Comprehension Instruction for Tier 2 Early Learners: A Scaffolded Apprenticeship for Close Reading of Informational Text

Abstract

This exploratory case study used a mixed-methods pre-/post-intervention design to study the impact of an intervention on reading comprehension, annotation, and discussion quality. Five third-grade struggling readers who were part of a Tier 2 reading comprehension group were apprenticed into holding close-reading discussions of informational text. The teacher utilized an apprenticeship approach to provide explicit instruction and scaffolding to support four phases of close reading (discussion norms, main ideas, annotating text, discussion). Curriculum-based probes indicated that students improved their comprehension as measured by the total number of accurate main ideas recalled, the number of correct responses on quizzes, and the number and breadth of annotations. A standardized, norm-referenced measure of fluency (Reading Curriculum–Based Measurement [R-CBM]) and comprehension (MAZE) also showed improvements from fall to spring, with four of five participants changing levels from the winter to spring administration on the MAZE measure of comprehension. Discourse analysis revealed changes in discussion quality.

Keywords

reading comprehension cognitive strategy instruction Multitiered Systems of Support

The RAND group defines reading comprehension as the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language (Snow, 2002). This definition emphasizes the transactional nature of reading. The process of extracting and constructing meaning is a dialectical process, mediated by the readers’ interactions with the text within a broader activity context (e.g., peers, cultural tools, scaffolds). Research on what effective readers do as they read has helped to articulate and make tangible how they interact with text (Nystrand, 2006; Pressley & Afflerbach, 2012). Pressley and Afflerbach (2012) studied the verbal protocols of expert readers and found that these readers were extremely active and flexible as they read. Effective readers flexibly adjust their strategy use as demands change. For example, at different times expert readers might (a) activate relevant prior knowledge and experience; (b) underline, take notes, reread, and paraphrase to help remember information; (c) make inferences; (d) monitor and then clarify their understanding; (e) engage in questioning the text; (f) search a variety of sources to select appropriate information; (g) frequently restate what they understand in their own words through summarization; and (h) visualize/organize what they understand through constructing mental images or mapping information on graphic organizers (McEwan, 2004; Pressley & Afflerbach, 2012).

Unfortunately, there is also ample evidence that shows that struggling readers remain relatively passive while they are reading. Struggling readers are characterized as not employing many of the strategies that effective readers use before, during, and after reading text (Elleman, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bouton, 2011; Humphries, Cardy, Worling, & Peets, 2004). Practically speaking, many students who have difficulty understanding what they read are not effectively monitoring their understanding and may not be aware of or know how to use strategies that might improve comprehension, such as identifying main ideas and key details (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2015).

Researchers have responded to comprehension challenges of struggling readers and those with language/learning disabilities by providing instruction in cognitive strategies. Pressley (2000) and others (Gersten et al., 2001; Wilkinson & Son, 2010) have chronicled the growth of strategy instruction over time, including (a) an early focus on teaching single strategies to mastery (Pressley, 2000), (b) using multicomponent strategy frameworks, (Boardman, Boele, & Klingner, 2018; Klingner et al., 2015; Palincsar & Brown, 1988), and (c) transactional strategy instruction that responsively teaches a menu of strategies that are used flexibly during reading (Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005).

Transactional strategy instruction (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Pressley et al., 1992) typically follows three phases, including (a) selecting a “family” of strategies (e.g., activate background knowledge, text structure, prediction, questioning, imagery, monitoring, and summarizing; Reutzel & Jones, 2006), (b) explicit teaching of each and all strategies (e.g., explain and display uses of strategies, model strategy uses and processes using teacher think-aloud, providing scaffolded assistance and gradual release of responsibility, apply the strategies in a wide range of reading and writing), and (c) employing a gradual release of responsibility of the strategies from the teacher to students over time (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Transactional Strategy Instruction meets the guidelines for reading instruction and assessment established by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Division of Learning Disabilities division of research (Pressley, 2000).

While there is a robust literature related to the success of cognitive strategy instruction to support reading comprehension (Gersten et al., 2001; Solis et al., 2011; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2009), there continues to be questions about how strategies actually impact reading comprehension (see Boardman et al., 2018). Gersten et al. (2001) note that we still do not fully understand what transpires during strategy instruction, or what aspects of the process are the active ingredients that actually enhance comprehension. Reid and Stone (1991) anticipated this same challenge decades ago, arguing that we must know much more about the “communicational dynamics” that surround the use of cognitive strategy instruction.

Wilkinson and Son (2010) note that there has been a “dialogic turn” in reading comprehension instruction. These authors believe that dialogic approaches may have specific benefits, such as helping students have a more “automatic, fluid articulation of strategies necessary for generative and flexible comprehension” (Wilkinson & Son, 2010, p. 376). From this perspective, cognitive strategies—thinking strategies—likely continue to play a key role in understanding how struggling learners might understand what and how they read, but the mechanisms for developing habits of mind are more likely to be found in the ways of talking, ways of thinking, and discourses (including cognitive strategies) that are made visible in the rich dialogues that teachers and students have when they build meaning together (Aukerman, 2013; Boardman et al., 2018; Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, 2008; Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Sohmer, Michaels, O’Connor, & Resnick, 2009; van der Veen, van der Wilt, van Kruistum, van Oers, & Michaels, 2017). Cognitive strategies can offer a powerful way to help students interact with text, but if learning the strategies are focused on mastering the strategy in lieu of sensemaking, then struggling readers may come to view strategies as endpoints, rather than cognitive tools that they can use flexibly when reading.

Despite the importance of discussion in the knowledge-construction process, there is an urgent need to further understand the apprenticeship process for young struggling readers (Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013). Critically important is to understand how teachers might utilize cultural tools (e.g., cue cards, language stems, discussion norms, and memory aids) and text structure (e.g., graphic organizers) to provide scaffolded supports that allow students to use the discourse strategies of more able readers. One recent approach to reading, close reading, may be particularly well suited for developing rich discussions and embedding cultural tools.

