Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to explain the importance of thinking flexibly about the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) during the implementation of an explicit strategy instruction model, Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction (CESI). When the GRR model is typically used to inform teachers’ pedagogical practices, each phase of the scaffolding in the gradual release is usually represented as being a straight line of progression from modeling to guided practice, and then to independence. Scaffolding is often viewed as being a more static progression needed by all students. The authors explore the ebb and flow of scaffolding necessary in the GRR model when teaching the CESI framework to elementary aged students who demonstrated different degrees of competence in applying reading strategies.

Design/Methodology – The findings presented are the result of a two-year longitudinal professional development study with nine in-service elementary school teachers (one male and eight female), with masters’ degrees who ranged in experience from six to 18 years. The teachers used the Pedagogy of Video Reflection (Shanahan et al., 2013) to reflect on their implementation of the CESI, which draws upon the GRR model.

Findings – The authors use examples from their two-year explicit strategy instruction research to illustrate how their experienced in-service teachers learned to think more flexibly about scaffolding in the GRR model. Teachers explored their misconceptions about explicit strategy instruction and the gradual release. Two major shifts in their thinking were the GRR model was not the static model they interpreted it to be and they also realized that they had to use a gradual release when teaching readers the conditional knowledge so readers could use strategies independently.

Research Limitations/Implications – A two-dimensional representation of a complex concept, like the GRR can result in a less nuanced understanding of a complex concept, even when many of these issues are previously discussed in research and practitioner publications.

Practical Implications – Classroom teachers are provided with a more complex understanding of GRR model, where they need to interpret student responses to know when to and not release learners.

Originality/Value of Chapter – This chapter captures in-service teachers’ perspectives of the GRR model as being flexible instead of static and also reveals how student responses can be used to gauge how to make adaptations to ­scaffolding.

In response to the urgent national need to implement evidence-based literacy supports for adolescent struggling readers (ASRs), this chapter provides a framework for addressing reading comprehension instruction. Schools face significant challenges in the education of ASRs including how to address the achievement gap that emerges between proficient readers and a variety of poor reader subgroups predicted by the Simple View of Reading. The authors present current research in the components of reading comprehension (e.g., text structures, vocabulary, prior knowledge, cognitive strategies, and motivation) and explicit pedagogical practices associated with improving outcomes for ASRs, including a school-wide framework called the Content Literacy Continuum. Two specific interventions with supporting research are presented as model practices to improve outcomes for ASRs.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to consider the historical context of the gradual release model as it emerged following the early twentieth century emphasis on behaviorism as psychologists (and reading researchers) increasingly focused on cognition in the reading process. This “cognitive turn” in educational psychology was followed closely by a “social turn” with its focus on the socially constructed nature of texts, learning, and reading, particularly influenced by Vygotsky and work on scaffolding.

Design/methodology/approach – This chapter uses literature from the field to contextualize the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model and to discuss research or practice chapters included in this edited volume.

Findings – This chapter described the transition from behaviorism to cognition to social construction as it applies to the reading process generally and to GRR in particular. It noted that this transition has required teachers to be more nimble and flexible than ever before, cautioned that the complexity of classroom life and the pressures on teachers can cause techniques such as GRR to be misused, and suggested ways to manage the group work which is central to social cultural approaches to literacy. And along the way it spotlighted the ever-widening range of applications of the GRR documented in the earlier chapters of the book.

Practical implications – The section in this chapter with most immediate practical implication is clearly the section on misuses of the GRR model. This section discusses some misuses of the model: neglecting explicit teaching; missing the middle (i.e., jump from explicit teaching directly to independent practice); and applying in an overly rigid manner.

Originality/value of paper – This chapter makes an original contribution to the field in providing a historical context for the gradual release model and for addressing the chapters in this edited collection. The authors also point to some areas for next steps forward as reminders to those applying the model.

