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.