Close Reading

The Common Core Standards have brought renewed attention to close reading (Fisher & Frey, 2013) and the importance of multiple readings to construct deeper meanings and interpretations of complex texts (Fisher & Frey, 2014b). The first reading may focus on “Determining what the text says,” paying close attention to the main ideas and details in the expository passage (Jones, Chang, Heritage, & Tobiason, 2014). In this stage, the reader develops an understanding of what the text says, uncovering the key ideas in the text and determining the relationship among the big ideas and supporting details (Jitendra, Cole, Hoppes, & Wilson, 1998). In the second reading, the reader figures out how the text works, keying in on the author’s purpose for the section, and how the text is structured through literary devices, features, and text structures (Jones et al., 2014). Through this deeper textual inspection, the reader unpacks the author’s craft and examines the tools and devices for presenting the information and evidence. In the third stage, the reader attends to “What the text means.” This stage invites the students to elaborate and connect their experiences to the text, making connections and comparisons with other texts, forming judgments and inferences, and actively integrating the information across knowledge sources. This is the stage where readers concentrate on their comprehension strategies to monitor and deepen their understanding of the textual meanings, expanding their thinking, and challenging the text or their own understandings (Harvey & Goudvis, 2013). Finally, students are encouraged to engage in collaborative conversations with others to “consolidate their thinking in the presence of peers,” thereby offering students another opportunity to revisit their understanding as they participate in a discursive forum that is thought to be more cognitively challenging and enriching than the provision of simple text-dependent prompts or questions (Fisher & Frey, 2016, p. 408). In these collaborative conversations, members engage in a form of accountable talk or academic discourse (e.g., deliberative, accountable) that is bolstered by their shared accountability to the discussion norms, to logical connections and reasoning, and respect for knowledge that is supported by facts and evidence (Michaels et al., 2008).

With the recent focus on close reading, teachers are being asked to employ and develop the instructional routines and tools that will help to guide their students and struggling readers to interrogate the text, flexibly apply the comprehension strategies, and dig deeper into the layers of the text through multiple readings to unpack its meanings (Frey & Fisher, 2013). There are several qualities of close-reading protocols that make them attractive to teachers of struggling readers. First, successful close-reading performance depends on cognitive apprenticeships that are carefully crafted and implemented through scaffolded reading lessons that are designed by teachers to model, cue, and prompt students to apply each of the close-reading strategies. Furthermore, these cognitive apprenticeships feature both the practice of rereading expository texts, and “reading with a pencil” so that the students learn to annotate the text directly by marking up the text (underlining and circling ideas) and writing notes in the margins at the places where they have specific thoughts, confusions, reactions, interpretations, and questions. For struggling readers, annotating the text can help them to stay mentally awake and active, and provide an authentic context with appropriate literacy tools and symbol systems for talking-to-the-text and making notes associated with particular thoughts and strategies visible to themselves and others. Second, grappling with difficult texts with the support of the teacher and peers can also help struggling readers build stamina and persistence, providing them with access to other ways of thinking and strategies for interpreting the difficult parts of the texts (Fisher & Frey, 2012). Third, teachers can support the close-reading habits through instructional routines that mitigate the difficulty of the text using interactive read-alouds, shared readings, modeling and think-alouds, partner reading, and collaborative discussions (Fisher & Frey, 2012). Thus, a close-reading intervention might offer a viable framework for addressing the comprehension difficulties of struggling readers when it is blended with the cognitive and social supports in a learning community to construct meanings with other members as part of a dialectical process.

Current Study

The purpose of this exploratory study was to provide a scaffolded apprenticeship in reading comprehension that we are calling dialogic strategic close reading. This case study used a mixed-methods, within-group pretest-intervention-posttest design. A baseline phase of two lessons were compared with two postintervention lessons after students had received a 13-week comprehension intervention. Five third-grade struggling readers were taught by a special education teacher (Tier 2) who served as an academic interventionist in the school’s Multitiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework. The intervention being tested in this study drew upon our existing knowledge of effective reading comprehension instruction in three areas, including dialogic instruction (Aukerman, 2013; Michaels & O’Connor, 2013; van der Veen et al., 2017), cognitive strategy instruction (Klingner et al., 2015; Pressley et al., 1992), and close reading (Fisher & Frey, 2012, 2016).

Scaffolding in this study was designed to support the cognitive apprenticeship of young learners into the social, linguistic, and literate practices of more able readers of expository text. Cognitive apprenticeships were designed to make visible and open the usually tacit processes of more experienced readers and thinkers through observation, imitation, modeling, scaffolding, and coaching (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). As such, the demands on scaffolding were great as there had to be the provision of scaffolded supports for the inner language of more able readers (e.g., cue cards with language stems, modeling and thinking aloud), the norms of discourse that underlay accountable discussions, the tools that good readers use to remember and rehearse information while they are reading (e.g., annotating text and jotting down notes), and flexibly accessing a series of cognitive strategies that effective readers use when talking to the text, such as asking questions, seeking clarification for unclear words or ideas, making personal connections to background knowledge, and commenting on the information in the text as they read. To make visible the language, strategy, and normative practices of more expert readers, the study used prompts, mnemonics, procedural facilitators, memory aids, and language scaffolds.

Although Fisher and Frey (2014a) implemented a close-reading intervention with struggling readers in middle school (Fisher & Frey, 2014a), which was shown to be effective, we are not aware of any research that has examined close reading and strategy instruction within a Tier 2 intervention model for third-grade students.

In this exploratory study, we asked four questions, including

Research Question 1: Does the intervention produce changes in reading comprehension from preintervention to postintervention and on school MTSS measures (R-CBM, MAZE)?

Research Question 2: Are there changes in intervention students’ annotations on informational texts from preintervention to postintervention?

Research Question 3: Does the intervention influence the quantity and quality of discussions from preintervention to postintervention?

