The explicit teaching of reading comprehension in science class: A pilot professional development program

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Professional development reading comprehension reading in the content areas science

Introduction

Reform movements in science education recommend that all students be provided with the problem-solving, communication and thinking skills that they will need to be effective workers and citizens in the 21st century (AAAS, 1993; National Reading Panel, 2000). Reading plays a key role in science achievement (Carnegie Corporation, 2010; O’Reilly & McNamara, 2007; Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005). Yet studies have shown that students, particularly in the later elementary grades, struggle with content-area reading as the shift moves from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn, often termed ‘the fourth grade slump’ (NAEP, 2007). Traditional reading instruction focuses on reading comprehension of fiction, rather than expository text – the genre commonly employed in science (Gregg & Sekerers, 2006). When reading does occur in the science classroom, it tends to be a linear, solitary activity in which students are expected to absorb information for recall in a test situation which is in marked contrast to other aspects of science instruction where students tend to collaborate and explore concepts in active investigations (Kragler, Walker, & Martin, 2005). This is despite research focused on explicit instruction in comprehension strategies involving social collaboration, metacognitive learning and student engagement in the content areas which has been shown to enhance student reading achievement (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).

Studies in literacy have repeatedly highlighted the critical need for more reading comprehension instruction in content area classrooms yet teachers struggle to effectively incorporate the teaching of reading comprehension in their curriculum (Brozo, 2005; CCSSI, 2010; Knipper & Duggan, 2006; Pressley, 2002) as they often lack knowledge about reading instruction (Greenleaf, Jimenez, & Roller, 2002). This stagnancy in classroom pedagogy may be in part related to the failure of educational research to adequately investigate and promote the relationship between teacher professional development and the enhanced understanding and pedagogy of reading comprehension including the explicit teaching of reading comprehension strategies. This is highlighted by the fact that only one percent of reading research since 1965 has focused on teacher professional development and the implementation of research-based best practice in reading instruction (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Ogle, 2008). As teacher quality has come to be regarded as one of the most critical variables in student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; IRA, 1999, 2000; RAND, 2002), there is a need for effective professional development integrating reading comprehension and science instruction.

A recent pilot study (Concannon-Gibney & McCarthy, 2010) attempted to contribute to this research vacuum by creating a model of instruction aimed at developing reading comprehension strategy use in the science classroom and designing an appropriate professional development course for a group of seven upper elementary and middle school teachers in one case study school. The study documented the teachers’ experiences of the implementation of comprehension strategy instruction (CSI) in the science classroom over a period of time (spring semester 2010) during the professional development (PD) program. The study provided insights into the development of the instructional model, the experiences of the PD providers and it explored the teachers’ ability to enact curricular change in their local context with respect to an essential part of the curriculum: reading comprehension instruction within a content area (science).

The aims of this study were two-fold: 1) to explore how reading comprehension strategies instruction – typically only taught in English Language Arts class – might ‘fit’ into science instruction through a Do-Read-Do model (described below) and 2) to examine how teachers transform the content/knowledge gained in a professional development course into adapted, actual teaching in the classroom.

Theoretical framework

Comprehension strategy instruction is based on the understanding that reading comprehension is an interactive, socially mediated and deliberate process involving the orchestration of cognitive strategies and the activation of personal schema in order to construct meaning. Schema theory and constructivism are also fundamental to explicit strategy instruction as these theories suggest that an interactive relationship exists between a reader’s prior knowledge and new information and that learners actively construct meaning as they encounter new information (Kintsch, 1994). Constructivist theory suggests that for reading comprehension to occur, the reader must actively construct relationships between what is known and the information in the text. This can be achieved through guided practice, scaffolding, discussion and collaborative learning, all of which are emphasized by the research on successful comprehension strategy instruction in the classroom (Block & Johnson, 2002; Pressley & Wharton McDonald, 2002).

