s repetition of Jack’s response]. Is he by himself?

Bao: (Nods yes)

Teacher-Jane: Hmm. Where do dogs go?

Bao: He going to- (pause) the park.

Teacher-Jane: (Overlap with Bao saying ‘the park’) If you were a dog, where would you go?

Bao: The park.

Teacher-Jane: Oh. Hands up if you think the park would be a good spot for a dog to go to.

(nine children raise their hand)

Teacher-Jane: Have you ever seen a dog at a park before?

(mixture of children saying yes and no)

Teacher-Jane: Hands up if you have a dog.

(eight children put their hand up, including Bao)

Harry: I have three.

Teachers would also interrupt I-do segments with we-do discussions to establish context or check for understanding, allowing them to adapt their instruction to address students’ immediate needs. For instance, Teacher-Tara (one-on-one Year 4 reading) used these shifts to ensure Angelo understood the concept of tone and dialogue before he resumed independent reading:

Excerpt Y4-1

Establishing context

Teacher-Tara (instruct): When you’re reading independently, I want you to think about if I was going to read this out loud, or if I’m going to attach an emotion or a tone onto this, what would it be?

Teacher-Tara (discussion): What book are you reading at the moment?

Angelo: My Little Bagman.

Teacher-Tara: My Little- is that a narrative? Is that a fictional story?

Angelo: Yeah.

Teacher-Tara (instruct): Fantastic. So the next time we meet, I’m going to ask you that no matter what stage you’re up to within that novel, I’m going to ask you what tone’s being used and if you were going to read a piece of dialogue from that book, what expression would you use to show the character and how the character is being presented within that story.

Excerpt Y4-2

Checking for understanding

Teacher-Tara (instruct): I want you to go back. We’re just going to refocus on that again, because there was a bit going on, and as well, I want you to think, there’s quite a lot of dialogue as well.

Angelo: Yep.

Teacher-Tara (discussion): Do you know what dialogue is?

Angelo: Like, when a character is talking in the story.

Teacher-Tara (instruct): Talking. So, we’re getting that tone and we’re getting their language across. Can you read that again for me and have a think about how you could change your tone within that dialogue passage.

Shifting Between the We-Do, You-Do Approaches

The teachers often recursively shifted between we-do (teacher-led discussion) and you-do (child demonstrating reading behaviours) approaches. In Year 4 and Year 5/6, this movement encouraged students to evidence their thinking by reading aloud during group discussions, as illustrated in Teacher-Tara’s Year 4 lesson:

Excerpt Y4-3

Teacher-Tara: So, who’s the audience? Who are they trying to target in this text?

Juan: People that use, uh-

Angelo: the internet.

Juan: the internet for too long?

Teacher-Tara: So why do you say for too long? What evidence in here gives it away?

Juan: It says that “most people with access to the internet spend at least a couple of hours a day online and sometimes much more” [reading from text].

Teacher-Tara: Okay, so you’re thinking, so sorry, continue with what you were going to say.

Juan: And wait, I mean, right here, it says “even two hours a day is not a huge proportion of our waking hours”.

Teacher-Tara: Can we break down that sentence because I love that you picked up on that. Why did you pick up on that? That two hours isn’t even that much online?

Child Independent Reading

Independent reading occurred in only two recorded segments. In the Year 5/6 whole-group lesson, students read silently from self-selected interest texts for 5 minutes at the start to prime themselves for reading. In contrast, the Year 4 small-group session featured independent reading at the end of the lesson segment following extensive group discussion. Students read from identical copies of the same text with the instruction: “Have a read and try to rewrite that sentence in a simpler way”.

Varying the Main Teaching Approach

The main teaching approach often shifted according to student reading proficiencies and/or lesson objectives. For example, in the Foundation lesson, the primary method was modelled read-aloud, though the teacher transitioned to joint reading or inviting students to complete sentences as students became attuned to the text’s patterns. In the Year 5/6 whole-group session, however, students predominantly led the reading. Notably, instructional goals occasionally took precedence over reading proficiency. For example, in both small-group reading contexts (Year 4 and Year 5/6), the teacher read to capable students to establish context for subsequent discussion. Conversely, in the one-on-one reading segment (Year 4) conducted with one of the same children from the small-group segment (Year 4), the student led the reading while the teacher primarily provided targeted corrections.