Research Question 4: Do participants see the close-reading intervention as socially valid?

Method

Participants and Setting

The study took place in a diverse suburban elementary school in the Midwest. The school had 51.2% of its students participating in the National School Lunch Program. Caucasian students made up 66.1% of the student body, with Hispanic (14%), African American (8%), biracial (8%), and Asian (3%) students making up the remaining students. The school had a long history using MTSS.

The teacher in this study taught in the self-contained autism classroom for 50% of the day and served as one of the intervention teachers for the school’s Response to Intervention (RTI) program as a Tier 2 intervention teacher the remaining 50% of the day. The teacher had taught for 29 years. She held a teaching certificate in K-5 elementary education, an early childhood education endorsement, and a master’s degree in special education (learning disabilities). She taught two Tier 2 reading groups (third and fourth grades).

Five third-grade students were identified by their teachers as needing additional support in the area of reading comprehension (see Table 1 for student demographic data). On the winter AIMSweb MAZE assessment (Shinn & Shinn, 2002), given just prior to the current study, four of the five students scored below benchmark, with three of those students identified as needing “intensive” supports. One student was identified as being below benchmark, but at the “strategic” level. The group consisted of two girls and three boys, including one African American male, one Asian American male, one female English language learner (ELL), and two students who were Caucasian (one female, one male). One of the Caucasian male students was identified as having a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The African American male had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) as a student with a learning disability. All five students received free or reduced-price lunch.

Table 1.

Student Demographics.

Name	Grade	Child factor	Race/ethnicity	Free/red. lunch	Support	Winter MAZE level
Alice	Third	English learner	Eastern European	Yes	Tier 2	Intensive
Axel	Third	LD	African American	Yes	Tier 2	Intensive
Killian	Third	None	Asian American	Yes	Tier 2	Strategic
Susan	Third	None	Caucasian	Yes	Tier 2	Benchmark
Craig	Third	ADHD	Caucasian	Yes	Tier 2	Intensive

Note. LD = learning disability; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Procedures and Materials

The study was carried out over a 15-week period during January to March, and consisted of 40 2-hr lessons. All 40 lessons were videotaped and uploaded to a secure media space at the university. Students met for a half-hour a day, 4 days per week for Tier 2 reading comprehension intervention. There were three phases in the study, including (a) baseline, (b) intervention, and (c) postintervention. A total of 11 expository passages were taught across the study. Two passages each were used during the baseline and postintervention phases. The intervention phase of the study adhered to the following timeline: (a) initial orientation to the study (1 day); (b) teaching strategy frameworks to support discussion, as well as two close-reading routines to understand “what the text says” and “what it means” (CLASS + BURN + Mark It/Jot It) over a 3-week period (4-5 days per framework); (c) teaching three full-length expository passages to apprentice students into the close-reading process using the three strategy frameworks (8 weeks); and (d) teaching four short expository passages to provide additional practice in dialogic strategic close reading with discussion (1 week). Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006) was identified to teach each of the three strategy frameworks due to its extensive research base as an evidence-based intervention.

To support instruction and fidelity to strategy implementation, daily lesson plans were created. The researchers and teacher went through each lesson prior to its implementation.

Intervention materials and lessons were developed digitally (e.g., PowerPoint) and projected on an interactive SMART Board® to guide instruction. Copies of posters, cue cards, graphic organizers, and expository passages were included in digital format. The digital materials also provided additional scaffolds for the teacher and students, including the phases of learning in the apprenticeship process (e.g., “I Do,” “We Do,” “You Do”).

Baseline

Four expository passages about an animal were created (two for preintervention, two for postintervention). Passages were constructed to be identical or similar in reading level (e.g., 3.5), passage length, number of main ideas, type of main idea, and number of paragraphs to allow for comparison. Each passage contained eight paragraphs, with each paragraph containing one main idea (e.g., “How it hunts,” “How it protects self”). A large box, with the words “main idea” was placed next to each paragraph, to cue the students to identify and write the main ideas in the box. The preintervention passage topics were Honey Badger and Hummingbird. The postintervention passages were Naked Mole Rat and Rattlesnake. A 10-question quiz was constructed by the researchers for each of the four passages. Quiz question types were identical across the four passages.

The baseline phase of the study took place over 2 days prior to the beginning of the intervention phase. The purpose of this phase of the study was to document students’ understanding of main ideas, annotations, and student-led discussions prior to the intervention. First, the teacher projected the passage on the screen and read the passage aloud, while students followed along, to ensure that students could hear the pronunciation of all words. The students were then directed to reread the passage independently and identify the main idea for each of the eight paragraphs by writing the main idea in the box next to each paragraph. The students then were asked to annotate the text in any way they felt would help them to retain the information for a discussion and quiz. Students were encouraged to use pencils, highlighter markers, and sticky notes to make any notations that might help them remember the passage. After reading and annotating the text, the teacher directed the students to hold a discussion. The teacher explained to students that she would not be directly involved in the discussion, but wanted to hear what they thought about the passage. Baseline discussions lasted between 4 and 7 min. Students completed the session by taking a quiz over the passage.

Day 1 of intervention: Setting the stage for the study and goal setting

The first day of the intervention was geared to introducing students to a particular type of reading, close reading, and to set goals for their reading. Close reading encompassed two sets of strategies: BURN and Mark It/Jot It. The teacher and students brainstormed what they meant by close reading. Six aspects of close reading were identified and discussed, including that (a) we read passages that require us to think carefully about what it means (text complexity), (b) close reading means that we may read short passages multiple times to unpack the meaning (rereading), (c) we read with a “pen in our hand” to annotate or mark up the text as we interact with the ideas to understand and remember the information, (d) we use many thinking strategies like questioning, clarifying, connecting, and commenting, (e) we discuss what we are reading with others, and (f) we read to get smarter together, which means that we share, debate, and discuss what we read.