Struggling writers and students with disabilities tend to have difficulties with multiple aspects of the writing process. Therefore, in this chapter, we describe Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008). SRSD is a writing intervention with extensive research demonstrating its effectiveness for improving the writing quality of struggling writers and students with disabilities when implemented by both teachers and researchers in a variety of educational settings. We also describe an ineffective writing practice, stand-alone grammar instruction. Although this type of grammar instruction is explicit, it is removed from an authentic writing context, and decades of research have demonstrated its negative effects on students’ writing quality. We close the chapter with recommendations for future research on SRSD as well as general suggestions for teachers who provide writing instruction to struggling writers and students with disabilities.

This study explores whether metacognitive strategy training can influence the lexical knowledge of L2 learners of the present study, and what they think about the use of metacognitive strategies in language learning classes. To do so, a 50-item multiple-choice vocabulary test, developed by the researchers based upon Nation’s (1990) levels of language proficiency, was employed to measure the learners’ vocabulary knowledge progress during the period of instruction. The instruction received by the experimental group was based on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) Model, developed and validated by Chamot and O’Malley (1994). The findings revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in their endeavors for comprehending and producing vocabulary. This may be attributed to the fact that after this intervention, participants have developed their metacognitive awareness and their thinking skills. The study concludes with pedagogical implications and highlights avenues for future research.