Adopting an Approach Based on Student Interjections

There were occasions when children demonstrated agency by interjecting during the reading lesson, which prompted the teacher to pivot from an I-do to a we-do approach to address immediate student needs. In the following Foundation excerpt, Teacher-Jane paused her read-aloud to provide a developmentally appropriate explanation of ‘suspense’ following Owen’s interjection:

Excerpt F-3

Teacher-Jane: “out of the shadows they saw-.” Oh!

Owen: It’s going to be a cat.

Teacher-Jane: (pointing to the ellipsis) Dot, dot, dot. That means suspense. (shakes hands slightly)

Owen: What does suspense mean?

Teacher-Jane: Suspense means something big is happening on this next page (slight whisper, shake to the voice).

Similarly, Teacher-Tara utilised a Year 4 student’s interjection to pivot from explicit instruction (I-do) to a teacher-led discussion (we-do), recognising the child’s readiness for a collaborative approach:

Excerpt Y4-4

Teacher-Tara: We’ve got the top sections of the text and then we have the bottom section of the text. These two are actually, I would say, quite different.

Angelo: Yep.

Teacher-Tara: Angelo, you automatically said yes. Why do you think they’re quite different?

Angelo: Because this one is like talking about how they are like making us lose memory, and this one is talking about how we have to be careful.

Teacher-Tara: Yeah, exactly. So, it’s almost like they’re presenting two different ideas.

Adopting an Approach Based on Student Response

The Year 5/6 small-group segment illustrated how teachers may use prompts as decision-making tools to adapt pedagogy. Following a period of you-do peer collaboration, Teacher-Sarah used the same prompt (“What did you come up with?”) to pivot into two distinct we-do variations – teacher-led and child-led discussion – with two groups of students based on student responses. The students were divided into three smaller groups for this portion of the recording, depicted as two dual activities (dotted and solid lines) in Figure 4. In the first example, the teacher led the discussion to elicit student thinking. In the second, she followed the children’s lead to facilitate the negotiation of differing views:

[context: children were using “context clues” to determine the meaning of vocabulary in a text. They would later compare their thinking to dictionary definitions]

Excerpt Y5/6-2:

Teacher-Sarah: Alright, what did you guys come up with? [pause] Did you come up with any-? [holds up “Context Clues” prompt card] This group (pointing to other children) found that they kind of think the definition was already in the text. Are you guys “fabrication”?

Maddox: Yeah.

Teacher-Sarah: What did you come up with Maddox?

Sebastian: The antonym.

Teacher-Sarah: Antonym? Why?

Sebastian: Because of “real” and fake [pointing to text], because the antonym is the opposite-, [pointing to Context Clues card]…

Teacher-Sarah: “differentiating between what is real and what is fabrication” [reading text]. Excellent. So, you think it’s some sort of antonym? It’s the opposite of real.

Sebastian: Yep… It’s fake.

Excerpt Y5/6-3:

Teacher-Sarah: And what did you guys come up with? What was your word?

Ana: Comportment.

Teacher: Comportment. Okay, so let’s have a look.

Ana: [reads text aloud] and it also says that affects their behaviour. So, we’ve thought that the negative component’s like negative TV shows?

Teacher-Sarah: TV shows.

Darna: Nah…

Teacher: You didn’t think so? You thought something different?

Darna: I had something else.

Teacher-Sarah: What do you think?

Darna: Maybe like, okay she means TV shows, but, maybe like, everything like that, so-…everything that people watch…

Discussion

This study set out to investigate the flexible, student-centred affordances of the GRR model within unscripted reading lessons with students from Foundation, Year 4 and Year 5/6 across various group settings. Informed by established GRR frameworks (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), this research generated a tool, discussed in this section, for monitoring responsive practice. While scripted curricula can restrict professional expertise (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020), this reflection tool underscores metacognitive competency and pedagogical knowledge as vital for the adaptive, language-rich instruction required for reading comprehension (Hoover & Tunmer, 2018; Linan-Thompson et al., 2018; Parsons et al., 2018).

The study demonstrated that GRR micro-cycles can be applied bidirectionally across all year levels and groupings, from whole-class settings to one-on-one reading conferences. Teachers fluidly transitioned between approaches to address individual needs and maintain lesson objectives, such as rhyme, vocabulary, or tone, while simultaneously fostering student agency through evidence-based reasoning. While linear sequences often benefit less-proficient readers, this study showed that more proficient students may lead the reading before pivoting to teacher-led instruction. These flexible language practices (Kelly et al., 2021; Linan-Thompson et al., 2018; McIntyre & Hulan, 2013) are informed by teacher prompts, student responses, and interjections rather than being preordained, as seen when the Foundation teacher explained ‘suspense’ following a student interjection (Excerpt F-3), and the Year 5/6 teacher moved between teacher-led and student-led discussions based on varying group responses (Excerpt Y5/6-2; Excerpt Y5/6-3).