Norms for discussion: CLASS

To begin to build a foundation for developing positive norms of discussion, the teacher directly taught behaviors that would ensure that students were accountable to the community of peers. CLASS was a strategy framework that alerted students to specific behaviors that were modeled, practiced, reviewed, and applied in real discussions over 4 to 5 days (see CLASS poster in Figure 1). Five discussion skills were explicitly taught: (a) C ontribute ideas, (b) L isten to others, (c) A ccept ideas, (d) S upport others, and (e) S how respect. Instructional activities in teaching CLASS included discussing the CLASS poster, identifying common “discussion stoppers,” completing a “fish bowl” activity where the teacher and researchers modeled a discussion and students rated the quality of discussion, practicing the CLASS skills with a short sample passage, and completing a CLASS self-evaluation card periodically throughout the intervention period. To measure mastery, all students took and passed a multiple-choice quiz on identifying the CLASS skills.

Figure 1.

Instructional posters and cue cards for CLASS, BURN, Mark It/Jot It strategies and graphic organizer/main idea list.

First read: Main ideas and details using BURN and graphic organizer

The first stage of close reading featured reading strategies for unpacking “What the text says” by paying close attention to the main ideas and details in the expository passage. The BURN strategy was an acronym that stood for B ox the paragraph, U nderline the key details, R ead the details, and N ote the main idea in the margin next to the text. The teacher modeled how to box paragraphs, underline key details, reread the details, and thought aloud about the main idea as she asked herself “What are all the ideas about?” and “What can they call those ideas?” (Jitendra et al., 1998). The teacher modeled how to record the main idea in the box next to each paragraph, so students learned how to stop-think-paraphrase after each paragraph while they inferred and noted the main idea or category in the margins that subsumed the key details. The teacher and students then practiced the BURN strategy, first on single paragraphs, together, using the SMART Board®, before implementing the strategy in the context of the seven instructional passages.

Once students could use the BURN strategy as they read and summarized paragraphs, the teacher provided a graphic organizer (Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004) so students could see how the main ideas and details could be mapped across the entire text. Each information category was recorded in a different color and, as students reported the key details, the teacher recorded them on the graphic organizer to offer another visual scaffold to help students formulate and observe how the text was structured within and across the big ideas in the passage (e.g., “How the text is written”). The teacher transferred control to students for identifying their key details and categories for the expository paragraphs during guided practice, but the teacher continued to record the information for the group on the graphic organizer to reduce the writing burden for students. This moving from the BURN strategy to the graphic organizer map allowed the students to see the entire text structure for the passage.

Mark It/Jot It

A second close reading of the text sought to answer the question “What does it mean?” After students used the BURN strategy to get the gist of the passage by identifying key details and main ideas, a second rereading of the text focused on making meaning by talking to the text and applying interpretive strategies. First, the teacher modeled how to use the Mark It strategy to annotate the text as she modeled how to “read with a pencil” in her hand while she underlined, circled, and recorded questions marks and other symbols directly in the text. Once students were comfortable in marking up and annotating the text, the teacher introduced the Jot It strategies. In this stage, the teacher modeled how to elaborate and connect the information in the text to their own experiences and understanding by applying several comprehension strategies, including asking questions, clarifications, connections, and comments. Students were presented with a Jot-It cue-card as a visual scaffold, which included the sentence stems to support the inner speech associated with each of the four thinking strategies. The sentence stems served as a form of language scaffold to elicit the inner speech and thinking responses needed to apply the comprehension and interpretive strategies as they talked to the text. As students gained skill in employing these strategies with text, the teacher began to demonstrate how the Jot-It cue-card and their jotted notes could be used to support collaborative talk and discussion with others in the community.

Instructional passages

Seven intervention passages were used for instruction. The first three passages during the intervention period (8 weeks) were full-length grade-level expository passages taken from the Reading A to Z website (www.readinga-z.com). These three passages (e.g., Amazing Ants, Goliath Bird-Eating Spider, and Komodo Dragon) were used as training passages for directly teaching the two close-reading strategies, BURN and Mark It/Jot It. Full-length texts were used to provide extended practice in using the main idea paragraph summarization routine (BURN), the representation of the text structure on the graphic organizer (map), and Mark It/Jot It strategies. This helped to ensure that students were exposed to a full range of main ideas and details, allowing them to see the intertextual links between animal passages, such as the recurrence of similar main idea categories (e.g., characteristics, hunt/eats, enemies, caring for young).

Four additional passages were constructed by the researchers (Pangolin, Red Panda, Cheetah, and Wombat). These passages were shorter in length and were meant to be completed during a 30-min lesson. Each passage was controlled for length, total main ideas, type of main idea, and readability. The primary purpose of these passages was to allow students multiple opportunities for independent practice of the close-reading strategies.

Postintervention phase

The postintervention phase mirrored the baseline phase. Two passages, Naked Mole Rat and Rattlesnakes, were read on consecutive days. The teacher read the passage out aloud. Students noted the main or big idea in the text box next to each paragraph. The students were then provided highlighters and sticky notes to annotate the text and prepare for discussion. The students then discussed the text and completed a 10-question multiple-choice quiz on the passage. The entire lesson was videotaped and all artifacts were collected.

Data Sources and Data Analysis

To provide insight into the four research questions, we collected and analyzed data related to the students’ reading comprehension, annotation, and discussions. Student and teacher feedback on the social validity of the intervention was also collected.

Comprehension measures

Students read two informational passages during the baseline phase and two informational passages during the postintervention phase. The teacher read scripted directions for all passages to ensure fidelity to condition. Descriptive statistics were calculated for total main ideas attempted, accuracy of main idea (correct = 1 point, correct detail = 0.25 point, and incorrect or not attempted = 0 points), and mean number of main ideas for pre- and postintervention passages.

