This pilot study aimed to address persistent gaps in the research regarding effective professional development models associated with reading comprehension pedagogy in content area classrooms (science). An appropriate instructional model was developed, (Do-Read-Do) which attempts to embed the explicit teaching of reading comprehension strategies within a science investigation. This model was then explored in workshops, discussion groups and in reciprocal in-class coaching situations over the course of a semester in a case study school. Findings highlighted many positive aspects of the professional development program such as the use of the gradual release of responsibility model that included modeling, practical application of the new methodology (both within the workshop and in the actual classroom) and ample opportunities for discussion and reflection. Despite some initial difficulties with the instructional model, it proved to be an effective method of embedding explicit reading comprehension instruction within a science investigation.
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersP.HoffmanJ. V.DuffyG. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Beard El-DinaryP. (2002). Challenges of implementing transactional strategies instruction for reading comprehension. In Collins BlockC.PressleyM. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press.
4.
BlockC. C.JohnsonR. (2002). The thinking process approach to comprehension development: Preparing students for their future comprehension challenges. In BlockC. C.GambrellL. B.PressleyM. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 54–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BrozoW.G. (2005). Avoiding the ‘fourth-grade slump’. Thinking Classroom, 6, 48–49.
6.
BrunerJ. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Carnegie Corporation. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
8.
CoburnC. (2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
9.
CCSSI (Common Core State Standards Initiative). (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved September 2010from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
Concannon-GibneyT.McCarthyM. (2010). Fostering Reading Comprehension in the Science Classroom: A Pilot Professional Development Program, paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Fort Worth, TX.
12.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–42.
13.
DayC.SachsJ. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In DayC.SachsJ. (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3–32). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
14.
DuffyG. (2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research says about what they do and how to develop it. In StricklandD. S.KamilM. L. (Eds.), Improving reading achievement through professional development. Boston, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
15.
DukeN. K.PearsonP. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 40–65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
16.
DurkinD. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 515–544.
17.
FullanM. (1995). Successful school improvement (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
18.
GarmstonR.WellmanB. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. El Dorado Hills, CA: Four Hats.
19.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
20.
GravesD. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21.
GreenleafC. L.JimenezR. T.RollerC. M. (2002). Reclaiming secondary reading interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 484–496.
22.
GreggM.SekerersD. (2006). Supporting children’s reading of expository text in the geography classroom. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 102–110.
23.
GrundyS.RobinsonJ. (2004). Teacher professional development: Themes and trends in the recent Australian experience. In DayC.SachsJ. (Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 120–145). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
24.
GuskeyT. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151–182.
25.
HargreavesA.FullanM. (1993). Teacher development and educational change. In FullanM.HargreavesA. (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
IRA (International Reading Association). (1999). Using multiple methods of beginning reading instruction: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28.
IRA (International Reading Association). (2000) Excellent reading teachers: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
29.
JoyceB.ShowersB. (1995). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.
30.
KintschW. (1994). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
31.
KnipperK.DugganT. (2006). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–472.
32.
KraglerS.WalkerC.MartinL. (2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 254–261.
33.
LinL.MooreD.ZabruckyK. M. (2000). Meta-comprehension knowledge and comprehension of expository and narrative texts among younger and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 6, 737–749.
34.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
LyonsC. A.PinnellG. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
36.
MasseyD. D.HeafnerT. L. (2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26–40.
37.
McLaughlinM.AllenM. B. (2001). Guided comprehension: A teaching model for grades 3–8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
38.
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress). (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
39.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading on its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
40.
OgleD. M. (2008). Teacher education and professional development in reading: 50 years of learning. In FreschM. J. (Ed.), An essential history of current reading practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
41.
O’ReillyT.McNamaraD. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional ‘high-stakes’ measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161–196.
42.
PearsonP. D.GallagherM. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 317–344.
43.
PearsonP. D.RoehlerL. R.DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 145–199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
44.
PressleyM. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the future. In BlockC.C.GambrellL. B.PressleyM. (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 385–399). San Francisco, CA: Wiley and Sons.
45.
PressleyM.Wharton McDonaldR. (2002). The need for increased comprehension instruction. In PressleyM. (Ed.), Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
46.
RAND (Reading Study Group). (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards a R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
47.
ReutzelD. R.SmithJ. A.FawsonP. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(3), 276–305.
48.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
SmylieM. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In GuskeyT.HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 92–113). London: Teachers College Press.
51.
SnowC. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
52.
SnyderJ.BolinF.ZumwaltK. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In JacksonP. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
53.
TaylorB. M.PearsonP. D.PetersonD. S.RodriguezM. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40–69.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
WilsonS. M.BearneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.
57.
York-BarrJ.SommersW. A.GhereG. S.MontieJ. (2001). Reflective practice to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