These bidirectional shifts in teaching approaches are captured in the barometer of agency shown in Figure 6 (a revised representation of the model from Nicholas, 2022), which illustrates that responsive teachers strategically address identified needs rather than following a purely sequential release of responsibility. This practice aligns with contemporary GRR frameworks that recognise the necessary ‘ebb and flow of scaffolding’ during instruction (Shanahan et al., 2019, p. 57). However, the figure only functions as a barometer of agency when used to facilitate reflections on practice. For educators, this reflective tool provides a means to evaluate transitions intended to establish context, tune students into vocabulary, develop language proficiencies, foster text connections, refocus lesson objectives, encourage agentic learning, or determine the next instructional move.

Figure 6.

The barometer of agency in the reading classroom – revised

While scripted curricula can allow for responsiveness through deviations, revisited lessons, or supplementary materials, they are often implemented as pre-packaged plans that dictate exact teacher and student actions (Fitz & Nikolaidis, 2020). This rigidity can undermine professional expertise and the incentive for professional learning, particularly in underfunded schools or for new teachers mandated to use materials without adequate training (Costigan, 2008; Tanguay et al., 2025). Although some programs provide conceptual and practical training (e.g. MultiLit (2025) and Sounds-Write (n.d.)), the ability to effectively deviate from a script – the when, how, and why – remains dependent on sound pedagogical knowledge.

Much like its scientific namesake, the barometer of agency (Figure 6) can aid teachers to monitor and reflect on their responsiveness to the classroom environment, when used alongside the four prompts provided below:

Name the approach you plan to use/used at any given time.

Explain why you used that approach/what you’re aiming to achieve.

Explain why/how the approach you plan to use/used reflects your pedagogical understanding of how children learn to read.

Explain why/how the approach you plan to use/used responds to the needs/potentials of a specific child and/or group.

This tool can be used by teachers to monitor their use of pedagogically appropriate actions, and/or feel confident to make in-the-moment changes to their practice. Whether teachers stick-to-the-plan or make in-the-moment deviations, the barometer of agency can be used as a stimulus to generate collegiate- and/or self-reflection. More broadly, it also offers a means by which others may investigate, establish, and/or gain confidence that inconsistencies in approach between teachers or between lessons are not necessarily troubling but rather are evidence of the purposeful application of teacher judgement and of responsive teaching.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that unscripted reading lessons are inherently non-linear, with teachers from Foundation to Year 6 applying flexible, bidirectional micro-moves across whole-group, small-group, and one-on-one settings. A key finding is that this pedagogical responsiveness is present from the very start of primary school, allowing teachers to adapt their approach in real-time based on student interjections and immediate needs rather than following a rigid sequence. As scripted curricula become more prevalent, future research must investigate which responsive practices are preserved or curtailed and how these programs impact the professional learning of both pre-service and experienced educators. Future studies should also examine long-term student outcomes and whether these flexible micro-cycles eventually trend toward greater student independence as specific skills are mastered. The barometer of agency serves as a practical mechanism for guiding these investigations and supporting essential self-reflection on teaching practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to David Kellogg for his generosity in sharing with me his time, expertise, and contributions to the data analysis process, and his critical eye.

ORCID iD

Maria Nicholas

Ethical Considerations

This study underwent ethics review and all participants provided informed consent.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Please contact the author if you would like access to the data associated with this paper.*

Note

References

ACARA . (2023). My school. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.myschool.edu.au

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (n.d.-a). F-10 curriculum: English (version 8.4). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (n.d.-b). Planning for student diversity. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/student-diversity/planning-for-student-diversity/.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority . (n.d.-c). F-10 curriculum: English: Key ideas. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/key-ideas/.

Australian Education Research Organisation . (2024). Explicit instruction optimises learning. Australian Education Research Organisation. https://www.edresearch.edu.au/summaries-explainers/explainers/explicit-instruction-optimises-learning

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership . (2017). AITSL early reading research evaluation template. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/aitsl-early-reading-research-evaluation-template

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

Sandora

Kucan

Worthy

(1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385–414. https://doi.org/10.1086/461835

Blank

White

S. J.

(1986). Questions: A powerful but misused form of classroom exchange. Topics in Language Disorders, 6(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-198603000-00003

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

10.