To assess understanding of the expository passages, a 10-question quiz was created for each passage. The questions followed the same pattern for all passages, including questions related to identifying the main idea, vocabulary, inference, and author’s purpose for writing the passage. Total correct answers were calculated for each individual student, and mean scores were calculated for each of the four passages and compared.

Finally, data were collected on students’ performance on the R-CBM oral reading fluency and MAZE comprehension measures as part of the school’s MTSS program. Data were collected by the school’s MTSS data team and included the reading interventionist and other trained raters. Students were identified as meeting “benchmark,” “strategic” (below benchmark), or “intensive” (significantly below benchmark) levels.

Annotations

The second research question sought to understand how and whether students might demonstrate engagement with the text through annotations. Students were taught to mark up the text and to jot down questions, clarifications, comments, or connections on sticky notes to support their discussion during the intervention. All annotation notes were coded for each individual student by the total number of annotations and type of annotation (e.g., question, clarification, comment, or connection) across the baseline and postintervention conditions as a proxy for engaging with the text.

Discussion transcripts

The third research question sought to see whether there were differences in the quantity and quality of discussion from pre- to postintervention. All lessons were videotaped. In this study, we focus on four discussions, the two preintervention and two postintervention discussions. All four discussions were transcribed in full from the video. Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding procedures were followed. Each transcript was read and reread multiple times. Patterns and themes were developed. Descriptive statistics of discussion elements, including total turns, total number of initiation-response (i.e., discussion) sequences, and the nature of discussion strategies (e.g., questions, clarifications, comments, and connections) were calculated within and across individuals for the pre- and postintervention lessons.

Student and teacher social validity measures

Student social validity data were collected via a written survey that used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A set of questions was created for each of the three strategy frameworks (BURN, Mark It/Jot It, and CLASS) and discussion. The students were asked to rate the strategy framework’s effectiveness in helping the student individually, whether it helped the group as a collective, their general enjoyment of using the strategies, and whether they would like to use the strategy in future classes. For all three strategy frameworks and discussion, a mean score was calculated for each question and then a total mean score was calculated for each framework.

To obtain a measure of the teacher’s perceived value of the intervention, the teacher was asked to comment on each strategy framework across several dimensions, including (a) the ease of implementation, (b) the effectiveness of the lesson plans in helping to teach the strategies, (c) the perceived effectiveness of each of the strategies within the framework, (d) the overall effectiveness of the intervention on student performance, (e) enjoyment in teaching the strategy framework, and (f) likelihood that she would teach the framework in the future.

Fidelity in data collection

To ensure accuracy to condition during the pre and postintervention data collection, a script was created for the teacher to follow. The teacher read the script for each of the four assessment passages. The scripted directions were videotaped for each lesson. A second area of fidelity was related to the comparability of the expository passages and to the quiz questions. Passages were constructed to ensure they were comparable in total number of words, total ideas, total main ideas, type of main idea, and readability level. Quizzes were also constructed to be comparable, including the number and types of questions related to identifying main ideas, key details, vocabulary, and author’s intent.

Verbatim transcripts were completed for each of the pre- and postintervention lessons. The first two authors independently completed analyses of the transcript data for type of strategy talk (question, clarification, connection, and comment) and compared analyses. Any disagreements were discussed and resolved. To assess whether the talk represented authentic discussions, the number of initiation-response sequences were calculated. If a student’s statement led to another student responding to the content of the student’s initiation, this was counted as an initiation-response sequence. The total number of turns and the number of different students involved in the turn sequences were coded.

Results

The purpose of this mixed-methods case study was to see whether an intervention that combines close reading and strategy instruction within a dialogic framework could show evidence of improving reading comprehension, engagement with the text through annotation, changes in the quality of discussion, and social validity.

Reading comprehension

Students were asked to identify the main ideas for each of eight paragraphs across two preintervention passages and two postintervention passages (see Table 2). All five students identified more correct main ideas on the postintervention passages than preintervention passages. The five students’ mean number of correct main ideas on the two preintervention passages was 2.44, compared with 5.7 correct main ideas on the postintervention passages. In no instance did a student recall more main ideas on the two preintervention passages than on their postintervention passages.

Table 2.

Comprehension Measures: Correct Main Ideas and Multiple-Choice Scores.

Name	Correct main ideas				Multiple choice
	Preintervention passages		Postintervention passages		Preintervention		Postintervention
	1	2	1	2	1	2	1	2
Alice	3.5	4.5	5.0	5.0	80	50	80	70
Axel	3.0	1.75	4.75	5.5	70	70	80	70
Killian	1.75	NA	7.0	5.0	70	NA	70	80
Susan	1.25	4.75	7.25	5.0	70	90	100	90
Craig	0.75	0.75	6.0	6.5	90	90	80	100
Average	2.05	2.94	6.0	5.3	76	75	84	84

On the multiple-choice quizzes, there was one missing data point on the second preintervention quiz due to an absence (Killian). The mean scores for the two preintervention passages were 76% and 75%, whereas the two postintervention passage mean scores were 84% and 84%. Looking at individual student achievement (see Table 2), four of the five students had their highest score on a postintervention measure, while one student had an equivalent high score (Alice).

Students in this study were assessed as part of the school’s MTSS process. In the area of reading, students were given the R-CBM and MAZE assessment as measures to assess oral reading fluency and comprehension, respectively. The five students’ scores on the R-CBM and MAZE assessments are shown in Table 3. All five students improved on both R-CBM and MAZE scores from the fall to spring assessment. After the winter assessment of the MAZE comprehension measure, four of five students were below benchmark level, with three of the five students (Axel, Craig, and Alice) at the “intensive” level, indicating that comprehension was a significant area of weakness. After the intervention period, the school administered the spring assessments. All four students who were below benchmark moved up one or more levels. Axel’s improvement from 7 to 15 moved him from the “intensive” to the “benchmark” level. Craig’s improvement from 9 to 13 moved him from “intensive” to “strategic.” Killian’s improvement from 14 to 17 moved him from “strategic” to “benchmark.” Alice’s improvement from 10 to 11 moved her from “intensive” to “strategic.” The scores of the fifth student, Susan, also improved from 15 to 17, maintaining her benchmark level across both testing periods. This student was subsequently exited from Tier 2 intervention at the conclusion of our study.