Vygotsky’s (1978) social-cognitive learning theory suggested that children develop mature thinking by observing how teachers and other experts approach learning tasks and by having opportunities for guided practice as teachers ‘scaffold’ their learning (Bruner, 1986). Based on Vygotskian principles, Pearson and Gallagher (1983) recommended a ‘gradual release of responsibility model’ for teaching comprehension strategies whereby student learning is carefully scaffolded by the teacher building from teacher directed learning towards independent use of the strategy. Adding flesh to the bones of this concept, Duke and Pearson (2002) developed a five-step model for the development of comprehension instruction which included:

Explicit description of the strategy

Teacher models the strategy in action

Collaborative use of the strategy in action

Guided practice/reflection

Independent use of the strategy

This model of instruction has been widely recommended (Block & Johnson, 2002; Massey & Heafner, 2004; Snow, 2002) and was adapted for use in the current study (by focusing on a particular content area) in the instructional model. Previous studies conducted using this model tended to focus on the effects of strategy instruction where the researchers would teach the strategies to students, omitting teacher professional development from the equation. In recognizing the importance of empowering teachers with knowledge so as to transfer research findings to the classroom, this study focused on teacher learning and thus used the gradual release of responsibility model as a framework for both student and teacher learning as it corresponded well with recommendations on effective PD (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001).

The gradual release of responsibility model is metacognitive in nature. Metacognition in relation to reading is the ability to think about one’s thinking while navigating texts (Lin, Moore, & Zabrucky, 2000). The literature on content area reading comprehension often focuses on the teaching of strategy-based activities in the form of graphic organizers, such as KWL and Anticipation Guides (McLaughlin & Allen, 2001). While these activities are based on metacognitive strategies, there is a danger that they become just another classroom worksheet to be completed particularly when content area teachers lack knowledge about comprehension processes (Massey & Heafner, 2004). In the current study, the researchers wanted to focus on the metacognitive thinking that enhances content area reading and although post-its, charts and graphic organizers were used, they were always secondary to the development of metacognitive thought processes. What places this study apart from others is that it attempted to empower teachers to teach their students to become metacognitive readers rather than simply measure the effects of explicit strategy instruction on students when taught by a researcher.

The PD program in the current study was based on the mutual adaptation perspective (Snyder et al., 1992). This view acknowledges the person as an element of change, how the participant is part of and influences change. Each teacher interprets the curriculum in a unique manner and adapts it for a particular context. In this view, the practitioner has an active role in shaping the curriculum to meet local needs. It promotes the notion of ‘thoughtfully adaptive teachers’ (Duffy, 2004) that learn how to adapt new learning to suit the needs of their particular context. This type of curriculum change is difficult to measure and quantify but is better linked to current understandings about teaching and learning as teachers are not simply regarded as empty vessels waiting to be filled with the knowledge of staff developers. Hence, although the researchers created an instructional model, the emphasis was on developing the model to suit the participating teachers’ needs and experiences.

Methodology

Participants

The participants included seven science teachers in a school in Long Island, New York who taught grades 3 through 8. They represented a broad range of ages and experience in the classroom.

Professional development program

Our professional development model involved 12 weekly hour-long workshops with the teacher participants during the spring of 2010. During these workshops, the teachers explored the Do-Read-Do Instructional Model of comprehension strategy instruction in the science classroom through the gradual release of responsibility model (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Hence the PD providers would explain the strategy (its purpose and value), they would model the strategy, and then the teachers would engage in guided practice (both in the workshop and in their own classrooms in the guise of in-class coaching). This would be followed by regular opportunities to reflect and discuss the progress and challenges in relation to the implementation of the model. From the outset, the teachers were encouraged to adapt and develop the model to suit their teaching styles and their students’ needs (known as the ‘mutual adaptation approach’ to PD, Snyder et al., 1992). Indeed, throughout the process, the researchers attempted to adopt the role of co-learners, working with and alongside the co-operating teachers. Finally, the teachers would engage in independent practice in relation to the instructional model (teaching it in their own classroom without support). An outline of the PD sessions is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Outline of PD program

Session 1:1 Feb 10	Session 2:8 Feb 10	Session 3:22 Feb 10	Session 4:1 Mar 10	Session 5:8 Mar 10	Session 6:8 Mar 10	Session 7:22 Mar 10
Introductions Strategy 1: Activating Prior Knowledge (APK)	Lesson planning with APK	Debrief lessons implementing APK	Strategy 2: Wondering	Debrief lessons implementing Wondering (planning)	Strategy 3: Clarifying	Debrief lessons implementing clarifying (planning)
Session 8: 29 Mar 10	Session 9: 19 Apr 10	Session 10: 19 Apr 10	Session 11: 26 Apr 10	Session 12: 3 May 10	Session 13: 10 May 10	Review: 18 Oct 10
Strategy 4: Summarizing	Debrief lessons	Group work using all strategies	Debrief lessons	Discussion on implementation	Debrief teacher experience	Discussion on implementation/ planning for the future

Do-Read-Do Instructional Model

This model developed for this study attempted to embed five reading comprehension strategies within a science investigation, namely, activating prior knowledge, question generation, clarifying and creating visual summaries (incorporating the strategies of summarization and visualization) (Figure 1). Explicit instruction in these strategies has been found to increase reading achievement (National Reading Panel, 2000; Pearson et al., 1992; Pressley, 2002). The Do-Read-Do model was based on elements from the gradual release of responsibility teaching model (Duke & Pearson, 2002 – see description above) and the need to integrate reading comprehension into subject matter learning (National Reading Panel, 2000; RAND, 2002)

Figure 1.