Buckingham

Beaman-Wheldall

Wheldall

(2014). Evaluation of a two-phase experimental study of a small group (“MultiLit”) reading intervention for older low-progress readers. Cogent Education, 1(1), 962786. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.962786

11.

Carroll

T. H. B.

(2024). Making best practice common practice in the education state. Media release. Victoria State Government. https://content.premier.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/240613-Making-Best-Practice-Common-Practice-In-The-Education-State-.pdf

12.

Compton‐Lilly

C. F.

Mitra

Guay

Spence

L. K.

(2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185–S195. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.348

13.

Costigan

A. T.

(2008). Canaries in the coal mine: Urban rookies learning to teach language arts in “High Priority” schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 85–103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479225.

14.

Dahl

(2007). The witches. Penguin.

15.

D'Aietti

Lewthwaite

Chigeza

(2021). Negotiating the pedagogical requirements of both explicit instruction and culturally responsive pedagogy in far north Queensland: Teaching explicitly, responding responsively. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(2), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2020.5

16.

Debnam

Henderson Smith

Aguayo

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

(2023). Nominated exemplar teacher perceptions of culturally responsive practices in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125(1), 104062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104062

17.

Dodd

(1983). Hairy maclary from donaldson's dairy. Puffin.

18.

Evans

K. R.

Lester

Broemmel

A. D.

(2010). Talking back to scripted curricula: A critical performance ethnography with teachers’ collective narratives. Power and Education, 2(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2010.2.2.183

19.

Fisher

Frey

(2014). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed). ASCD.

20.

Fitz

J. A.

Nikolaidis

A. C.

(2020). A democratic critique of scripted curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1661524

21.

Francis

D. J.

Kulesz

P. A.

Benoit

J. S.

(2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932518772904

22.

Fuentes

A. G.

Casinillo

(2024). Assessing the effect of the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model in teaching science. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol14.1.2.2024

23.

Gagné

(2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(1), 3–22.

24.

Gillispie

(2021). Culturally responsive language and literacy instruction with native American children. Topics in Language Disorders, 41(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000249

25.

Grace

T. H. G.

(2023). “Queensland turns the page of reading in schools”. In Media statments. The Queensland cabinet and ministerial directory. Queensland Government. https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/98983.

26.

Hammond

(2022). Attitudes toward direct instruction in Western Australian primary and secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112(4), 103651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103651

27.

Hartnett-Edwards

(2010). How scripted programs de-professionalized the teaching of reading: A California story. In Apple

L. S.

(Eds.), The new politics of the textbook (pp. 213–230). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-930-5_12

28.

Hilaski

(2020). Addressing the mismatch through culturally responsive literacy instruction. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(2), 356–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418765304

29.

Hill

P. W.

Crévola

C. A.

(1999). Key features of a whole‐school, design approach to literacy teaching in schools. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 4(3), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404159909546595

30.

Holt

(2022). Educational policies requiring scripted reading curriculums limit early childhood pre-service teacher candidates. Policy Futures in Education, 20(6), 696–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211040315

31.

Hoover

W. A.

Tunmer

W. E.

(2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773154

32.

Kelly

L. B.

Wakefield

Caires-Hurley

Kganetso

L. W.

Moses

Baca

(2021). What is culturally informed literacy instruction? A review of research in P–5 contexts. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20986602

33.

Kourea

Lenwood

Werunga

(2018). Culturally responsive reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic, 53(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217702112

34.

Lane

Contesse

(2022). UFLI foundations: An explicit and systematic phonics program. Ventris Learning.

35.

Lian

Norman

Midgley

Napiza

(2017). Direct instruction for “at-risk children” and the Australian curriculum: Toward a better understanding of the appeal of behaviourism in cross-cultural contexts of learning. In Lian

Kell

Black

Lie

K. Y.

(Eds.), Challenges in global learning: Dealing with education issues from an international perspective (pp. 123–141). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

36.

Linan-Thompson

Lara-Martinez

J. A.

Cavazos

L. O.

(2018). Exploring the intersection of evidence-based practices and culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218762574

37.

McArthur

Badcock

Castles

Robidoux

(2022). Tracking the relations between children’s reading and emotional health across time: Evidence from four large longitudinal studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 555–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.426

38.

McIntyre

Hulan

(2013). Research-based, culturally responsive reading practice in elementary classrooms: A yearlong study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2012.737409

39.

Mitchell

(2020). The reading wars are over–and phonics has won. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-reading-wars-are-over-and-phonics-has-won-20201127-p56ioj.html

40.

