Abstract
The purpose of this article is to describe higher order talk and writing about text with seven and eight year old students. Much research has been conducted with intermediate and secondary students but less is known about higher order thinking with primary grade students. Participants in this study included all second and third grade teachers and students in 23 schools across three years. Teachers were observed three times each year. Qualitative analysis of the observational field notes was conducted using the constant comparative method. The results were used as formative data for teacher reflection and professional learning. The types of higher order questions that most commonly produced higher order responses from students included questions on (a) theme, (b) character interpretation and (c) relating the text to one's life. Student-led discussions also produced student talk and writing that was at a higher level than that produced by students during teacher-directed recitations.
Keywords
Background
Preparing students for the changing demands of 21st-century literacies has become an increasingly important priority for educators around the world. It has led to a variety of trends, including more rigorous standards, teacher evaluation and accountability systems based on students' achievement on standardized assessments, and the development of teachers who can provide rigorous core instruction while continuing to accelerate the growth of students who struggle most with reading and writing (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Taylor et al., 2010). Research provides valuable information on how to address the complexities of teaching a culturally, linguistically and socio-economically diverse student population (August and Shanahan, 2006; Brophy, 1973; NICHHD, 2000; Taylor et al., 2000; 2002b). For today's students to be ready for the challenges of a rapidly changing world, instruction needs to move them beyond foundational skills and knowledge acquisition to critical engagement with texts and the world.
Based on previous research and over 15 years of observations in hundreds of classrooms, we identified the components of the Cognitive Engagement Model (Taylor et al., 2003). This model is related to the work of researchers like Guthrie (2004), Pressley et al. (2001) and Pressley (2006) who identified the importance of student engagement and motivation in learning, and the findings of Knapp (1995) who stressed teaching for meaning. It also draws from the sociocultural perspective that learning occurs in social contexts and that students should be actively involved in collaboratively making meaning from text (Vygotsky, 1978). The model was developed from an analysis of classroom observational data and students' standardized reading assessment scores through Hierarchical Linear Modelling (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). These analyses identified key components for maximizing students' engagement in literacy learning (Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2002a, 2003, 2005). Components included: increasing the amount of higher order thinking students engage in as they talk and write about texts, explicitly teaching strategies and not just skills, decreasing teacher talk and increasing student engagement, and requiring all students to respond in some way rather than simply participating in turn-taking. The Cognitive Engagement Model was identified as a professional development tool for teachers as they refined their literacy instruction. Teachers read and discussed research articles on effective reading instruction including the components highlighted by the Cognitive Engagement Model in their weekly study groups. They also reflected on their observation data and set goals for themselves using the Cognitive Engagement Model during conversations with their literacy coaches. Across multiple studies, we found that when teachers increased the opportunities for higher order thinking, their students made accelerated growth in reading (Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2003, 2005). While there was quantitative evidence linking higher order talk and writing about text with students' achievement in reading, qualitative examples of classroom practices and interactions were needed to support teachers and literacy coaches in their professional learning and instructional reform. The identification of illustrative examples that highlighted not only the kinds of questions that were asked but also exemplified higher order responses from second and third grade classrooms was the focus of this study.
Theory
This study uses a sociocultural perspective as the framework for analysis and interpretation of the data. Sociocultural theory emphasizes the concept that learning is a social act that occurs in specific contexts (Vygotsky, 1978) where students and teachers actively and collaboratively engage in making meaning with and from each other (Alexander, 2008; Mercer and Littleton, 2007; Wells, 1999). While students and teachers are interacting with each other they are using language as a tool for understanding the world (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Learning unfolds in context and can occur in planned and unplanned ways (Twiner et al., 2014). As they actively participate in a group, individuals contribute ideas that advance everyone's comprehension (Wells, 1999). This allows the group to achieve more than any one individual could accomplish on their own (Vygotsky, 1978). When the culture of the classroom is one that fosters a sense of community and caring, where students are challenged to enquire and explore together, and where the process of learning is valued as highly as the product, then students can become self-motivated and efficacious learners (Wells, 1999). Sociocultural theory suggests that this is true for teachers as learners, too. When a school provides a culture of collaboration, enquiry and reflection, teachers are more likely to refine their instructional practices (Taylor et al., 2003, 2005, 2007).