The Do-Read-Do Model of Integrating Explicit Comprehension Strategy Instruction into Science Lessons

In Stage 1, each lesson began with a brief science investigation (a ‘do’) to engage students’ interest in a topic and to develop their background knowledge through a practical exploration. The teacher then taught one of the four comprehension strategies using the gradual release of responsibility model (Duke & Pearson, 2002) while the students navigated a text relating to the science topic. Students were taught how to actively use a particular comprehension strategy while reading. They worked in collaborative pairs, developing a shared understanding of the text. Content learning and strategy use were recorded through text coding, writing on post-its and the creation of class charts (see Figures 2 and 3). Having read the text, the class shared their new learning and revisited their findings from the investigation in light of what they had read. This was followed by a more substantial science investigation, the second ‘do’, based on the text. In Stage 2, after each strategy had been studied individually, the students worked collaboratively within a group focusing on the orchestration and discussion of all four strategies.

Figure 2.

Visual Summary

Figure 3.

Questioning (Wondering)

Data sources

In this qualitative case study, the data were collected and analyzed with the two core research questions in mind: how can an effective PD course be designed so that reading comprehension strategies instruction might ‘fit’ into science instruction through a Do-Read-Do model and how the teachers transformed the content/knowledge gained in a professional development course into adapted, actual teaching in the classroom.

A pre-survey was distributed prior to the intervention to establish a knowledge and practice baseline with respect to reading comprehension strategy instruction and semi-structured post interviews (labeled PI) were conducted with each participating teacher at the end of the spring semester in order to explore the teachers’ learning experiences during the PD program. Weekly PD workshops and peer discussions based on implementation issues and successes were recorded to monitor teachers’ pedagogical thinking and decision-making over time (labeled PD1-12). Using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the teacher interviews and transcripts of discussion groups were coded in order to explore the aspects of the professional development that impacted teacher practice and the issues surrounding the implementation of the Do-Read-Do model in the science classroom.

Findings

The findings of this study can be divided into two categories: first, what we learned as PD providers about designing a professional development program incorporating the Do-Read-Do model, and second, what we learned about the teachers’ experiences in relation to their attempts to change and develop their practice.

PD provision and the Do-Read-Do model

The PD sessions were held once a week after school hours over 12 weeks as regular, sustained PD programs are recommended by the literature (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). Session content focused on learning a new strategy through modeling and engagement and/or discussing the implementation of strategies explored in previous sessions (gradual release of responsibility model). This format appeared to appeal to the teachers, for example, one teacher commented that she thought that ‘. . . the timing was good, we meet, then go do it, then talk about what happened, here’s the next thing to do, I think it’s a good way to do it’ (Teacher 7, PI 7, p. 2). However, the researchers did experience some difficulties in maintaining full attendance at PD sessions due to a variety of reasons such as parent conferences and tutoring sessions that the participants were involved in. This highlights the possible advantage and maybe the necessity of providing professional development during school hours (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001) so that all teachers on a staff might work through and develop a shared school-based understanding of research-based practice in relation to reading development.

In this study, the teachers were not regarded as passive objects to be ‘in-serviced’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1993). Instead they were given an active role in shaping their learning which would contribute towards ‘collective sense-making’ (Coburn, 2001) within the mutual adaptation approach to curricular change (Snyder et al., 1992). Therefore, the sessions remained flexible and the teachers’ opinions were sought in relation to the content, pacing and approaches used in the sessions so that the PD was tailored appropriately (PD session 3). The teachers were also encouraged to express their ideas in relation to how their learning experience may be improved within the sessions, an invitation to which some responded. For example, Teacher 6 required each learning experience in writing as well as participating in the practical role-play, ‘you can tell me a lot of things and show me but unless you write it down for me and say “step 1, step 2”, it’s not going to work’ (Teacher 6, PI 6, p. 2). In this way, the program differed from a traditional training model of professional development where learning is ‘bound and delivered’ (Wilson & Bearne, 1999). In contrast, the learners actively identified their needs and the program content was adapted accordingly. In general, the teachers in the case study school responded very positively to this approach of the PD program.