ﺗ مّ د ﻣ ﺞ ا ﺳ ﺗ ر ا ﺗ ﯾ ﺟ ﯾ ﺎ ت ﻣ ﺎ و ر ا ء ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﯾ ﺔ (MS) ، ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻲ ﺗ ﻌ ﺗ ﺑ ر ا ﻟ ﻔ ﺋ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﻔ ر ﻋ ﯾ ﺔ ا ﻟ ر ﺋ ﯾ ﺳ ﯾ ﺔ ﻻ ﺳ ﺗ ر ا ﺗ ﯾ ﺟ ﯾ ﺎ ت ﺗ ﻌ ﻠّ م ا ﻟ ﻠّ ﻐ ﺔ ﻓ ﻲ ﻣ ﻧ ﺎ ھ ﺞ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠّ م ا ﻟ ﻠّ ﻐ ﺔ ا ﻷ ﺟ ﻧ ﺑ ﯾ ﺔ ﻟ ﺗ ﺳ ﮭ ﯾ ل ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻔ ﻛ ﯾ ر ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺎ ﻟ ﻲ و ا ﻟ ﺗ ﺧ ط ﯾ ط ا ﻟ ذ ا ﺗ ﻲ و ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠّ م ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺳ ﺗ ﻘِّل و ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ م ا ﻷ ﻓ ﺿ ل ﻓ ﻲ ﻧ ﮭ ﺎ ﯾ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﻣ ط ﺎ ف . و ﻓ ﻘًﺎ ﻟ ذ ﻟ ك ، ﺗ ﻌ دّ ھ ذ ه ا ﻟ دّر ا ﺳ ﺔ ﻣ ﺣ ﺎ و ﻟ ﺔً ﻟ ﻺ ﺟ ﺎ ﺑ ﺔ ﻋ ﻣ ﺎ إ ذ ا ﻛ ﺎ ن ا ﻟ ﺗ د ر ﯾ ب ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﺳ ﺗ ر ا ﺗ ﯾ ﺟ ﯾ ﺔ ﻣ ﺎ و ر ا ء ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﻲ ﯾ ﻣ ﻛ ن أ ن ﯾ ؤ ﺛّ ر ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﻣُﻌ ﺟ ﻣ ﯾ ﺔ ﻟ ﻠ ﻣ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﻣ ﯾ ن و ﻣ ﺎ ذ ا ﯾ ﻔ ﻛّر ﻓ ﯾ ﮫ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠّ ﻣ و ن ﺣ ول ﺗ د ر ﯾ س ا ﺳ ﺗ ر ا ﺗ ﯾ ﺟ ﯾ ﺎ ت ﻣ ﺎ و ر ا ء ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﯾ ﺔ . و ﻟ ﻠ ﻘ ﯾ ﺎ م ﺑ ذ ﻟ ك ، ﺗ مّ ا ﺳ ﺗ ﺧ د ا م ا ﺧ ﺗ ﺑ ﺎ ر ﻣ ﻛ و ن ﻣ ن 50 ﻋ ﻧ ﺻ ر اً ﻣ ﺗ ﻌ د د ا ﻻ ﺧ ﺗ ﯾ ﺎ ر ا ت ا ﻟّ ذ ي ﺗ مّ ﺗ ط و ﯾ ر ه ﺑ و ا ﺳ ط ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺑ ﺎ ﺣ ﺛ ﯾ ن ا ﺳ ﺗ ﻧ ﺎ دًا إ ﻟ ﻰ ﻣ ﺳ ﺗ و ﯾ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﻛ ﻔ ﺎ ء ة ا ﻟ ﻠ ﻐ و ﯾ ﺔ ﻟ د ى ا ﻟ ﺷ ﻌ ب (Nation) (1990 م ( ، ﻟ ﻘ ﯾ ﺎ س ﺗ ط وّ ر ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻔ ر د ا ت أ ﺛ ﻧ ﺎ ء ﻓ ﺗ ر ة اﻟ ﺗد ر ﯾ س . ا ﺳ ﺗ ﻧ د ت ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﯾ ﻣ ﺎ ت ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻲ ﺗ ﻠ ﻘّﺗ ﮭ ﺎ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺟ ﻣ و ﻋ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺗ ﺟ ر ﯾ ﺑ ﯾ ﺔ إ ﻟ ﻰ ﻧ ﻣ و ذ ج ﻣ ﻧ ﮭ ﺞ ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ م ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻷ ﻛ ﺎ د ﯾ ﻣ ﻲ ) CALLA ( ا ﻟ ذّي أ ﻋ دّه و و ا ﻓ ق ﻋﻠ ﯾ ﮫ ﺷﺎ ﻣو ت وأ وﻣﺎﻟ ﻲ ) 1994 ( . ﻛ ﺷ ﻔ ت ا ﻟ ﻧ ﺗ ﺎ ﺋ ﺞ أ نّ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺟ ﻣ و ﻋ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺗ ﺟ ر ﯾ ﺑ ﯾ ﺔ ﺗ ﻔ و ﻗ ت ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺟ ﻣ و ﻋ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺗ ﺣ ﻛ ﻣ ﯾ ﺔ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻧّﺳ ﺑ ﺔ ﻟ ﻔ ﮭ م و إ ﻧ ﺗ ﺎ ج ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻔ ر د ا ت . ﻣن اﻟ ﻣﻣﮑن أ ن ﯾﻌود ذ ﻟ ك إ ﻟ ﻰ ﺣ ﻘ ﯾ ﻘ ﺔ أ نّ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﻣ ﯾ ن ﺑ ﻌ د ھ ذ ا ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻼ ج ﯾ ﻣ ﻛ ﻧ ﮭ م ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻔ ﻛ ﯾ ر أ ﻛ ﺛ ر و ر ا ء ا ﻟ ﻣ ﻌ ر ﻓ ﯾ ﺔ و ﺗ ط و ﯾ ر ﺗ ﻘ دّم ﺗ ﻔ ﻛ ﯾ ر ھ م . ﺗ ﺧ ﺗ ﺗ م ا ﻟ دّر ا ﺳ ﺔ ﺑ ذ ﮐ ر ﺑ ﻌ ض ا ﻵ ﻓ ﺎ ق ا ﻟ ﺗ ر ﺑ و ﯾّﺔ و ﺗ ﺳ ﻠ ﯾ ط ا ﻟ ﺿّو ء ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺑ ﻌ ض ا ﻟ ﺳّﺑ ل ﻟ ﻠ ﺑ ﺣ ث ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﻣ ﺳ ﺗ ﻘ ﺑ ل .