Previous research on higher order questioning
There is a strong research base documenting the importance of engaging students in the active construction of the meaning of texts that goes beyond the literal understanding of factual information. Rosenblatt (1978) wrote about the aesthetic stance where students participated in the story and experienced the feelings and actions of the characters in contrast to the efferent stance where students read to acquire information. Rosenblatt's work helped educators understand the value and purpose of different types of responses to texts. In subsequent years, other researchers have built on her work. For example, Sipe (2000) described five types of interpretive literary responses ranging from analytical to performative. Sipe's study demonstrated that first and second grade students can make complex and varied responses to literature. Research has also shown that answering and generating a variety of questions about the texts they read positively impacts on students' comprehension, especially when engaging with complex texts (Graham and Hebert, 2010; NICHHD, 2000; Wilkinson and Hye Son, 2009).
Opportunities to respond to text in a variety of ways can be provided through higher order questions generated by the teacher followed by active responding from the students (i.e. talking with a partner, writing in a response journal, discussing in a small group). Studies have documented that when teachers pose questions to the whole class, their instruction may fall into a traditional pattern of question-answer-evaluation (Cazden, 2001). This often results in short, simplistic responses from only a few students in the class and may not stimulate higher level thinking (Gersten and Baker, 1999). Also, teachers may unintentionally lead students to one specific interpretata of the text rather than allowing for multiple interpretations (Gersten and Baker, 1999). In work by authors (Peterson, 2013; Taylor et al., 2003, 2002a), results showed that higher order responses occurred when teachers posed higher order questions and then asked students to write their personal responses or talk with partners. These types of activities required every student to formulate his or her own interpretation of the text and allowed for lengthier responses and deeper elaborations of meaning.
Research has also demonstrated that teachers and students can share the creation of discussion questions, as well as control of the conversation (Garas-York et al., 2013). Interactive discussions that are jointly constructed by teachers and students are evident in instructional models like Collaborative Reasoning (Chinn et al., 2001; Clark et al., 2003; Dong et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2010), Instructional Conversations (Saunders and Goldenberg, 1999), grand conversations (Eeds and Wells, 1989; Wells, 1995) and Questioning the Author (McKeown et al., 2009). The findings from these studies have shown that higher order thinking through interactive discussions benefitted students' comprehension and oral language development. This was found to be especially beneficial for students who were English learners (Saunders and Goldenberg, 1999; Zhang et al., 2010).
Higher order questions could also be generated by the students themselves as they formulated their own ideas about the themes or big ideas of texts. The students' questions could then be used to stimulate conversation within student-led discussions. Instructional models like the Question Answer Relationship (Raphael et al., 2006), Book Clubs (Raphael et al., 2002) and literature circles (Almasi et al., 2001; Daniels, 2002) encourage students to develop their own questions for discussion and to support their ideas with evidence from the text. These student-led conversations invite open participation and allow students to construct their own interpretations of texts. Within all of these instructional models, the teacher's guidance was needed to model how to give higher order responses (Bigelman and Peterson, 2016; Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2007), how to move from teacher-led to student-led discussions (Maloch, 2002), how to function as a small discussion group (Daniels, 2002; McIntyre et al., 2006) and how to negotiate meaning with peers (Many, 2002).
Purpose of the current study
The purpose of this article is to answer the research question: What does higher level talk and writing about text look like for seven and eight year old students? Much of the previous research on higher order questioning has been done with intermediate or secondary students (i.e. Eeds and Wells, 1989; Raphael et al., 2002). Sometimes, reading instruction in primary grades is so focused on emergent literacy skills like phonemic awareness, phonics skills and fluency that deep comprehension and interpretation of texts is often neglected. Screening and progress monitoring assessments often perpetuate this trend by overly relying on fluency measures to determine students' reading growth. Yet, deep comprehension of a text that encourages students to question, interpret and make connections is vitally important for primary grade readers also. By providing examples of what higher order talk and writing about text looks like in the primary grades, research can highlight the possibilities and practicalities of engaging young students in higher level thinking. Previous research has also documented that the more primary grade teachers engaged students in higher level talk and writing about text, the more growth and achievement those students had in reading (Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2003, 2007).