Table 3.

Fall and Spring R-CBM and MAZE Scores.

Name	Fall third-grade R-CBM	Spring third-grade R-CBM	Fall third-grade MAZE	Spring third-grade MAZE
Axel	84	133	8	15
Craig	50	90	7	13
Killian	110	118	12	17
Susan	106	157	11	17
Alice	38	72	5	11

Note. R-CBM = Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement.

Annotating text

A second area that we examined were the students’ annotations to the text (see Table 4). Examining whether and how students annotated text before and after intervention provides insight into whether students were using thinking strategies while reading. The results showed large differences in the total number of annotations from preintervention to postintervention, with students annotating the text eight times during preintervention (mean of 1.6 per student) and 47 times during postintervention (mean of 9.4 per student).

Table 4.

Annotations.

Name	Preintervention				Postintervention
Name	Questions	Clarifications	Comments	Connections	Questions	Clarifications	Comments	Connections
Alice	2	0	0	0	4	3	2	1
Axel	0	0	4	0	7	2	3	1
Killian	0	0	0	0	7	2	3	2
Susan	1	0	1	0	0	3	1	1
Craig	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	1
Total	3	0	5	0	18	10	13	6

All five students annotated the text at higher levels on the postintervention measure than the preintervention baseline measure. At preintervention, there were two types of annotations, asking a question of the text (n = 3) and commenting on the text (n = 5). There was no evidence that students sought to clarify the text or to make connections. On the postintervention passages, students asked questions of the text 18 times, made clarifying statements 10 times, commented on information in the passage 13 times, and made connections to the text six times.

Three of the students, Alice, Axel, and Killian annotated their texts at much higher levels at postintervention. Alice, an ELL student, increased her annotations from 2 to 10 from pre- to postintervention. At preintervention, she asked two questions but she did not use any other strategies or make any other textual annotations. On the postintervention, she used all four types of strategy annotations, including questions (n = 4), clarifications (n = 3), comments (n = 2), and connections (n = 1). Killian and Axel’s annotations also showed large increases in total annotations used and the breadth of strategies used. Killian increased his annotations from 0 to 14 from pre- to postintervention. Whereas Killian recorded no annotations on the preintervention passage, he included four types of strategies on the postintervention passage, with questions (n = 7), clarifications (n = 2), comments (n = 3), and connections (n = 2). Axel, a student identified as having a learning disability, increased his annotations from 4 to 13, from pre- to postintervention. Axel made four comments at preintervention, but he did not raise any questions, clarifications, or connections. On the postintervention, he used all four types of strategy annotations, with questions (n = 7), clarifications (n = 2), comments (n = 3), and connections (n = 1).

Particularly revealing was the fact that Alice (ELL) and Axel (learning disability) were two of the three students with the most intensive learning needs, as indicated by their low scores on R-CBM and MAZE preintervention scores. These two students were also identified as having “intensive” remediation needs in comprehension. It appears that the intervention, including the many tools for helping students interact with the text, may have created the scaffolded support necessary for these students to enter into dialogue with the text.

Two students, Susan and Craig, also had overall increases in their strategy annotations from pre- to postintervention, but at lower total numbers and with less breadth than their peers. Susan increased her annotations from two to five from pre- to postintervention. At preintervention, Susan asked one question and one comment. On the postintervention, Susan had annotations in three of the four types, with questions (n = 0), clarifications (n = 3), comments (n = 1), and connections (n = 1). Craig increased his annotations from 0 to 5 from pre- to postintervention. On the postintervention, Craig had annotations in two of the four types, including questions (n = 0), clarifications (n = 0), comments (n = 4), and connections (n = 1).

Discussing text

The third research question asked whether there were quantitative and qualitative changes in the nature of student-led discussions before and after the intervention. To examine this question, discussion transcripts were analyzed and coded for the two preintervention discussions and postintervention discussions. All four discussions lasted between 4:03 and 6:40, with the two postintervention discussions lasting longer than the two preintervention discussions. Students took 42 turns in the preintervention discussions and 62 turns in the postintervention discussions. In all, four of five students had more speaking turns in the postintervention passages than in the preintervention discussions.

In the preintervention discussion, two types of talk dominated the interactions. The first type of talk was coded as procedural talk as this talk was related to procedures such as who was going to take a turn, what paragraph the students were talking about, and the sequence of speakers: “Who is going to go first?” “Okay, I’ll go first,” “You’re next.” This type of talk took up 50% of the coded talk across the two passages (16/32). The second category of talk that occurred frequently (15/32) during the preintervention discussion was students making a statement about the text. These statements were coded as comments.

001 Sally:

I’m going to tell you why they buzz because the first paragraph is about

002

the buzzing that you hear and why they make it with their wings.

003 Alice:

I think it was about the wings . . . how fast and how slow their wings go . . .

004 Axel:

I think about the only . . . they fly backwards

005 Killian:

They mostly eat . . . like the flowers because that gives them more nectar.

006

Their main predators are (inaudible)

All four students restate information, with the first three signaling the statement by saying “I am” or “I think.” However, there is no uptake or response to the previous speaker’s statement. Across the two discussions, there were no clarifications, no connections, and only a single question that was asked in response to a comment.

Talk in the postintervention passages included eight questions, three clarifications, three comments, and two connections. In postintervention discussion, the talk often more closely resembled an authentic discussion where students’ initiated questions, asked for clarifications, and drew upon their own background knowledge about the topic to make sense of the content. In the following exchange about the Rattlesnake, there is an expectation that when a member asks a question or seeks clarification on something they do not understand, it is the responsibility of the group to reply to the person initiating the discussion:

001 Killian:

What does the pit viper do?