It is essential that teachers are provided with opportunities to apply the theory explored in a PD program (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001). Therefore group work on practical activities formed part of every session. The inclusion of practical activities may positively influence implementation, as according to King and Newman (2001, in Day & Sachs, 2004); teacher learning is most likely to occur when teachers can directly connect the professional development to the contexts in which they teach. In fact, the PD providers modeled the strategies using the textbooks that the teachers were actually using in their classrooms. In the PD sessions, the focal comprehension strategy was modeled by the PD provider, to the extent that the PD provider played the role of the teacher and the participants role-played the part of the students. This form of modeling was applauded by the teachers. For example Teacher 2 commented, ‘definitely helpful . . . I need to see it first, and then I could actually do it myself . . . I need to have that actual visualization’ (PI 2, p. 2). As the PD program progressed, it became apparent that the providers were also modeling the acquisition of an ‘inquiry stance’ in relation to the teaching that occurred during in-class coaching. For example in a PD session, the first researcher commented that when she ‘actually went to teach the kids [she] began to think about it more deeply and [she] altered the third chart a little bit more because . . . it was a bit of a stumbling block’ (R1, PD3, p. 2). This ability to critically analyze one’s teaching is essential in developing and changing one’s practice. Later in the study it became apparent that the teachers began to emulate this type of reflective practice. For example, the teachers often discussed the pace and the depth of their lessons in the PD sessions (Teacher 6, PD5). Some of the teachers discussed how they might teach the strategies more often and in other subject areas (Teacher 2, PI 2, p. 2). In more general terms, the PD program helped the teachers begin to think more deeply about reading pedagogy in general, a less experienced member of staff noted that ‘I felt that it [PD program] opened me up to new strategies. I started thinking that there are lots of ways to teach that I haven’t thought about yet’ (Teacher 1, PI, p. 4) while a much more experienced member of staff commented that ‘for thirty years I’ve been teaching the same subject matter . . . so this is good for me because it kind of wakes me up, it kind of gives me some more enthusiasm to teach’ (Teacher 5, PI, p. 3). Therefore, the role of the PD providers as ‘chief learners’ (Graves, 1994) within the program appeared to have enhanced the teachers’ experience.

The emphasis on the practical application of theory was further developed through encouraging teachers to apply the new learning in their classroom so it could be discussed at the subsequent training session or discussion group. Similarly, the teachers appreciated how the weekly sessions gave time to implement material (Teacher 1, interview 1, p. 3) and to engage in ‘real-time’ learning (Fullan, 1995). Indeed, for real change to occur, new methodologies need to be tried and tested in the classroom many times before they can become part of a teacher’s repertoire (Joyce & Showers, 1995) as teachers move through cycles of action and reflection in order to take ownership of the new learning (Grundy & Robinson, 2004). Focusing on ‘real-time’ learning enabled the theoretical knowledge base to come alive and to be made real for teachers in their classroom practice (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002) and acknowledged that majority of new learning actually happens when the course content is put into practice (Guskey, 2002). A further support to implementation was that in-class coaching occurred regularly, thus the PD providers were constantly ‘on-site’ throughout the semester (Lyons & Pinnell, 2001). According to one teacher, the researchers were ‘always available’ and ‘it was like they . . . [had] become part of the school’ (Teacher 4, PI 4, p. 3). Therefore, this type of sustained support was a positive attribute of the PD program.

Discussion and reflection are powerful learning mediums (York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2001) so from the outset of the professional development program, the teachers were given opportunities to discuss the new learning as it happened as part of each training session. Throughout the semester discussion groups were held to facilitate the implementation of program content. The discussion groups provided a particularly useful forum for the exchange of classroom experience, which can be pivotal to curricular change (Guskey, 2002). For example, according to Teacher 1, it helped to hear ‘what some of the teachers did and what worked for them, bouncing ideas back and forth’ (Teacher 1, PI, p. 2). Many of the teachers commented that an important advantage of having lots of follow-up support (Taylor et al., 2005) meant they did not feel isolated in their classrooms. Therefore, these type of collegial discussion groups may contribute to the dissolution of the ‘egg-crate’ structure of schools (Lortie, 1975) by providing scaffolding and support for the teachers as they attempt to change their practice (Taylor et al., 2005). Indeed, research has shown that collaboration can often be an effective tool in problem solving during innovation implementation (Guskey, 2002). This type of focused interaction among colleagues did not tend to occur prior to the PD program as according to Teacher 4 ‘. . . when we have grade level meetings, it’s kind of all over the place as everyone’s doing different things so it’s good to have everyone focused on the same thing and to get feedback on how other people are doing things’ (Teacher 4, PI 4, p. 3). In this way, the professional development initiative may have helped to encourage the enhancement of collegial relationships and the development of a school culture in which collaboration became more of a social norm, which in turn may contribute to further curriculum innovation (Smylie, 1995).

