Applying the Grossman et al. Theoretical Framework: The Case of Reading

Abstract

Background/Context

This article describes the application of the theoretical framework proposed by Grossman and her colleagues to a research effort focusing on text-based discussion as a context for comprehension instruction. According to Grossman and her colleagues, a useful way to consider the teaching of complex practices to candidates is to focus on (a) how the practice is represented, (b) how the practice is decomposed, and (c) how candidates are provided with opportunities to approximate the practice. The context for the present study was an Institute of Education Sciences Teacher Quality Grant in which the authors collaborated with 9 teacher educators, who were learning about text-based discussion as a context for comprehension instruction, to design, implement, and revise modules to support candidates in comprehension methods courses. The modules provided teacher educators with representations of text-based discussions in the form of video excerpts and lesson plans. The modules also provided structured activities to decompose the practice of text-based discussions, for example, by focusing on analyzing the texts to be discussed and crafting questions to engage students in understanding the important ideas in the text. Finally, the modules provided opportunities for candidates to approximate the practice of enacting text-based discussions by using a collaboratively developed teaching plan for a common text.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

The focus of the study was to collect data on the module implementation in the form of assessments of candidate learning and evaluation of module content and use by teacher educators in order to develop resources that would benefit a wider audience of teacher educators and their students.

Research Design

The study is an example of design-based research focused on the iterative development and study of the modules in order to support teacher educators to prepare candidates to enact text-based discussions in the context of literacy methods courses. The study was conducted over the course of 3 years, with a 4th year to prepare the resources for dissemination.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Our efforts to design and revise the modules were greatly influenced by the framework suggested by Grossman and her colleagues. The framework provided a way to represent and decompose the module content and to maintain our focus on the importance of providing opportunities for approximating the complex practice of text-based discussion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achugar

, Schleppegrell

, & Oteiza

(2007). Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(2), 8–24.

Applebee

A. N.

, Langer

J. A.

, Nystrand

, & Gamoran

(2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685–730.

Aukerman

M. S.

(2007). When reading it wrong is getting it right: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 56–103.

Beck

I. L.

, & McKeown

M. G.

(2001). Text Talk: Capturing the benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 10–20.

Beck

I. L.

, McKeown

M. G.

, Hamilton

, & Kucan

(1997). Questioning the Author: An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Chinn

C. A.

, & Anderson

R. C.

(1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100, 315–368.

Christoph

J. N.

, & Nystrand

(2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher's transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249–286.

Denis

, & Moldof

(1983). A handbook on interpretive reading and discussion. Chicago: Great Books Foundation.

Facklam

(1992). Bees dance and whales sing: The mysteries of animal communication. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

10.

Fountas

I. C.

, & Pinnell

G.S.

(2001). Guiding readers and writers, Grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Westport, CT: Heinemann.

11.

Goldenberg

(1992). Instructional Conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46, 316–326.

12.

Goldenberg

, & Patthey-Chavez

(1995). Discourse processes in instructional conversations: Interactions between teacher and transition readers. Discourse Processes, 19, 57–73.

13.

Grossman

, Compton

, Igra

, Ronfeldt

, Shahan

, & Williamson

P. W.

(2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111, 2055–2100.

14.

Hammerness

(2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers College Record, 108, 1241–1265.

15.

Hicks

(1996). Digging up the past: Pompeii and Herculaneum. New York: Thompson Learning.

16.

Hirsch

E. D.

(2006). The case of bringing content into the language arts block and for a knowledge-rich curriculum for all children. American Educator. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/American_educator/issues/spring06

17.

Kintsch

(1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Kucan

(2009). Engaging teachers in investigating their teaching as a linguistic enterprise: The case of comprehension instruction in the context of discussion. Reading Psychology, 30(1), 51–87.

19.

Kucan

, & Beck

I. L.

(1997) Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299.

20.

Kucan

, Hapgood

, & Palincsar

A. S.

(2011). Teachers’ specialized knowledge for supporting student comprehension in text-based discussions. Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 1–22.

21.

Kucan

, & Palincsar

A. S.

(2008–2011). The iterative design of modules to support reading comprehension instruction. Grant awarded by the Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=615

22.

Kucan

, Palincsar

A. S.

, Khasnabis

, & Chang

(2009). The video viewing task: A source of information for assessing and addressing teacher understanding of text-based discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 415–423.

23.

McKeown

M. G.

, Beck

I. L.

, & Blake

R.G. K.

(2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253.

24.

Nystrand

(1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

Palincsar

A. S.

(2003). Collaborative approaches to reading comprehension. In Sweet

, & Show

(Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. (pp. 99–115). New York: Guilford Press.

26.

Palincsar

A. S.

, & Brown

A. L.

(1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

27.

Parker

W. C.

, & Hess

(2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 273–289.

28.

Pringle

(1991). Batman: Exploring the world of bats. New York: Scholastic.

29.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

30.

Raphael

, Pardo

, Highfield

, & McMahon

(1997). Book Club: A literature-based curriculum. Lawrence, MA: Small Planet Communications.

31.

Snow

C. E.

, & Sweet

A. P.

(2003). Reading for comprehension. In Sweet

A. P.

, & Snow

C. E.

(Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. (pp. 1–11). New York: Guilford Press.

32.

van den Broek

, & Kremer

K. E.

(2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In Taylor

B. M.

, Graves

M. F.

, & van den Broek

(Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades. (pp. 1–31). New York: Teachers College Press.

33.

van den Broek

, Young

, Tzeng

, & Linderhold

(1998). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In van Oostendorp

, & Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading. (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34.

Wells

(2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In Lee

C. D.

, & Smagorinsky

(Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. (pp. 51–85). New York: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Wertsch

J. V.

, & Toma

(1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In Steffe

L. P.

, & Fale

(Eds.), Constructivism in education. (pp. 159–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

36.

Wilkinson

I. A.

, Soter

A. O.

, & Murphy

P. K.

(2010). Developing a model of quality talk about literary text. In McKeown

M. G.

, & Kucan

(Eds.), Bringing reading research to life. (pp. 142–169). New York: Guilford Press.

37.

Wolf

M. K.

, Crosson

A. C.

, & Resnick

L. B.

(2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53.