For the purposes for this study, high level talk and writing about text was defined by the Classroom Observation Scheme (Taylor, 2004) in this way: “Students are involved in talk or writing about the meaning of text which is engaging them in higher level thinking. This is talk or writing about text that is challenging to the children and is at either a high level of text interpretation or goes beyond the text: generalization, application, evaluation, aesthetic response. Needless to say, a child must go beyond a yes or no answer” (p. 7). Questions may have been generated by either the teacher or the students, and discussions may have been directed primarily by the teacher, primarily by the students, or jointly conducted by both the teacher and students. Generally, higher order questioning occurred in small groups. When it was coded in whole class instruction, the students were encouraged to write their individual responses or share with a partner. If the teacher asked a thought-provoking question to the whole class and then called on only one or two students, the activity was not coded as higher level because most of the students were not expected to generate any response. The Classroom Observation Scheme and the coding of reading instruction is described below.
Method
Participants
Across three school years, there were 23 schools participating in a professional development project. On average, 63% (S.D. = 18) of the students in the 23 schools were on subsidized lunch and 25% (S.D. = 20) were English learners. Eight of these schools were very high poverty schools, with 70–95% of their students on subsidized lunch. Ten were high poverty schools with 50–69% of students on subsidized lunch, and five were moderately high poverty schools with 25–49% of students on subsidized lunch. Seventeen of these schools had moderate to high percentages (17–62%) of ELL students. Home languages included: Spanish, Hmong, Karen, Somali and Ojibwe, along with many others. Fifteen of these schools were in a large metropolitan area, and eight were located in rural communities. Eighteen were state schools, four were magnet schools (state schools with a specific focus like technology or the arts), and one was a parochial school.
Schools used a variety of reading programmes, routines and materials but all strived to have 120 minutes of reading every day with an additional 15–20 minutes of small group instruction (interventions) for students that were scoring below grade-level on their progress monitoring measures. Reading instruction was defined as: whole group instruction led by the teacher using trade books or basal curricula, small group instruction provided by the classroom teacher or a licensed specialist (i.e. Title I teacher, Special Education teacher, English Language teacher) focused on targeted instruction for students at their instructional reading level using levelled readers or trade books, and independent work conducted individually, with a partner, or in small groups while the teacher worked with other students. Independent work might include rereading levelled texts, partner reading, student-led discussions, writing about what has been read in a reader's response journal, reading books of choice from the classroom or school library, reading informational texts associated with a unit of study in science or social studies and writing a research report, digital reading, writing or video recording (e.g. recording a Readers' Theatre performance), completing word work like Making Words or word sorts etc. Schools also had an additional 30 minutes of instruction devoted to the language arts. This included: Writers' Workshop, spelling, grammar, penmanship etc. Schools were not asked to adopt a specific reading programme. Instead they were asked to implement research-based practices using whatever materials they had to hand. Research-based practices included components of the Cognitive Engagement Model as well as other elements of effective instruction (i.e. balanced between whole group and small group instruction). To better understand and apply research-based practices, all schools implemented weekly teacher-led study groups and reflected on instruction through video sharing, peer observations and coaching conversations.
Approximately 140 licensed second and third grade teachers and specialists participated in the study during each of the three years. Numbers varied from year to year depending on district funding and student enrolment. Their years of experience varied from one to more than 30 years, and approximately 10% had advanced degrees or additional teaching certificates. There was one full-time and one half-time literacy coach in each building. Coaches were general education elementary teachers with at least seven years of teaching experience in addition to an advanced degree or reading licence. Coaches' roles included: conducting non-evaluative, informal observations of instruction, co-planning and co-teaching lessons as a way to model instructional strategies or techniques, facilitating coaching conversations with teachers following observations, and leading quarterly data meetings to analyse progress monitoring data.
Approximately 3,000 seven and eight year old students participated in the study during each of the three years. This included students who were receiving additional services from special education, reading interventionists and English Language teachers. Equal numbers of males and females represented each year.