The discussion groups also gave the teachers the opportunity to process the experience of implementing the instructional model and thus deepen their learning (Arin-Krupp, 1995, in Garmston & Wellman, 1999). In doing so, the majority of the teachers appeared to develop some awareness of the limitations of traditional approaches to reading comprehension and to make plans for change. For example, Teacher 2 commented on how prior to the intervention ‘the textbook always felt like a punishment, “okay, you’re not going to do anything fun, you’re going to sit there and read” . . . but now I don’t feel like I can use it as a punishment anymore’ (Teacher 2, PI 2, p. 5). Having the opportunity to reflect on and discuss the implementation of the course content also enabled the teachers to improve their practice, by assessing and evaluating their performance and making plans for future lessons, termed ‘reflection-on-action’ by Schön (1983). Many of the teachers struggled to become metacognitive in their own reading and also in their teaching. This was particularly apparent in relation to the question generation (or wondering) strategy. For example, Teacher 2 commented that she ‘struggled a lot with the wondering part . . . I think they were expecting us to teach them how to wonder’ (Teacher 2, PI, p. 2), which highlighted her misconceptions surrounding explicit strategy teaching.

There was a considerable amount of evidence that the teachers in the case study school were attempting to move away from a pre-initiative ‘interrogative’ style of instruction, where comprehension is generally assessed through questioning rather than taught, which has been criticized in the literature in the past (Durkin, 1978; Pressley & Wharton McDonald, 2002), towards developing a repertoire of comprehension strategies in the classroom. For example, Teacher 3 commented that she ‘had to change [her] teaching style where instead of giving notes first and then going through the chapters, having them read it and answer questions. I have them start with what we know, what we think we will learn, then wonders and clarify’ (Teacher 3, PI 3, p. 2). The notion of comprehension being ‘un-teachable’ (Tovey, 1976) prior to participating in the PD program was also evident. For example, Teacher 4 stated that ‘. . . these were things that we learned in literacy for my Master’s degree, but never implemented it into other subjects . . .’ (Teacher 4, PI, p. 5). Hence, the sustained support structure within the PD program that encouraged reflection and discussion may have helped to transform the teachers’ practice.

Teachers’ experiences

Difficulties in implementation

The students in the case study school had been accustomed to largely traditional teaching methodologies prior to the intervention (according to pre-intervention surveys). Hence, the teachers experienced a variety of minor complications in relation to the new methodology. The instructional model required students to work collaboratively in pairs and groups which posed problems in some instances where students were unaccustomed to this type of grouping in reading situations. For example, Teacher 3 commented that ‘they weren’t working together as a team, they weren’t listening to each other’ (Teacher 3, PD3). In order to facilitate the coding of the text, students were required to clip an acetate sheet to the textbook page and to use a dry erase marker to code. However, according to Teacher 1 ‘no matter how many times I did it, the kids would still play with the clippies, the markers would be uncapped and they’d doodle on the film’ (Teacher 1, PI 1, p. 2). In implementing an explicit approach to strategy instruction, the teachers noted that some of the students had difficulty re-structuring their learning habits. For example, Teacher 4 stated that, ‘They didn’t want to stop and think about it, they just wanna go on, they don’t want to spend time reading sentence by sentence, it’s just like ‘‘let me read it so that I’m done” and then that’s it’ (Teacher 4, PI, p. 4). Teacher 5 agreed, stating ‘I think it’s because they’re not used to reading the words in the textbook, they’re just scanning it’ (Teacher 5, PD8).

