View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Partnering for Success: Text and Peer Engagement during Paired Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Partnering for Success: Text and Peer Engagement during Paired Reading
Language: English
Authors: Kathryn L. Roberts (ORCID 0000-0003-0229-1713), Poonam Arya, Kathleen K. Plond
Source: Reading Teacher. 2024 77(4):453-461.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Grade 3
Primary Education
Descriptors: Reading Instruction, Reading Aloud to Others, Grade 3, Interaction, Reading Strategies, Elementary School Students, Learner Engagement, Peer Groups
DOI: 10.1002/trtr.2256
ISSN: 0034-0561
1936-2714
Abstract: In this article we report the results and classroom implications of a qualitative study that explored third-grade students' interactions with each other as they partner read. Participants included 10 students, each of whom engaged in three readings with a partner during recorded observations. All students had been taught structures for partner reading and numerous reading strategies by their classroom teacher. The transcripts of the readings were parsed, annotated with observational notes, and coded using descriptive phrases. Students' interactions with each other during the readings revealed that they are capable of productively using their time to support learning during partner reading and spend relatively little time off task and that their use of strategies varies with context (text interest, text difficulty, turn-taking patterns). Classroom implications for these findings are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1408610
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGk9tddR-6UxrZ1ZdhS65r0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAa9b-2NqT3ejlY4oQIBEICBmpMn53I_RB8IiNTn8h_pyJgvX2N4sTxLSRS6waSwjE7su-ghYvMlaCuvAUoxjf5HvFu5sHfK-PkpqDXGE_GVyPPwvV_j78Pd06LbYXSfZwXH8gNXGONnOgaVUp_EhAIT3esg0v9BrRDWnXVJtjt-2NWmt6tSGRVSC_kvpvP1KCuloiZJnIw2tC2dzQxTfWNlhxg-B0MnSH_8Ewk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175009504;ret01jan.24;2024Jan29.05:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175009504-1">Partnering for Success: Text and Peer Engagement During Paired Reading </title> <p>In this article we report the results and classroom implications of a qualitative study that explored third‐grade students' interactions with each other as they partner read. Participants included 10 students, each of whom engaged in three readings with a partner during recorded observations. All students had been taught structures for partner reading and numerous reading strategies by their classroom teacher. The transcripts of the readings were parsed, annotated with observational notes, and coded using descriptive phrases. Students' interactions with each other during the readings revealed that they are capable of productively using their time to support learning during partner reading and spend relatively little time off task and that their use of strategies varies with context (text interest, text difficulty, turn‐taking patterns). Classroom implications for these findings are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Strategies, methods, and materials; Reading strategies</p> <p>This article describes partner reading in a third‐grade classroom. Though challenging, partner reading provides opportunities for students to engage with texts and each other in ways that support young readers.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-2">PAUSE AND PONDER</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Think about what texts your students have access to. Do all students have access to books that are engaging, of their choice, and at a level that is accessible? If not, how could you facilitate appropriate book selection for partner reading?</item> <p></p> <item> What does your classroom look and sound like when students are engaged in learning together?</item> <p></p> <item> When students are working collaboratively, how do you evaluate whether the time is being spent productively?</item> <p></p> <item> Anna Just, oh. My. Gosh. Like, that's amazing, Uh, like I feel like, oh, gosh. Just oh, my gosh.... (turns page) That is the smallest car!</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley No.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna The smallest car.</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley I've seen smaller cars.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna OK, whatever.</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley I've actually seen a motorcycle that size.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna 'Cause motorcycles are that size!</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley No, I've seen a motorcycle the size of that door.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna Well...this is a car, not a motorcycle. They're not the same things.</item> </ulist> <p>This exchange was recorded as two third‐grade students collaboratively read a self‐selected book that featured fascinating facts about vehicles. The girls were engaged, excited, and engrossed in the book. Around the classroom, their peers were similarly partner reading and the class was buzzing as students interacted with each other around their texts.</p> <p>Learning has long been recognized as a social endeavor (e.g., Gee, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>]; Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]; Popov et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]). Social interactions play prominent roles in literacy teaching and learning as part of many instructional models and components (e.g., reading and writing workshop, literature circles, grand conversations), programs (e.g., Seeds of Science, Roots of Reading; Cervetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]), and the teaching and learning of instructional strategies (e.g., Questioning the Author [Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]; Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]]; Question‐Answer‐Relationships [QAR, Raphael & Au, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref8">30</reflink>]]; Directed Reading‐Thinking Activity [DR‐TA, Stauffer, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref9">35</reflink>]; Utami & Sugirin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref10">40</reflink>]]; reciprocal teaching [Palincsar & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]]). In many cases, at least initially, the social aspects of these processes occur between the teacher and students. One way in which literacy learning through social interaction can be expanded is to utilize student‐centered models in which students interact with each other, such as partner reading.