Classroom observations
The purpose of the classroom observations was to provide elementary teachers with data related to the following components of their reading instruction: grouping practices, literacy instructional activities, materials, teacher–student interaction styles, expected student responses to literacy activities and students' engagement rate. Teachers could then reflect on their current instruction and how it corresponded to the research-based practices they were studying in their professional development opportunities.
Scheduled observations were conducted by trained data collectors, all of whom were general education elementary teachers, three times a year during reading instruction. Each observation was an hour in length. During observation, the observer focused on one target teacher. If there was more than one teacher in a room, the second teacher would be observed at another time.
Training for the observers was conducted for a full day by both the senior researcher and the author of this paper. Following initial training, observers studied the manual and practised using the observation codes with video recordings of instruction. Before observers could begin to schedule times in classrooms, they each had to pass an inter-rater reliability test with at least 80% agreement in each of the six levels of coding.
During an observation, the observer would watch the target teacher's instruction for five minutes while simultaneously typing into a laptop computer. The observer recorded detailed field notes that included what the teacher said and did, how students responded, the materials used and descriptions of instructional tasks. At the end of the first five minutes, the observer would stop to quickly count the number of students in the room that appeared to be on task, and to code the instruction that had just occurred. “On task” was determined by the observer based on whether students looked like they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. Students who were sharpening pencils, walking around the room or going to the bathroom were coded as “off task”. Coding generally took between one and two minutes. The observer would then continue to watch and type for another five minutes. This rotation of recording field notes and coding was repeated throughout the hour-long observation. On average, there were eight to ten 5-minute segments recorded during an hour-long observation.
Immediately following an hour-long observation, the data collector would type a brief summary, approximately a paragraph in length, describing what else had happened in the room while the teacher was working with small groups or individual students. In the summary, the observer would describe the materials and activities that students were engaged in during independent work. If there were other adults in the classroom, the observer would also summarize the major focus and materials used for their activities.
The coding from the observation scheme has good inter-rater reliability. A random sample of 10% of all observations in a given year was checked by an expert observer. The agreement on the random sample was 93%.
Information from each observation was sent to the individual teacher along with a description of research-based best practices. Teachers also received data on the mean scores for the teacher practices of all project teachers at their grade level as well as the relationship of teacher practices to students' growth and achievement (Peterson, 2016; Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2003, 2007). Means and standard deviations were calculated based on the number of 5-minute segments in each observation in which specific activities or interactions occurred. Teachers were encouraged to interpret these data with help from coaches to enhance the quality of their reading instruction. Literacy coaches reported that in all but 1 of the 23 schools, teachers did meet with the literacy coach to reflect on the individual observation data they received (Peterson et al., 2009).
Results
The observational field notes of teachers who scored a standard deviation above their grade-level peers in higher order talk and writing about text were analysed using the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 2012; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This method was used because it is effective when trying to identify specific aspects or features of a phenomenon to better understand how the phenomenon works. In this study, identifying common features of higher order talk and writing about text was the goal of the analysis. Field notes from the observations were read multiple times until categories of higher order questions and responses emerged. Illustrative examples of each category were identified and checked for consistency within categories and redundancy across categories. Examples were selected based not only on the questions the teachers and students asked but on the types of responses elicited. The examples were then shared with the teachers who used them in their professional development to self-reflect on instruction and collaboratively create modifications for subsequent lessons (Peterson, 2016; Peterson et al., 2009).
The types of higher order questions that most commonly produced higher order responses from students included questions on (a) theme, (b) character interpretation and (c) relating the text to one's life. These teachers also engaged their students in more student-led discussions. While most teachers asked open-ended questions during their instruction, a smaller number of them elicited higher order responses from their students. These findings were consistent with previous studies which identified similar patterns of questioning (Taylor et al., 2002a, 2003). The examples identified in this study extend the research by providing concrete examples of students' responses and how the teachers structured the questioning about texts to support student engagement.
In the examples presented below, the names of the teachers and students are pseudonyms. Some of the conversations have been paraphrased to protect the anonymity of the teachers and students. One might read the examples and assume that these are drawn from students who were functioning well above grade level in their literacy and oral language development. That is not the case. Teachers in this study served very diverse student populations, including English learners at all stages of language development, students who were receiving special services for literacy related issues, and students from a variety of achievement levels.