There were also some teething difficulties fitting the instructional model into a 40-minute class. According to Teacher 2 ‘I felt like if I needed to get it into that 40 minutes, that would be a big struggle, because it definitely took longer than that . . . in the beginning . . . but now it’s gotten easier than that’ (Teacher 2, PI 2, p. 5). As the aim of the PD program was to develop an instructional model that would ‘fit’ into regular classroom instruction, this issue was often discussed at PD sessions and later PD sessions were modified to acknowledge this difficulty. With a slightly modified instructional model and increasing teacher confidence, the lessons generally ceased to exceed 40 minutes by the end of the semester. In general, the teachers’ difficulties indicated that the ongoing support provided by sustained PD may have been crucial in overcoming early stumbling blocks.

A significant difficulty experienced by the teachers in the study related to the incorporation of the new instructional model into their practice on a regular basis which appears to be a persistent challenge in professional development research (Beard El-Dinary, 2002). The teachers found that their busy schedules often interfered with implementation. For example, Teacher 1 stated that ‘finding the time to get things laid out was tough for me’ (Teacher 1, PI, p. 3), Teacher 3 commented that ‘. . . there’s a lot of things going on right now’ (Teacher 3, PD5, p. 5) and Teacher 5 mentioned that ‘They’re [the students] taking their state tests’ (Teacher 7, PD10). Indeed, despite the teachers’ interest and developing confidence in the instructional model and the sustained support provided by the PD program, the teachers did not include it in their practice with the regularity that we had envisioned (a few times a week), as Teacher 4 stated that ‘. . . between February and May [she] did it six or seven times’ (Teacher 4, PI, p. 2) and she was fairly representative of the group. This highlights the need to further investigate the intricacies involved in changing teachers’ pedagogy. How can PD programs encourage a ‘paradigm shift’ (Courtney, King, & Pedro, 2006) from traditional teaching to explicit reading comprehension strategy instruction within the content areas? This important question certainly warrants further research.

Successful aspects of the instructional model

Despite some minor difficulties, the teachers noted many positive aspects of the instructional model that became more apparent as the semester progressed. The focus on social learning and collaboration among the students while reading a text was deemed a very positive aspect of the instructional model, ‘I think they learned a lot from their partners as far as background knowledge’ (Teacher 4, PI, p. 5). The teachers also found that their students were more engaged in the reading task, ‘. . . they were so engaged in it . . . they were taking it to another level. They really were. They were so involved’ (Teacher 6, PI 6, p. 3). This engagement in the reading task may have been related to the fact that the teachers recognized that they were ‘learning how to make reading more active now’ (Teacher 4, PD4). This social, active approach to reading allowed the students to relate the text to the practical ‘do’ and thus enhance their learning ‘we were able to go back and re-visit the DNA pieces and a couple of girls said we just read that’ (Teacher 3, PD4). The teachers also noted an improvement in the students’ comprehension of the text when the instructional model was used. For example, Teacher 2 commented ‘I definitely used the textbook more and had the kids dissect it, which I think helped their overall comprehension’. She also noted that ‘using those skills in one area have gone across the board into other subjects’ (Teacher 2, PI, p. 2). The teachers in seventh and eighth grade also reported an increase in test grades which they attributed to the instructional model. Therefore, there was evidence to suggest that the Do-Read-Do model of instruction positively affected the students’ learning experience and comprehension in the science classroom.

Evidence of the mutual adaptation approach

The professional development program of the current study aimed to employ a mutual adaptation approach to curricular change (Snyder et al., 1992), where the practitioner has an active role in shaping the curriculum to meet local needs, as course facilitators work with teachers to explore how to translate theory into practice in a particular context (Duffy, 2004). Evidence of the ‘mutual adaptation’ approach was evident in the data in many forms. However, some were more admirable than others. In relation to positive findings, the teachers discussed how they taught the strategies at their own pace and in the order that most appealed to them (for example, Teacher 2, PI, p. 2). Some teachers used a variety of text sources such as TIME magazine for kids to enhance student learning (Teacher 6, PI, p. 3). However, in some cases the teachers adapted the instructional model in ways that would not be recommended, such as reducing cognitive modeling significantly as stated by Teacher 3, ‘I moved rather quickly to have them do it for homework rather than in class after modeling’ (Teacher 3, PI 3). Another teacher began to use the model as test preparation, ‘I used the group chart and it was mostly like a review because they were having tests . . . I gave them instructions’ (Teacher 5, PD10). These adaptations may not be surprising considering our current educational climate in relation to the pressures of testing and test scores but do highlight how a focus on testing can serve to compress, and possibly compromise effective instruction and can also serve to affect a teacher’s pedagogical development.