002 Craig:

A pit viper is a type of viper that senses heat with the pits on its face so it

003

can hunt.

004 Sally:

I thought it meant like it was a viper that lived in a pit. That’s what I thought

005

because of the words.

006 Craig:

Yeah. Some rattlesnakes live in a pit.

007 Sally:

I have a question. Why couldn’t they have been called buzzing snakes. It

008

says they made a buzzing sound.

009 Killian:

Because they have a rattle on their tail it makes a buzzing sound. That’s

010

why they called it RATTLE snake

011 Alice:

Because they make a rattle noise.

012 Sally:

It still doesn’t make sense to me.

013 Axel:

I got a question. Why is there no other snake that lives in Michigan that

014

bites except for one?

017 Sally:

No he is asking why is there only one deadly. . .one poisonous snake in

018

Michigan.

018 Alice:

Maybe because other snakes they can’t survive here. Maybe they don’t have

019

what they need.

Given the clear differences in the nature of talk from preintervention to postintervention, a secondary analysis of initiation-response sequences was undertaken. As shown in Table 5, there were just two initiation-response sequences in the preintervention discussions. On the contrary, during postintervention discussions, there were three types of initiations that spurred discussion, including six questions, five clarifications, and one comment. In postintervention discussions, there were more student speakers involved in the initiation-response sequences (average of 3.16) and the number of turn sequences tended to be longer (average of 4.58).

Table 5.

Initiation-Response Sequences: Initiating Moves, Speakers, Turns.

Preintervention discussion initiation-response sequences			Postintervention discussion initiation-response sequences
Initiation move	No. of speakers	Total turns	Initiation move	No. of speakers	Total turns
Comment	2	2	Question	2	1
Comment	2	3	Question	2	1
			Question	3	5
			Question	3	3
			Question	4	4
			Clarification	4	7
			Clarification	3	5
			Clarification	5	7
			Clarification	2	2
			Comment	3	8
Average	2	2.5		3.16	4.58

Social validity

Mean student ratings on all four components of the dialogic strategic close-reading intervention were rated between 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree). The highest rated component was Mark It/Jot It (4.625), followed by CLASS (4.5), Discussion (4.375), and BURN (4.125). Examples of the highest rated stems included “CLASS improved our group’s behavior with each other when we had discussions,” “I would like to use the BURN strategy in classes in the future,” “The Mark It/Jot It strategies helped me discuss our passages more effectively,” and “I learned from listening to my friends in discussion.”

The teacher in the study was interviewed at the conclusion of the intervention. She noted that CLASS, BURN, Mark It/Jot It, and discussion were all extremely beneficial to her students. Having the lessons completed in advance and able to be projected on the SMART Board® made delivery quite smooth. The scaffolds on each slide were also helpful, including the “I Do,” “We Do,” and “You Do” prompts. Posters allowed the teacher to quickly reference the strategies if there was a need to reteach or if there was a breakdown in strategic behavior. The close-reading approach was thought to be particularly beneficial to her students as the rereading of text allowed her students to take different passes through the text and with different purposes.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a multicomponent reading intervention in dialogic strategic close reading on Tier 2 third-grade students’ comprehension and discussion of informational texts. Special education teachers and reading specialists are assuming new roles as reading interventionists in their school’s MTSS process. For early elementary learners, instruction in these intervention groups has necessarily focused on building the foundation of learning to read through direct and explicit instruction on phonics, word study, vocabulary, and fluency. This focus should and must continue. There has been relatively less attention focused on building the rich interactive dialogic apprenticeships that create the kinds of active, strategic, and close reading of more expert readers for early learners. Learning to effectively engage with text demands that teachers of reading create opportunities for students to make visible their thinking in a community of peers, interrogate text through accountable talk, and have access to rich cognitive strategies of knowledgeable others.

The findings in this study suggest that Tier 2 third-grade readers could continue to demonstrate gains and even move from one level to another level from the winter to spring assessments on standardized, norm-referenced measures of comprehension (MAZE testing). Students showed that they could identify more main ideas and engage with the text through sometimes dramatic increases in how they annotated text with questions, clarifications, comments, and connections. Finally, an examination of the student discussions showed that with powerful strategy instruction (e.g., SRSD process), language scaffolds (e.g., cue card), and memory scaffolds (e.g., sticky notes), there were important shifts in the thinking practices of our young readers (see Boardman et al., 2018 for additional example in middle school). From virtually no authentic discussion at preintervention, at postintervention students in this study asked a much higher frequency of questions and clarifications. These discourse moves, in turn, invited other peers to share their thinking.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

There are several limitations to this study that point to future research directions. The typically small number of participants in Tier 2 reading groups may benefit from the use of single-case experimental research designs. Future studies looking across multiple Tier 2 groups could also employ more rigorous quasi-experimental or experimental group designs to test the intervention. It may be particularly beneficial to identify larger subgroups within the population of struggling readers (e.g., students with disabilities, ELL populations) to better understand the impact of the intervention and how it may need more or less scaffolded support. Reading gains on the school-based standardized, norm-referenced measures cannot be attributed to this Tier 2 intervention alone as students continued to receive normal classroom instruction in addition to the Tier 2 intervention. Moreover, this study focused on a single text structure, main ideas, and key details. Future studies should explore scaffolded apprenticeships with other text structures. Studies can be implemented, which provide independent validation of the CLASS, BURN, and Mark It/Jot It strategy frameworks.