High order questioning focused on theme
One type of higher order question that stimulated students' higher order talk and writing about text was questions related to the theme or big idea of a text. Teachers may also have referred to this as the “author's message”. Themes might include topics like bravery, injustice and teamwork. Teachers selected topics that would be meaningful and relevant to their students and connect to issues they faced in their real lives. Teachers also encouraged students to self-identify themes and support their ideas with examples from the text. In the following second grade example, Ms. Danielson was working with a small group that was reading a picture book recounting a Native American legend. Ms Danielson: What was the message that the author was trying to convey? Davien: That you should do what you want to do even if other people make fun of you. Jamal: Yeah, not everyone can be good at sports or hunting or be a great painter. Vanessa: That not everyone can be good at everything and that you should be proud of what you can do. Toua: And that you should have dreams for the future; that dreams are good to have.
Another example of higher order talk about a big theme idea occurred in a different second grade classroom after a small group of students read a picture book. Mrs. Anderson: What did you learn about friendship after reading this story? Emily: That you should never tease anybody because you might hurt their feelings or maybe they won't want to be your friend because they might think you're really mean because you made them upset. Sasha: I agree with Emily because if you call them names like they did in the book then they'll say, “I don't want to be your friend because you hurt my feelings.” Samuel: I agree with both of you because if you keep calling people names pretty soon no one will want to be your friend and you will have no friends. Joseph: Yeah, and if you don't have any friends then you won't have anyone to play with and then you won't have fun. Abigail: But when you get to know people and talk to them, then you find out you can be friends. Emily: Yeah, you need to treat people the way you want to be treated. Samuel: But what if they don't treat you the way that they should? What would you do then? Abigail: Maybe they were mean because she was different and they thought everyone had to be the same to be friends. Joseph: I would try to be their friend but if they kept being mean then I would stop trying and find some other friends. Emily: I think the author wants us to know that being a good friend means treating people nice, being kind even if they seem different at first. Sasha: I have something to add. I think they want us to know that you shouldn't judge a person who you just met. You don't even know them yet. Everyone deserves a chance.
In the conversation above, there is evidence of some of the supports the teacher provided for the students. Sentence starters like “I agree with…” or “I have something to add…” helped the students take the floor and connect their ideas to what others were saying. There is also evidence that the teacher taught the students to use the word “because” as they explained the reasons for their ideas. These instructional supports encouraged students to elaborate on their ideas and to use evidence from the text. The teacher supported the students in moving these components of higher order responses into their written work by providing a rubric for them as they were revising their responses.
Character interpretation
A second type of higher order question that produced higher order responses from students was questions related to character interpretation. This asks students to reflect on the characters' personalities and motivations. This makes the people and events of the story more relevant and meaningful to the reader. In a third grade example, Mrs Hamilton was reading a chapter book aloud to her class. In the book, the main character is a girl who is having trouble learning to read. At the end of a chapter, Mrs Hamilton had her students work in small groups to talk about the question, “How would you describe Trisha? What is she like?” As students were talking they were also writing their ideas on a graphic organizer called a character web. Here is the conversation in one small group: Manuel: She had trouble reading but she was a talented drawer. Charlene: Yes, she had trouble sounding out words and she didn't like to read books. Germaine: But she was a good student because she listened to the teacher. She listened and didn't talk back. Pa: She was nice because even though the other kids were mean to her she wasn't mean back. She wasn't a tattletale. She didn't tell anyone she was being teased. Julia: I think she was brave and smart. She kept practising drawing her letters and she didn't give up. It is hard to keep trying when other people are being mean to you. Germaine: Yeah, she was smart because she could draw beautiful pictures without learning it. Pa: Even the mean kids liked her drawings. Mrs Hamilton: Have you ever felt the way Trisha does in the story? Charlene: Sometimes when we are making our bed it is really hard and frustrating because things fall off. Mrs Hamilton: How does that affect other parts of your life? Charlene: It reminds me to put things away and to stay organized and then I won't get so mad. Pa: My neighbours tease me and use bad words. Mrs Hamilton: What is that like Trisha? Pa: It makes me feel bad inside like Trisha. Eric was teasing Trisha in the story. Why would someone tease like that? Manuel: Maybe he has something that he feels bad about so he wants to hurt others.