Discussion

This study raises some important issues regarding teacher professional development and reading pedagogy in the content areas. The perspectives on reading amongst content-area teachers may be cause for concern. Prior to the intervention, some of the teachers regarded reading comprehension as ‘un-teachable’ and as not necessarily something they focus on in science class. Despite the many positive attributes of the instructional model (Do-Read-Do), some of the teachers adapted it to focus on homework assignments and test preparation. These perspectives coupled with the teachers’ struggles to become metocognitive in their teaching highlights the critical need for policy-makers, third level educators and PD providers to fundamentally re-assess how reading pedagogy is being taught in teacher preparation programs and in in-service situations and whether it is truly promoting research-based best practice. Although this study was small in size, one must consider the possibility of these teachers representing the larger teaching population. Taking this into account, not only do teacher preparation programs need to be re-evaluated but there is also a crucial need for more ongoing, systematic PD in this important area of the curriculum. Indeed, in order to really embed PD into teaching cultures, policy makers need to consider how time can be set aside during the school year and during the school day for regular, sustained PD programs as this case study demonstrated that holding PD after school hours in not ideal.

Despite some initial organizational and timing issues, the instructional model (Do-Read-Do) had many positive attributes and it appeared to ‘fit’ well into regular science instruction. It appealed to students as it provided an active, engaging and social experience in reading a science text that related well to the practical science investigations. However, the development of this model is still in its infancy. It would be important to probe the usefulness of the model in more depth, perhaps focusing on case study students of different ages and ability levels to understand its effectiveness and contributions to reading growth and science content learning. It would also be informative to explore its application in other schools, particularly those with diverse populations. Finally, it would be interesting to examine the model’s application in other subject areas.

The gradual release of responsibility model (Duke & Pearson, 2002) appeared to be an effective teaching and learning framework for both teachers and students. Therefore, it may be suggested that this learning framework be more widely implemented in other PD situations. In addition, the case study demonstrated the importance of PD providers interacting with teachers in a collegial responsive manner. As ‘co-learners’, the PD providers not only offered instruction and support to the teachers but also acted as models of reflective learners which appeared to have a significant effect on the teachers. Hence, perhaps this sort of relationship could be emulated and further explored in future studies of PD.

The data suggest that the PD program was a positive learning experience for the teachers and students involved. Both teachers and students responded well to the Do-Read-Do model. However, despite successful implementation efforts, the teachers failed to embed the instructional model in their practice with the regularity that we had hoped for. In our opinion, the instructional model was well respected amongst the teachers, but it remained an ‘outsider’ in relation to their regular pedagogy. When asked to explain its status, the teachers referred to busy schedules, tests, and other outside influences as barriers to integrating the instructional model into their science teachers. However, as researchers we felt that there may be deeper influences at play, perhaps in the form of teaching cultures that may warrant further research. Indeed, this has been a persistent question within the research on PD and explicit comprehension instruction (Beard El-Dinary, 2003) which we hope to answer in the second phase of our research.

Conclusion

This study attempted to make visible the teaching and learning process as it moved from the teacher professional development workshops to classroom interactions to the teachers’ ownership of the Do-Read-Do model enabling students’ application of reading comprehension strategies. Ongoing weekly professional development sessions relying on modeling and collegial discourse supported by in situ teaching provided the teachers with ample opportunities to see the Do-Read-Do model enacted. The mutual adaption model proved effective in adjusting the initial approaches to more closely align with the realities of classroom dynamics. Gradually and with support, responsibility was released to each classroom teacher. Ultimately, as the professional developers played incrementally less of a lead role, the teachers demonstrated a willingness to promote inquiry and the comprehension strategies focusing on increasing their students’ conceptual understandings of science text. Notably, there was a close relationship between a teachers’ heightened awareness of the fundamental importance of metacognition, inquiry stance and specific reading comprehension strategies and students’ learning. As the students worked collaboratively using specific reading strategies, the teachers noted students improved efficacy with reading comprehension of nonfiction text. Content area reading is a seminal issue in science education and literacy education – both for researchers and practitioners. The study’s findings have the potential to fill persistent gaps in our understanding of an effective professional development model exploring the explicit teaching of reading comprehension strategies within a Do-Read-Do model. Future research directions could include extending the PD program over a longer period of time and into other diverse settings perhaps integrating technology into the model and expanding its use across a wider range of content areas.

Footnotes

This study was funded by Adelphi University, New York.

References

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anders

Hoffman

J. V.

Duffy

(2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In Kamil

M. L.

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719–742). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beard El-Dinary

(2002). Challenges of implementing transactional strategies instruction for reading comprehension. In Collins Block

Pressley

(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press.