In this chapter, we focus on specially designed instruction (SDI) as a core value for the field of specific learning disabilities (SLD). SDI is at the heart of special education, and the field of LD has been built on the core value that effective instruction improves student outcomes. We describe a two-step test and an extended example of what is and is not SDI for Matt, a student with an SLD. Finally, we discuss some of the confusion surrounding SDI and the need for the field to return to its core value of individualized, intentional, targeted, evidence- or high leverage practice–based, and systematic instruction for students with SLD.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the conceptual and historical genesis of the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) which has become one of the most commonly used instructional frameworks for research and professional development in the field of reading and literacy.

Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter uses a narrative, historical approach to describe the emergence of the model in the work taking place in the late 1970s and early 1980s in reading research and educational theory, particularly at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana as carried out by David Pearson, Meg Gallagher, and their colleagues.

Findings – The GRR Model began, in part, in response to the startling findings of Dolores Durkin’s (1978/1979) study of reading comprehension instruction in classrooms which found that little instruction was occurring even while students were completing numerous assignments and question-response activities. Pearson and Gallagher were among those researchers who took seriously the task of developing an instructional model and approach for comprehension strategy instruction that included explicit instruction. They recognized a need for teachers to be responsible for leading and scaffolding instruction, even as they supported learners in moving toward independent application of strategies and independence in reading. Based in the current research in the reading field and the rediscovery of the work of Vygotsky (1978) and the descriptions of scaffolding as coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), Pearson and Gallagher developed the model of gradual release. Over time, the model has been adapted by many literacy scholars, applied to curriculum planning, used with teachers for professional development, reprinted numerous times, and with the advent of the Internet, proliferated even further as teachers and educators share their own versions of the model. This chapter introduces readers to the original model and multiple additional representations/iterations of the model that emerged over the past few decades. This chapter also attends to important nuances in the model and to some misconceptions of the instructional model.

Research Limitations/Implications – Despite the popularity of the original GRR model developed by Pearson and Gallagher and the many adaptations of the model by many collaborators and colleagues in literacy – and even beyond – there have been very few publications that have explored the historical and conceptual origins of the model and its staying power.

Practical Implications – This chapter will speak to researchers, teachers, and other educators who use the GRR model to help guide thinking about instruction in reading, writing, and other content areas with children, youth, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers. This chapter provides a thoughtful discussion of multiple representations of the gradual release process and the nuances of the model in ways that will help to dispel misuse of the model while recognizing its long-standing and sound foundation on established socio-cognitive principles and instructional theories such as those espoused by Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky, Anne Brown, and others.

Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter makes an original contribution to the field in explaining the historical development and theoretical origins of the GRR model by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) and in presenting multiple iterations of the model developed by Pearson and his colleagues in the field.

This chapter provides the reader with a framework for understanding the needs of students that have concurrent needs as English Language Learners and Emotionally Behavioral Disturbed. Issues related to effective assessment practices, service delivery, and appropriate intervention are discussed.

Successful implementation of Response to Intervention frameworks in schools requires general and special education teachers to have well-integrated knowledge bases for providing instruction and intervention in reading and behavior. Implementation-focused approaches to changing teacher behavior, favored traditionally in special education, however, are unlikely to help teachers acquire such knowledge. In this chapter, we discuss the knowledge and practice that defines expert teachers in reading and behavior and how such expertise might be achieved through practice-focused approaches to initial teacher education and professional development.

This chapter provides a descriptive review of recent intervention research practices intended to improve the literacy skills of students with emotional or behavioral disabilities (EBD). A systematic search procedure identified 21 investigations that had been published in the past five years. These studies are described within the categories of peer-mediated literacy interventions, reading interventions, and writing interventions. Generally, it has been found that such practices as peer mediation, direct instruction (DI), cognitive text mapping, and writing strategy instruction including the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model have led to substantial improvement in the literacy skills of students with EBD. These strategies were apparently successful because they served generally to focus student attention and to provide cognitive models for executing literacy tasks. Implications for practice and future research are provided.