Instruction focused on relating texts to students' lives
A third type of higher order question used by teachers required the students to make connections between texts and their own lives. When students made connections between their lives and what they read, they were more likely to relate to a text, understand it at a deeper level and be motivated to continue reading it. The next example is from a third grade classroom where a small group of students had been reading a chapter book about a young girl and her family. After reading a particularly humorous event in the book, Ms Vander Camp asked the students to quickly turn to a partner and share a time when something funny happened in their family. Abdi: One time our family went sledding on this big hill and my mum went on the sled and she went flying off. Juan: Well, this was funny. I locked the door on my mum and she didn't have her keys so we had to call the police to get in. Abdi: Oh, no! Did you get into trouble? These boys continue to talk while another pair of students shared their stories. Rosa: One day my cat came through a hole in the camper and it made me jump just like the phone ringing made Ramona jump. Sahra: I was twirling my baton and I dropped it and it hit me right in the mouth and it knocked my tooth out! Ms Vander Camp then called the group back together and asked them if thinking about their lives helped them relate to what the main character in the book might be feeling. Sahra: Yeah, it makes it more real. Abdi: It's funnier because you can picture it happening to you. Juan: It helps me understand and remember what is happening in the story better.
In Mrs Dresser's second grade class, a small group of students read the first chapter of a short chapter book. She asked them to write their own higher order questions that they would discuss with the group. Mrs Dresser: Your job was to write a higher order question about the story, a question that will really make your friends think. Remember when you answer your friends' questions to use the word “because” in your answer so that you explain your thinking. Nathan, would you start us off with the question you wrote? Nathan: If you were Poppleton, what would you do? Salena: I would close my eyes during the scary part of the movie and not open them until the happy part. Nathan: Does anyone have a different idea? Omar: I would drop my popcorn and get out of there fast! I don't like scary movies. Nathan: Does anyone agree or disagree with that? Chin: I disagree with that. I would ask someone to come with me so I won't be alone and then I wouldn't be so scared. Maya: I disagree with that because if you ask someone to go with you, they will be asking for your popcorn and candy and you might not want to share. I'd rather go to the movie alone.
Student led discussion
Once teachers had exposed their students to many higher order questions and taught their students how to give higher order responses, they provided instruction in how to engage in student led discussions. This included explicit modelling in the mechanics of small group discussion (i.e. how to take turns speaking without raising hands, looking at the speaker, building on other students' responses) as well as giving students many opportunities to write their own higher order questions and ask them to their peers. A great deal of scaffolding and gradual release of responsibility (Pearson and Gallagher, 1983) to students was involved in this process of teaching students how to participate in student led discussions. An example of how Mr Stevens prepared his second grade students for peer led discussions was to give them roles. Isaiah was asked to be the “Discussion Leader”. His instructions were: “Your job is to write two questions to help your group think about and discuss the story. You might want to use question words like: Why? What if…? Your goal is to get your group to think more deeply about the story!” The questions that Isaiah wrote were: “What if Shelley grew two extra legs? What else would she be able to do?” and “Have you ever felt like Shelley did at the end of the book? Describe what happened.” Ellen's role was to select an important passage in the text for the group to reread and discuss. Her instructions were: “Your job is to find a special part in the reading. Choose a part that is important, interesting, funny, or exciting. Describe why you picked that part of the story to discuss. After the group discusses your passage encourage others to read passages they want to share and discuss.” Ellen wrote: “On page 15, Shelley felt cold and miserable. I chose this part because it is exciting and scary at the same time. It also is an important part of the story because Shelley realized that she couldn't stay outside in the winter.” Students took turns doing different roles on different days. This ensured that each student read the text or chapter with a specific purpose in mind and came to the discussion group prepared to participate and contribute. Students brought their written responses with them to the group to support their oral expression of ideas. Using roles also provided the structure these young students needed to be able to navigate the complexities of collaborative conversations. Other teachers posted anchor charts with suggestions for sentence starters like: “I agree with…”, “I have something to add…”, or “In the text it said…” Anchor charts might also include group norms like: “Look at the speaker” or “Invite others into the conversation.” Some teachers asked students to periodically reflect on their participation in discussion groups by rating themselves on a checklist, rubric or exit slip. Components that students might be asked to reflect on included: “I was prepared”, “I added to someone else's comments”, or “I showed respect to others by listening to their ideas.” These tools and routines provided structure and support as young students learned how to interact in student led discussions.