Block

C. C.

Johnson

(2002). The thinking process approach to comprehension development: Preparing students for their future comprehension challenges. In Block

C. C.

Gambrell

L. B.

Pressley

(Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 54–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brozo

W.G.

(2005). Avoiding the ‘fourth-grade slump’. Thinking Classroom, 6, 48–49.

Bruner

(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carnegie Corporation. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Coburn

(2001). Collective sense-making about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.

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 2010

from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.

10.

Courtney

A. M.

King

F. B.

Pedro

(2006). Paradigm shift: Teachers scaffolding student comprehension interactions. Thinking Classrooms, 7(1), 30–39.

11.

Concannon-Gibney

McCarthy

(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-Hammond

(2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–42.

13.

Day

Sachs

(2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In Day

Sachs

(Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 3–32). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

14.

Duffy

(2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What research says about what they do and how to develop it. In Strickland

D. S.

Kamil

M. L.

(Eds.), Improving reading achievement through professional development. Boston, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

15.

Duke

N. K.

Pearson

P. D.

(2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In Farstrup

A. E.

Samuels

S. J.

(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 40–65). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

16.

Durkin

(1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 515–544.

17.

Fullan

(1995). Successful school improvement (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

18.

Garmston

Wellman

(1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. El Dorado Hills, CA: Four Hats.

19.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

20.

Graves

(1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

21.

Greenleaf

C. L.

Jimenez

R. T.

Roller

C. M.

(2002). Reclaiming secondary reading interventions: From limited to rich conceptions, from narrow to broad conversations. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 484–496.

22.

Gregg

Sekerers

(2006). Supporting children’s reading of expository text in the geography classroom. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 102–110.

23.

Grundy

Robinson

(2004). Teacher professional development: Themes and trends in the recent Australian experience. In Day

Sachs

(Eds.), International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers (pp. 120–145). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

24.

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151–182.

25.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(1993). Teacher development and educational change. In Fullan

Hargreaves

(Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

26.

Hiebert

Gallimore

Stigler

(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?

Retrieved May 2008

from http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3105/3105_Hiebert.pdf.

27.

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.

Joyce

Showers

(1995). Student achievement through staff development. New York: Longman.

30.

Kintsch

(1994). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In Ruddell

R. B.

Unrau

N. J.

(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270–1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

31.

Knipper

Duggan

(2006). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–472.

32.

Kragler

Walker

Martin

(2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 254–261.

33.

Lin

Moore

Zabrucky

K. M.

(2000). Meta-comprehension knowledge and comprehension of expository and narrative texts among younger and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 6, 737–749.

34.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Lyons

C. A.

Pinnell

G. S.

(2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

36.

Massey

D. D.

Heafner

T. L.

(2004). Promoting reading comprehension in social studies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1), 26–40.

37.

McLaughlin

Allen

M. 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.

Ogle

D. M.

(2008). Teacher education and professional development in reading: 50 years of learning. In Fresch

M. J.

(Ed.), An essential history of current reading practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

41.

O’Reilly

McNamara

D. 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.

Pearson

P. D.

Gallagher

(1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 317–344.

43.

Pearson

P. D.

Roehler

L. R.

Dole

J. A.

Duffy

G. G.

(1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In Farstrup

A. E.

Samuels

S. J.

(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 145–199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

44.

Pressley

(2002). Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the future. In Block

C.C.

Gambrell

L. B.

Pressley

(Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 385–399). San Francisco, CA: Wiley and Sons.

45.

Pressley

Wharton McDonald

(2002). The need for increased comprehension instruction. In Pressley

(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.

Reutzel

D. R.

Smith

J. A.

Fawson

P. 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.

Schön

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Shanahan

(2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

50.

Smylie

M. A.

(1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In Guskey

Huberman

(Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 92–113). London: Teachers College Press.

51.

Snow

(2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

52.

Snyder

Bolin

Zumwalt

(1992). Curriculum implementation. In Jackson

(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.

53.

Taylor

B. M.

Pearson

P. D.

Peterson

D. S.

Rodriguez

M. C.

(2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40–69.

54.

Tovey

(1976). Improving children’s comprehension abilities. The Reading Teacher, 30, 288–292.

55.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

56.

Wilson

S. M.

Bearne

(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-Barr

Sommers

W. A.

Ghere

G. S.

Montie

(2001). Reflective practice to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.