Collaborative Reading

Collaborative Reading and Classroom Discussion

Eric Grant
East Carolina University
READ 6418

Collaborative Reading

Abstract
This report examines the concept of collaborative reading using a broad definition that includes
cooperative paired and small group reading as well as post reading classroom discussion. The
aim was to define collaborative reading and to analyze its effectiveness on reading
comprehension. Citing the work of researchers, practitioners, and literacy experts, the paper
compares the relative effectiveness of various methods, including Collaborative Strategic
Reading and various forms of classroom discussion. The report also discussed the key factors
necessary for successful collaborative reading in terms of improving student reading
comprehension. This information supports the work, both in theory and in practice, of
professional development planning and implementation.

Collaborative Reading and Classroom Discussion

Collaborative Reading

Standard 10 of The Common Core State Standards Reading Informational and Reading
Literature Strands call for students to be able to read appropriately complex texts independently
and proficiently. Unfortunately, for many students this is an exceedingly difficult task.
Likewise, for teachers working to move all of their readers toward this goal, the task is daunting.
Fortunately, while the goal is for independence, nowhere in the standards does it suggest that the
process of achieving that goal must be independent. In fact, like with so much in education,
working with others to achieve this goal can pay huge dividends.
Collaborative reading and classroom discussion around texts are proven methods of
improving students reading comprehension. In fact, Allington and Gabriel (2012) consider
collaborative reading strategies to be some of the most underused teaching strategies - especially
considering their effectiveness. However, in order for these strategies to be most effective,
careful consideration of process and purpose is critical.
Consensus in the field
Consensus exists in support of collaboration for improved reading comprehension.
Guthrie (2011) places collaboration as one of his key elements to motivating readers. Allington
and Gabriel (2012) suggest that collaborative reading strategies improve engagement,
comprehension, and language acquisition. They add that the interplay among reading, writing,
speaking, and listening helps strengthen the skills in each area. In other words, by using these
strategies interactively, they are mutually beneficial. Additionally, a concentration on
collaborative reading techniques tends to reduce teacher talk and increase student talk (Murphy,
Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009). This is a key factor in motivation and
engagement and also represents a paradigm shift for many of todays classrooms.

Collaborative Reading

Collaborative reading provides opportunities for students to work together toward

understanding, and, if done in conjunction with the teaching of specific reading strategies, can
help students metacognition through an understanding of the types of reading strategies they are
using (Goldman, 2012). Furthermore, collaborative reading has the potential to increase students
critical thinking, reasoning, and ability to support ideas and arguments (Murphy, et al., 2009).
This, according to Duke, Pearson, Strachan and Bilman (2011), most likely results from students
engagement in a process that demands that they explain their thinking.
Collaborative reading defined and illustrated
Collaborative reading takes many forms and therefore has a broad definition. It is a
process that demands for students to work together to determine meaning (Duke, et al, 2011) by
providing students opportunities to make claims about the text, add to each others
interpretations, raise clarifying questions, and attempt to synthesize their own brainstorming
(Guthrie, 2011, Kindle Locations 4169-4176). Wendt (2013) suggests that collaboration taps into
literacys social aspect and reinforces comprehension. In short, however, collaborative reading
constitutes an interactive process through which students work together toward an improved
understanding of a text (Guthrie, 2011).
Collaborative reading can involve paired reading, literature circles, jigsaw reading,
student-led or teacher-led discussions (Duke, et al, 2011), collaborative reasoning, Junior Great
Books Shared Inquiry, Paideia Discussions (Murphy, et al., 2009), and the list goes on and on.
Specifically, in paired reading, students might read and annotate a text independently then
combine with a partner to discuss their annotations. This process enables students to share their
thinking and clarify misconceptions (Goldman, 2012). To those ends, students might also engage

Collaborative Reading

in think-aloud reading where students articulate their thinking with their peers or a teacher as
they read (Mckeown & Gentilucci, 2007).
In Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), a method specifically designed to help
students toward metacognition of reading strategies, each aspect of the collaborative reading
process is tended to deliberately. According to Vaughn et al (2013), this incorporates (a) explicit
instruction, (b) modeling, (c) guided practice, (d) procedural strategies to facilitate learning, (e)
collaborative partner or group work, and (f) opportunities for interactive dialogue among
students as well as between teachers and students. In this process, the explicit instruction and
modeling focus on specific comprehension strategies that are then practiced in paired reading or
small group settings and eventually discussed in a group setting. Students engage in previewing,
clarifying understanding, determining main ideas and summarizing. While the teacher guides the
process, students work with their peers to read and make sense of the text.
The strategic combination of teacher guidance and interaction with peers during and after
reading develops students awareness of and agency with comprehension strategies. Results for
students using this practice indicated gains in reading comprehension when compared with
students in classes that did not utilize CSR (Vaughn, 2013). Interestingly, while all students
demonstrated gains through this method, English Language Learners and lower level readers saw
the greatest gains (Annamma year).
Not all collaboration is created equally
Of course, that students are talking does not necessarily mean that students are learning.
In CSV, the guidance of the teacher represents a significant part of the process. Likewise,
strategic groupings and pairings have a significant impact on student comprehension growth. The