In the following example from a third grade classroom, the small group of students have read a chapter book and written questions about the chapter in their response journals. They then have a conversation using the questions they wrote. Jacob (Discussion Leader): What kind of person is Mr Popper? Aisha: I think he is thoughtful because he put a fridge-freezer in the cellar. Now all the penguins have a place to live. Jorge: I think Mr Popper is caring because he tries to take care of the penguins Mary: I think he is crazy. Who in their right mind would own penguins? And he puts them on a lead. I had my dog on a lead and he pulled me along the pavement on my knees. Jorge: Yeah, on page 34 and 35 he spends more money than he should for just drilling holes in a box. It is crazy to pay more than you need to. Aisha: I agree. He is trying to live like he is back in the Arctic. Jacob (Discussion Leader): Does anyone have anything else to add? [No response.] Mary, you can ask your question. Mary: Do you think Mrs Popper is a nice person? Why or why not? Aisha: I think Mrs Popper is disrespectful to Mr Popper because she doesn't care about what he does. It is proved on page 11 when it says she argues and doesn't care. Jorge: Well, later on she plays the piano and the penguins dance so I think she gets nicer. Jacob: Maybe she is crabby because she wants things to be neat.
Discussion
This descriptive study adds to the research based relate to higher order questioning by providing examples of higher order responses from primary grade students. In their review of the research on questioning, Wilkinson and Hye Son (2009) made a request to the field for more research on this important aspect of literacy instruction. Higher order talk and writing about text shows promise as an instructional component, not only because it can increase the motivation and engagement of students, but also because it can contribute to diverse students' growth and achievement in reading (Bigelman and Peterson, 2016; Peterson and Taylor, 2012; Taylor et al., 2003). We found that it was also one of the elements of effective instruction that was most readily adopted by teachers who were trying to refine their reading instruction (Peterson and Taylor, 2012).
The examples identified by this analysis show that it is not enough for teachers to ask open-ended questions. Most of the teachers observed did this. What they were less successful in doing was eliciting higher order responses from all their students. This is very difficult to accomplish when the primary mode of instruction involves whole class, teacher directed recitation with few opportunities for students to respond in meaningful ways. Teacher directed recitations where teachers asked all the questions, called on individual students and then evaluated the responses did not facilitate higher order thinking because only a few students were asked to generate a response of any kind. Also, responses that were given in these situations were more likely to be short and simplistic. To elicit higher order responses, the teachers in this study structured their classroom cultures and environments so that students had multiple opportunities each day to talk and write with peers as they collaboratively constructed meaning about texts. This was accomplished in a variety of ways including working with a partner or small groups, participating in student led discussions and communicating through social media or in online forums.
Recommendations from these classroom examples include: 1) explicitly teach students about higher order questions, 2) model how to give higher order responses, 3) coach students to elaborate on their ideas and use evidence to support their thinking, 4) move from teacher directed instruction where the teacher does much of the talking to teaching that supports student engagement and peer interactions, 5) gradually release responsibility for question generation and discussion facilitation to the students (Pearson and Gallagher, 1983) and 6) provide structures and tools to help students self-monitor and self-reflect on their own performance and participation in student led discussions.
The examples from these primary grade classrooms are relevant to teachers, administrators, coaches and district leaders as they consider ways to increase the opportunities for equal access to critical thinking and collaborative learning that are provided to students from diverse backgrounds. Increasing opportunities for higher order thinking may be one strong method of accelerating the growth and achievement of students in reading. These findings are also relevant to teacher educators who are preparing teacher candidates or leading professional learning for in-service teachers since it has been shown that teachers can refine their practice to include more opportunities for primary grade students to actively respond at a higher level to the texts they read.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.