MultiLit . (2025). InitialLit: Whole-class initial instruction in literacy. MultiLit. https://multilit.com/programs/initialit/

41.

MultiLit Pty Ltd . (2016). MacqLit–the Macquarie literacy program for small group instruction: Samples. https://multilit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/MacqLit-Sample-Package-2021.pdf

42.

MultiLit Pty Ltd . (2021). InitiaLit–Foundation whole-class initial instruction in literacy: Samples. https://multilit.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/InitiaLit-F_Sample-Pack_2021.pdf

43.

National Reading Panel . (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

44.

Nicholas

(2022). The barometer of agency: Reconceptualising the ‘Guided Reading’ teaching approach. Education Sciences, 12(6), 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060374

45.

Nicholas

Skourdoumbis

Bradbury

(2024). Meeting the needs and potentials of high-ability, high-performing, and gifted students via differentiation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231222225

46.

Parsons

S. A.

Vaughn

Scales

R. Q.

Gallagher

M. A.

Parsons

A. W.

Davis

S. G.

Allen

(2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198

47.

Pearson

(2021). Yes, DI did it: The impact of direct instruction on literacy outcomes for very remote Indigenous schools. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 50(2), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2020.20

48.

Pearson

P. D.

Gallagher

M. C.

(1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476x(83)90019-x

49.

Pearson

P. D.

McVee

M. B.

Shanahan

L. E.

(2019). In the beginning: The historical and conceptual genesis of the gradual release of responsibility. In McVee

Ortlieb

Reichenberg

Pearson

P. D.

(Eds.), The gradual release of responsibility in literacy research and practice (pp. 1–21). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820190000010001

50.

Piazza

S. V.

Rao

Protacio

M. S.

(2015). Converging recommendations for culturally responsive literacy practices: Students with learning disabilities, English language learners, and socioculturally diverse learners. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i3.1023

51.

Risko

V. J.

Walker-Dalhouse

(2007). Tapping students' cultural funds of knowledge to address the achievement gap. Reading Teacher, 61(1), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.1.12

52.

Rowe

(2005). National inquiry into the teaching of literacy (Australia). Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations. Department of Education, Science and Training. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5

53.

Seely Flint

Kitson

Lowe

Shaw

(2014). Literacy in Australia: Pedagogies for engagement. Wiley.

54.

Shanahan

L. E.

Tochelli-Ward

A. L.

Rinker

T. W.

(2019). The ebb and flow of scaffolding: Thinking flexibly about the gradual release of responsibility during explicit strategy instruction. In McVee

Ortlieb

Reichenberg

Pearson

P. D.

(Eds.), The gradual release of responsibility in literacy research and practice (pp. 53–66). Emerald Publishing Limited.

55.

Sharp

L. A.

Johnson

(2016). Overcoming cultural inequalities with diverse children’s literature: Recommendations that support culturally responsive teaching with multicultural literature. English in Texas, 6(1), 23–29.

56.

Smith

Snow

Serry

Hammond

(2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348

57.

Sounds-Write . (n.d.). FAQs – Australia and New Zealand. Sounds-Write. https://sounds-write.co.uk/faqs-australia-and-new-zealand/

58.

Sweller

(2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In Harris

K. R.

Graham

Urdan

McCormick

C. B.

Sinatra

G. M.

Sweller

(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 295–325). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-011

59.

Tanguay

C. L.

Rohloff

Bhatnagar

Many

J. E.

(2025). Navigating literacy teaching and learning within restrictive policy contexts. The Teacher Educator, 1-26(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2025.2487699

60.

Timberlake

M. T.

Thomas

A. B.

Barrett

(2017). The allure of simplicity: Scripted curricula and equity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.017

61.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd edition). ASCD.

62.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . (2021). Socioeconomic inequalities and learning. UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning. https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/issue-briefs/improve-learning/socioeconomic-inequalities-and-learning.

63.

Vaughn

(2019). Adaptive teaching during reading instruction: A multi-case study. Reading Psychology, 40(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2018.1481478

64.

Vaughn

Parsons

S. A.

Massey

(2020). Aligning the science of reading with adaptive teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S299–S306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.351

65.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky Vol. 5: Child Psychology. Plenum Press.

66.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1999). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky Vol. 6: Scientific Legacy. Plenum Press.

67.

Williams

I. J.

(2016). Will it change their reflection? A culturally responsive reaction to literacy failures. Master’s thesis, Rowan University. https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/572.