Collaborative Reading

research also indicated that closer fidelity to the CSR model produced stronger gains for reading
comprehension (Vaughn, et al, 2013).
In terms of broader classroom dialogue, the variation in effectiveness is also dependent
on strategy and implementation. According to Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, and
Alexander (2009), it is critical for teachers to understand the goals for classroom discussions. In
other words, different forms of classroom discussion produce different results.
Their study found that discussions focusing on searching a text for specific information
tend to develop basic understanding of a text, but did little to develop critical thinking. This
form, called the efferent stance, is focused on determining main ideas or relatively simple
conclusions. However, discussions focused on querying and interrogating the underlying
arguments and evidence presented in the text (Murphy, et al., 2009, 742), a form known as the
critical- analytical stance, led to increased critical thinking. Specific examples of criticalanalytical stance methods include collaborative reasoning whereby students use text-based,
reasoned logic to discuss a text through a specific argumentative lens; Junior Great Books Shared
Inquiry; and Questioning the Author. The expressive stance, which is typified by book clubs and
literature circles, focuses more on emotive and personal responses to text. This method promoted
a higher degree of student engagement than the other two; however, it also led to lower levels of
critical thinking than the critical- analytical stance.
Further, Soter et al (2008) found that whereas teacher- talk is most prevalent in efferent
discussions, teachers and students shared the talk relatively equally in critical- analytical stance
discussions. In the expressive stance, students typically talked more than the teacher. According
to these authors, the more teacher-directed the discussion, as evidenced in the efferent stance, the
less opportunity for students to sound out their reasoning or to engage in elaborated

Collaborative Reading

explanations and/or exploratory talk (Soter et al., 2008). Conversely, the expressive stance
discussions show a high degree of exploratory talk with minimal degrees of elaborate
explanations. In the critical - analytical stance, like with the balance between teacher talk and
student talk, there was a greater balance between elaborated explanations and exploratory talk.
According to the authors, this most likely results from the exchanges between teachers
and students. Through opportunities for teachers to scaffold discussions and to ask higher-order
questions, students are encouraged toward greater elaboration. While critical 0 analytical
dialogue still invites exploratory talk, follow-up questioning engages students in higher - level
thinking, analysis and reasoning. In other words, productive discussions are structured and
focused yet not dominated by the teacher (Soter et al., 2008). Efferent stance discussions lack
the space for students to explore their thinking; expressive stance lacks adequate teacher input to
promote higher- order thinking.
Putting it all together
Collaborative reading, when viewed under a broad definition that incorporates both
shared simultaneous reading practices and post reading discussions, has been lauded by
practitioners and literacy experts alike for its ability to develop increased reading comprehension
as well as higher-order, critical thinking skills. While acknowledging the increased engagement
and motivation that collaborative reading produces, this is seen by most as a secondary effect.
Most reading experts seek the more substantive goal of improved comprehension. However,
through a more thorough examination of the various types of collaborative reading methods it is
clear that certain methods produce stronger and more targeted results.
In order to create an environment for successful collaborative reading a few key elements
must be in place. First, Goldman (2012) emphasizes the need for clear classroom norms through

Collaborative Reading

which students are encouraged to explore their thinking, listen to the ideas of others and
welcome multiple perspectives. Calkins, Ehrenworth, and Lehman (2012) suggest that strategic
scaffolding is critical to successful collaborative reading - beginning with paired discussions
around comprehension where students experiment with the exchange of questioning and
answering techniques in order to build agency before moving into large group discussion. They
emphasize, like Soter et al (2008), that the teacher participate throughout the process.
Goldman expands on the concept of scaffolding suggesting that teachers take students
through a series of stances - solidifying basic understanding (efferent), exploring the text from a
personal, emotional standpoint (expressive); and then looking at it from a critical stance (criticalanalysis). Intentionality is key to all of this, as Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, and
Alexander (2009) determined in their study: teachers need to be clear both about their goals and
about how the particular collaborative approach supports those goals.
Reflection
Strategic is the operative word in this report and in its implications for classroom
practices. The Collaborative Strategic Reading method so clearly outlines a method that all
teachers can use toward improved student reading comprehension. The challenge for many
teachers in this will come in explicitly and strategically teaching reading comprehension
strategies. In order to do this, teachers need to know these strategies. Likewise, the study around
collaborative discussions clearly articulates the varied purposes for classroom discussion. While
teachers may be accustomed to engaging in classroom discussion, they may not be as intentional
as the authors of this study endorse. Recognizing this helps me to further understand the
importance of teacher professional development. For teachers to be able to appropriately teach a

