Toward a Framework for Ambitious Nonfiction Reading Instruction

• In Event: Beginning Elementary Teachers' Development of Ambitious Instructional Practices in Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics

Abstract

Objective. This paper illustrates features of ambitious nonfiction reading instruction through analysis of classroom observations. While there is evidence that literacy development is genre-specific (Duke, 2000), there is a lack of larger-scale studies detailing the nonfiction instructional practices of early-career teachers at the elementary level. Existing studies of nonfiction reading instruction have zoomed in on small samples of teachers and/or specific practices, such as read alouds and text-based discussions (Deeney, 2016; Heisey & Kucan, 2010; Maloch, 2008). Findings from this paper add to our understanding of the current range of teacher practices and the elements of ambitious nonfiction instruction. Findings also address the need to consider the role of both strategy instruction and content knowledge in elementary literacy.
Theoretical Framework. I use the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO; Grossman, Loeb, Cohen, & Wyckoff, 2013) as a framework to define high-quality literacy instruction. This responds to calls to view observation protocols as tools to inform research and practice rather than simply instruments to evaluate teachers (Cohen, Schuldt, Brown, & Grossman, 2016; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Lampert & Graziani, 2009). It is both purposeful and powerful to have a “common language” (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013, p. 381) to draw upon when describing ambitious instruction in order to make practices transparent and accessible to teachers. Based on the current literature regarding nonfiction reading instruction at the elementary level, I focused on three PLATO elements: strategy instruction, text-based instruction, and representations of content.
Data Sources and Methods. The sample for this analysis includes observations of 67 nonfiction reading lessons from 42 first-year elementary teachers. I identified nonfiction lessons from the larger sample by referencing a combination of learning objectives, handouts, and lesson video. In order to illustrate nonfiction instructional practices, I drew on Cohen’s (2015, 2018) use of Erickson’s (1986) funneling method of qualitative case sampling to review segments across all PLATO score points.
Findings. Analysis of the lessons revealed a range of practices in text-based instruction, strategy instruction, and representations of content, with the highest-quality instruction showing a combination of all three. Accordingly, scores for these three elements had significant positive correlations. The PLATO instrument captures ambitious practices across different aspects of instruction, but not all elements are this interconnected. In nonfiction reading, strong segments often involved teachers providing relevant content, modeling strategies, and having students try them out in authentic nonfiction texts. Teachers worked to build knowledge by providing clear explanations of concepts and clarifying student misunderstandings.
Significance. There is debate in the field about the relative importance of content knowledge and strategy use in reading instruction (e.g., McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). However, findings from this analysis indicate that this may be a false dichotomy: In general, high-quality nonfiction reading lessons included content instruction and strategy instruction. These findings have implications for teacher educators, curriculum designers, and school leaders. We must recognize and act on the indication that both content and strategy instruction are important by promoting lessons that include both elements as students work with authentic text.

Author

• Alexa Miller Quinn, James Madison University