This research examines the specialized knowledge of reading comprehension articulated by 12 middle school English language arts teachers sampled from three different regions of the United States and representing various levels of teaching experience. Using detailed interviews, concept mapping, and think aloud methods, we identified salient touchstones that characterize the teachers’ understandings of how and why readers interact with texts to construct meanings and change as readers. In this article, we present examples that illustrate the many ways that these understandings of comprehension were mobilized and transformed in their explanations of instructional practices.
AlexanderP. A.SchallertD. L.HareV. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61, 315–343.
2.
ArtilesA. J.McClaffertyK. (1998). Learning to teach culturally diverse learners: Charting change in preservice teachers’ thinking about effective teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 189–220.
3.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
4.
BartonD.HamiltonM. (2000). Literacy practices. In BartonD.HamiltonM.IvaničR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G. (2001). Inviting students into the pursuit of meaning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 225–241.
6.
ChoB. Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers’ use of internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32, 253–289.
7.
CollinsA.GreenoJ. G. (2010). Situative view of learning. In AukrustV. G. (Ed.), Learning and cognition in education (pp. 64–68). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
8.
CollinsJ.SlembrouckS. (2007). Reading shop windows in globalized neighborhoods: Multilingual literacy practices and indexicality. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 335–356.
9.
DavisD. S.HuangB. H.YiT. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed method examination of predictors and processes of multiple text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 227–252.
10.
DavisD. S.McElhoneD.TenoreF. B. (2015). A dialogic account of reader-text interactions. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 14, 335–349.
11.
FairbanksC. M.DuffyG. G.FairclothB. S.HeY.LevinB.RohrJ.SteinC. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 161–171.
12.
GeeJ. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
GillesC.WangY.JohnsonD. (2016). Drawing on what we do as readers: Discovering and embedding strategies across the disciplines. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59, 675–684.
14.
HaddixM. (2010). “Goin’ for broke”: Reaping the rewards of teaching toward cultural and linguistic diversity. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 20, 83–90.
15.
HarréR.van LangenhoveL. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contents of intentional action. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
16.
HollandD.LeanderK. (2004). Ethnographic studies of positioning and subjectivity: An introduction. Ethos, 32, 127–139.
17.
JanksH. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review, 52, 175–186.
18.
KellyP. (2006). What is teacher learning? A sociocultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 32, 505–519.
19.
KucanL.HapgoodS.PalincsarA. S. (2011). Teachers’ specialized knowledge for supporting student comprehension in text-based discussions. Elementary School Journal, 112, 61–82.
20.
KucanL.PalincsarA. S.KhasnabisD.ChangC. (2009). The video viewing task: A source of information for assessing and addressing teacher understanding of text-based discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 415–423.
21.
LeeC. D.SmagorinskyP. (2000). Introduction: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. In LeeC. D.SmagorinskyP. (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LevinB.HeY. (2008). Investigating the content and sources of teacher candidates’ personal practical theories (PPTs). Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 55–68.
23.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1, 117–175.
24.
ParkL. S. (2011). A long walk to water. New York, NY: Clarion.
25.
PhelpsG. (2009). Just knowing how to read isn’t enough! Assessing knowledge for teaching reading. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21, 137–154.
26.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Office of Education Research and Improvement.
27.
RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (2004). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In UnrauN. J.RuddellR. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1462–1523). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
VerloopN.Van DrielJ.MeijerP. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 441–461.
30.
WarnerJ. (2016). Adolescents’ dialogic composing with mobile phones. Journal of Literacy Research, 48, 164–191.
31.
WilkinsonI. A. G.SonE. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In KamilM. L.RosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume IV (pp. 359–387). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
ZochM. (2015). Growing the good stuff: One literacy coach’s approach to support teachers with high-stakes testing. Journal of Literacy Research, 47, 328–369.