Collaborative Reading

reading strategy or select a discussion format based on a desired outcome takes knowledge and
practice. I look forward to sharing this learning.
New learning also occurred for me when considering teacher-talk versus student talk.
This clarified my thinking considerably. I had considered myself a more competent Paideia
discussion facilitator once I had gotten to the point where I seldom spoke. I so heavily
emphasized student talk that I had lost my voice. I had also felt that there was some degree of
hollowness to our Paideia discussions. Recognizing now how critical it is to maintain a balance
of teacher talk and student talk to help push students toward higher-order thinking and more
complete reasoning - to push students back into the text toward extended elaboration feels like it
would add marrow to the bone. Even better, however, would be to teach, model and scaffold such
that students are pushing each other toward higher-order thinking.
Additionally, it would be remiss to write a paper about collaborative reading without
acknowledging the potential of web 2.0 tools. Wendt (2013) suggested that todays collaborative
discussions are no longer bound to a classroom. Through blogs, texting, social media, etc.,
students can now collaborate through the walls of their classrooms and schools. The trick for the
21st Century teacher, however, will be in making sure those discussions reach a critical stance.
On a more personal note of reflection, in some respects I adopted this topic more to prove
a point. I approached this, as I have many other research papers - as an argumentative paper.
Buncombe County Schools had adopted an instructional framework and I hoped to write a paper
in support of that. However, it was in our last class discussion when my suggestion that an
effective method of research was to determine smaller question attached to a main theme was
met with a different recommendation: Read as much as possible about a topic, come to
understand the current research and thinking about that topic, draw together the common themes

Collaborative Reading

and explore those, that I came to a new understanding. Perhaps this seems illogical, but I
generally did not look upon research in this manner. This was an opportunity to openly learn
about a topic I wanted to know more about, not a process to test my hypothesis. I have a new
perspective, both in my understanding of collaborative reading and in my understanding of
effective research.

10

Collaborative Reading

11

References
Allington, R. L., & Gabriel, R. E. (2012). Every Child, Every Day. Educational Leadership,
69(6), 10-16. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/mar12/vol69/num06/Every-Child,-Every-Day.aspx
Annamma, S., Eppolito,, A., Klingner, J., Boele, A., Boardman, A., & Stillman-Spisak, S. J.
(2011). Collaborative strategic reading: Fostering success for all. Voices from the
Middle, 19(2), 27-32. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://bit.ly/1mFA8Sf
Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerating
achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Bilman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of
fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels
(Authors),What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 58-91). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
English Language Arts Standards Reading: Informational Text Grade 9-10. (n.d.). Retrieved
June 10, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RI/9-10/#CCSS.ELALiteracy.RI.9-10.10
Goldman, S. R. (2012). Adolescent Literacy: Learning and Understanding Content. The Future
of Children, 22(2), 89-116. doi: 10.1353/foc.2012.0011
Guthrie, J. T. (2011). Best Practices in Motivating Students to Read. In L. M. Morrow & L. B.
Gambrell (Authors), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Mckeown, R. G., & Gentilucci, J. L. (2007). Think-Aloud Strategy: Metacognitive Development
and Monitoring Comprehension in the Middle School Second-Language
Classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 136-147. doi:
10.1598/JAAL.51.2.5

Collaborative Reading

12

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009).
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students comprehension of text: A metaanalysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740-764. doi: 10.1037/a0015576
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008).
What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International
Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372-391. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2009.01.001
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A., Stillman-Spisak, S. J.,
... Leroux, A. J. (2013). Collaborative Strategic Reading: Findings From Experienced
Implementers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(2), 137-163. doi:
10.1080/19345747.2012.741661

Wendt, J. L. (2013). Combating The Crisis In Adolescent Literacy: Exploring Literacy In The
Secondary Classroom. American Secondary Education,41(2). Retrieved June 5, 2014.