Several years ago, my reading colleagues and I noticed a shift away from the supportive conversation structures of the workshop approach in Comprehensive Literacy design, and we were concerned. One-to-one access to technology, important for many reasons, had understandably become a priority. We noticed reading instruction software had been adopted, and all students were expected to use it. To make this all work, many teachers made the tough choice to borrow time from the reading and writing workshop. The reading technology meant less time for reading and writing, including conversations connected to reading and writing. My colleagues and I were not surprised to see reading scores drop on the state assessment, though it is important to note that we do not know the reason for the drop in scores; there could have been several factors. Eventually, 2020 happened and in my school community, I joined my colleagues in a collective sigh of relief that learning could continue at home without major disruption, because the technology was already in place. Several seasons passed, and when students were back together, they were still isolated – behind plastic shields and six feet away from one another. Conversation, which the research showed was already lacking, became even more difficult.
Then, the nation was presented with the NAEP’s 2022 Mathematics and Reading Assessments at grades 4 and 8. The average reading scores were “lower than all previous assessment years going back to 2005 and was not significantly different in comparison to 1992. Further, “at eighth grade, the average reading score was lower compared to all previous assessment years going back to 1998 and was not significantly different compared to 1992” (https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/). I imagine that questions are rightly being asked about the long- and short-term negative impact of virtual school and isolation on learning, including whether the current NAEP findings are one of those symptoms, but even if virtual learning and quarantine had not happened, I believe there would still be a critical need to revisit the seminal studies on instructional conversations that are discuss in this article, as well as others, to acknowledge what went wrong with approaches to instructional conversations, and start again with fresh, practical research. I also question whether a changing conversation about instructional talk can occur unless it is carried out where it matters most – classrooms and schools. With no time to lose, this article shares some of the important studies of instructional conversation and then, based on the studies and my experiences with effective practices outlined in Figure 1, I present five principles teachers can apply right away to their own practice
.
Why We Need a New Direction in Instructional Conversation Research
Howe and Abeden’s (2013) examined 225 studies from 1972 to 2011 to determine if the research during this time answered questions of effectiveness and beneficence for a specific method of classroom dialogue. The authors categorized conversation to include authoritative or dialogic interaction and non-interaction, as well as Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) and Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF), two prevailing methods dominating the research during the forty-year period. Howe and Abeden argued that a plausible reason for a lack of clarity in the research was due to the research trends of the times, especially the perception that the predominate use of quantitative field analysis, was flawed. They believed qualitative measures may be needed to explore the instructional implications of classroom dialogue, to arrive at a more prescriptive approach that could be replicated and measured for changes in student achievement.
Howe and Aberden identified two unanswered themes in the previous studies that should inform future research: the yoking of effective dialogue of small group dialogue with whole group, and comparisons of dialogic models’ effects on performance, using stronger quantitative methods. Qualitative methods, including replication in action research, could provide enhancement for subsequent studies.
Later, McKeown and Beck (2015) identified two types of conversational approaches to comprehension instruction: content and strategy. They posited content approaches appeared to be more effective than strategy approaches because the latter tool students out of the text at critical points in comprehension instruction. Questioning the Author (QtA), appeared to be especially effective for students’ reading comprehension. As other authors have found, including Howe and Aberden (2013) in their review of 225 studies over forty years, the traditional Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) method that has dominated the research on conversation as well as comprehension instruction has been shown to be problematic. McKeown and Beck (2015) referred to cognitive-processing models in their discussion of content approaches to comprehension. Students, guided by teachers in QtA, were able to connect their background and prior knowledge more effectively as they built text comprehension within concrete-abstract patterns of representation. Strategy instruction, on the other hand, tends to focus on the strategy itself, including the routines and procedures of using strategies, taking students away from text.
Additionally, McKeown and Beck (2015) concluded that strategies themselves do not lead to better comprehension, and students engaged in a content approach tended to spend more time engaged in discourse related directly to the text under study. However, that strategy instruction may be an important, albeit secondary, support for struggling students.
In a large-scale study on procedural and substantive engagement, Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) studied conversational episodes in fifty-eight middle school English classrooms. The results of conversation analysis confirmed disengagement had a negative effect on achievement. Procedural engagement, such as homework, paying attention, and completing tasks, had a limited impact on achievement, while substantive engagement had a strong, positive effect on achievement. In the latter, they found students performed at higher levels when involved in sustained discussions with evidence of uptake (deliberate follow-up), as defined in earlier studies by Cazden (1988) and Collins (1982). Of interest in the study were the combinations of authentic writing tasks connected to extended conversations. The conversations functioned as pre-writing activity for topics students were interested in, and students tended to be highly engaged in writing as a follow up to deeper conversations. Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) recommended teachers to “be alert to the possibilities for instruction in the interests and questions their students bring to class (p. 284),” as well as flexible in the way they capitalize upon their interests.
I’ve summarized the research presented here and combined them with my experiences as a reading interventionist and literacy coach in a Comprehensive Literacy design to identify five principles (and possibilities for action and quantitative research) for using instructional conversation to increase talk, engagement, and the transfer of learning so that students can be successful in any setting.
Principle 1: Differentiate between verbal assessment and instructional conversations
Text dependent questions are an important tool or support for critical and close reading, and essential for supporting higher level thinking (Fisher and Frey, 2015). TDQs can also be used to test reader understanding. In fact, I’ve utilized them to prepare students for constructed response items on a state assessment and would feel quite lost without my TDQ book! Even so, I found it important with my own intervention students to distinguish between these supportive tools for critical thinking and the open-ended conversations based on my students’ own questions and reactions that they bring to the text (Rosenblatt, 2005). Understandably, learners are much more likely to engage in conversations for which they can connect their own beliefs and experiences. There are times when we do need to assess understanding, but we should identify them as assessments if we are using them for that purpose. It’s important for students to know the difference, as well, lest they think conversations will always start with a question from the teacher. The simple fix is to be clear about the purpose. For example, say, “Today I am going to test your understanding of the War of 1812 by asking you some questions about it. You will need to look back at the text to support your answers.” It is important to note that asking a text-dependent question as an assessment or as a way to spark critical thinking does often lead to a rich, engaging discussion and we might find ourselves weaving in and out of discussion and assessment. The key is to be aware of the differences between assessing, supporting higher level thinking, and inviting open conversation and to strive for a balance that will keep learners actively engaged in instructional conversation, even on the edge of their seats in anticipation.