Conclusion

Teachers report that they struggle to implement dialogic teaching in their classrooms (Rosaen, Meyer, Strachan, & Meier, 2017). For teachers who work with struggling readers and those with disabilities, these challenges can be magnified. Teachers benefit when they have access to scaffolds to more confidently provide the direct, explicit, and strategic instruction within an apprenticeship process for struggling readers. In this study, we provided the teacher with explicit scaffolds for teaching the underlying norms of discussion (CLASS), a strategy framework for a first reading of the passage (BURN) to identify main ideas and details, and a second set of strategies for interacting with the text through questions, clarifications, comments, and connections (Mark It/Jot It). Young struggling readers can be apprenticed into the practices of more expert readers with scaffolded support (Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

References

Aukerman

(2013). Rereading comprehension pedagogies: Toward a dialogic teaching ethic that honors student sensemaking. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 1, A1–A30. doi:10.5195/dpj.2013.9

Boardman

A. G.

Boele

A. L.

Klingner

J. K.

(2018). Strategy instruction shifts teacher and student interactions during text-based discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 53, 175–195. doi:10.1002/rrq.191

Brown

Pressley

Van Meter

Schuder

(1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategy instruction with previously low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 18–37. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.18

Collins

Brown

J. S.

Newman

S. E.

(1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick

L. B.

(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duke

N. K.

Pearson

P. D.

(2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Elleman

A. M.

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bouton

(2011). Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at risk of developing comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 348–357. doi:10.1177/0022219411407865

Fisher

Frey

(2012). Close reading in elementary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66, 179–188. doi:10.1177/0022219411407865

Fisher

Frey

(2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fisher

Frey

(2014a). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57, 367–376. doi:10.1002/jaal.266

10.

Fisher

Frey

(2014b). Scaffolded reading instruction of content-area texts. The Reading Teacher, 67, 347–351. doi:10.1002/trtr.1234

11.

Fisher

Frey

(2016). Systems for teaching complex texts: A proof-of-concept investigation. The Reading Teacher, 69, 403–412. doi:10.1002/trtr.1409

12.

Frey

Fisher

(2013). Close reading: The Common Core State Standards have brought new attention to a long-respected and valuable reading strategy called close reading. Principal Leadership, 13(5), 57–59.

13.

Gersten

Fuchs

Williams

J. P.

Baker

(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Education Research, 71, 279–320. doi:10.3102/00346543071002279

14.

Harris

K. R.

Graham

Mason

L. H.

(2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.

15.

Harvey

Goudvis

(2013). Comprehension at the core. The Reading Teacher, 66, 432–439. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1145

16.

Humphries

Cardy

J. O.

Worling

D. E.

Peets

(2004). Narrative comprehension and retelling abilities of children with nonverbal learning disabilities. Brain and Cognition, 56, 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.06001

17.

Jitendra

A. K.

Cole

C. L.

Hoppes

M. K.

Wilson

(1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–396. doi:10.1080/1057356980140403

18.

Jones

Chang

Heritage

Tobiason

(2014). Supporting students in close reading (Grant No. #S283B050022A). Los Angeles: WestEd, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California.

19.

Kim

Vaughn

Wanzek

Wei

(2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 105–118. doi:10.1177/00222194040370020201

20.

Klingner

J. K.

Vaughn

Boardman

(2015). Teaching reading comprehension to students with learning difficulties (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

21.

Mahdavi

J. N.

Tensfeldt

(2013). Untangling reading comprehension strategy instruction: Assisting struggling readers in the primary grades. Preventing School Failure, 57, 77–92. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.668576

22.

McEwan

E. K.

(2004). 7 strategies of highly effective readers: Using cognitive research to boost K-8 achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

23.

Michaels

O’Connor

(2013). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. In Resnick

L. B.

Asterhan

Clarke

S. N.

(Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue (pp. 347–362). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

24.

Michaels

O’Connor

Resnick

L. B.

(2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1

25.

Murphy

P. K.

Wilkinson

I. A. G.

Soter

A. O.

Hennessey

M. N.

Alexander

J. F.

(2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764. doi:10.1037/a0015576

26.

Nystrand

(2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 392–412.

27.

Palincsar

A. S.

Brown

A. L.

(1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 53–59. doi:10.1177/074193258800900110

28.

Pearson

P. D.

Gallagher

(1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.

29.

Pressley

(2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Pressley

Afflerbach

(2012). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203052938

31.

Pressley

El-Dinary

P. B.

Gaskins

Schuder

Bergman

J. L.

Almasi

Brown

(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 513–555. doi:10.1086/461705

32.

Reid

D. K.

Stone

(1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 8–19. doi:10.1177/074193259101200303

33.

Reutzel

D. R.

Jones

E. E.

(2006, May). Transactional strategy instruction in the primary grades using science information big books. A presentation at the annual conference of the International Reading Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.

34.

Reutzel

D. R.

Smith

J. A.

Fawson

(2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 276–305. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0885200605000384?via%3Dihub

35.

Rosaen

C. L.

Meyer

Strachan

Meier

(2017). Learning to facilitate highly interactive literary discussions to engage students as thinkers. Reading Horizons, 56(1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol56/iss1/4

36.

Shinn

M. M.

Shinn

M. R.

(2002). AIMSweb® training workbook: Administration and scoring of early literacy measures for use with AIMSweb. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation, Inc.

37.

Snow

(2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html

38.

Sohmer

Michaels

O’Connor

M. C.

Resnick

L. B.

(2009). Guided construction of knowledge in the class-room: The Troika of well-structured talk, tasks, and tools. In Schwarz

Dreyfus

(Eds.), Advances in learning and instruction (pp. 105–129). London, England: Elsevier.

39.

Solis

Ciullo

Vaughn

Pyle

Hassaram

Leroux

(2011). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 327–340. doi:10.1177/0022219411402691

40.

van der Veen

van der Wilt

van Kruistum

van Oers

Michaels

. (2017). MODEL2TALK: An intervention to promote productive classroom talk. The Reading Teacher, 70, 689–700. doi:10.1002/trtr.1573

41.

Wanzek

Wexler

Vaughn

Ciullo

(2009). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5

42.

Wilkinson

I. A. G.

Son

E. H.

(2010). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In Kamil

M. L.

Pearson

P. D.

Moje

E. B.

Afflerbach

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359–387). New York, NY: Routledge.