</p> <p>Interactions during partner reading build motivation, fluency, and comprehension (e.g., Downs et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]). Analyses of students' joint talk indicates that during partner reading, "readings are constructed, contested, and negotiated through talk...calculated and reshaped" (Maybin & Moss, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>], p. 138) and are fertile ground for learning. However, little research looks closely at what readers do during partner reading that might produce positive outcomes and the wide variety of forms their interactions take. In this article, we first briefly discuss the theoretical and research support for partner reading practices. We then share examples of what partner reading looks like in one third‐grade classroom, our own learnings based on classroom observations, and ideas for how teachers might implement partner reading in their classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-3">Learning is Social</hd> <p>Learning is inherently social; we learn by observing and interacting with more knowledgeable others (e.g., Lave & Wenger, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]). These opportunities for interaction and influence are critical to the learning process (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Lee & Shute, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]). Social interaction around reading includes sharing reactions to text (e.g., making an inference such as "she's angry") and may also include metacognitive explanations of those reactions (e.g., making and explaining an inference such as "she's angry; her face is red and all of the letters are uppercase"). Supportive, social reading in peer partnerships, when carefully constructed, can support reading processes and contribute to the use of a broader array of strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-4">Partner Reading</hd> <p>Partner reading entails two readers reading the same text, simultaneously or taking turns, often assisting each other with word‐level and meaning‐based queries (e.g., Brown, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]). Partner reading formats vary and may include reading together, as in choral reading; echo reading; or taking turns reading by paragraph, page, or other unit. Partner reading also often includes stopping to discuss the text or challenges it presents. If these options seem overwhelming, it is important to remember that you can begin with just one or two formats and build your menu throughout the year.</p> <p>Partner reading may support meaning making so well because when students share their thoughts out loud, they become an external object that both readers can discuss and reflect upon. This, in turn, may serve to provide access to alternative understandings and opportunities to engage in comprehension processes and think critically about text (e.g., "buddy reading," Christ & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]; Christ et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]), including texts that are challenging (Topping, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref24">38</reflink>]). During partner reading, students typically focus on learning from texts and co‐constructing knowledge, which can lead to positive academic growth (e.g., Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>]). Partner reading also provides opportunities to apply reading strategies, which leads to increased reading comprehension, particularly when strategies are used flexibly and in combination (e.g., Block et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]; Murad & Topping, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]; Reutzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref29">31</reflink>]). In addition to comprehension and decoding support, readers may use a variety of motoric actions, such as pointing to words and pictures, to assist each other in keeping track of their location in the passage, or aid in decoding. They may also describe text navigation, such as encouraging a partner to use their finger to point (Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are many ways to enact partner reading. One popular method that capitalizes on social learning and has influenced other forms of partner reading is reciprocal teaching. Reciprocal teaching is a teacher‐centered activity in which groups of students, led by a teacher engage in dialogue to jointly construct meaning of a text (Palincsar & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]). When teachers scaffold and support strategy use within rich and meaningful reciprocal dialogues, students have opportunities to learn from peers (Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]), which can lead to gains in comprehension and content learning for students of all ability levels (e.g., Asress, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Oczkus, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another approach to partner reading is "Partner Reading and Content, Too" (PRC2; Ogle & Correa‐Kovtun, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]), in which English language learners read with partners with similar reading and language levels. Students are given time with their partners to preview, read, reread, ask questions about, and read‐aloud sections of text. PRC2 has been shown to support understanding of text structure and features as well as comprehension of abstract content.</p> <p>Partner reading has shown to be beneficial across many contexts. Preast et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref36">28</reflink>]) found that students demonstrated increases in comprehension when they read science texts with a partner. In other studies, children who engaged in paired reading had significantly higher reading accuracy scores; reduced error rates; and increased self‐correction rates, use of context cues, use of letter‐sound correspondence skills, and general willingness and motivation to read (Guthrie et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]; Topping, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]; Topping & Lindsay, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]). Partner reading does not need to be limited to your literacy instructional time but can (and should) be leveraged across the curriculum as an effective way to engage students in learning of content and literacy skills.</p> <p>Though social interactions that occur during partner reading are beneficial to literacy learning, the challenges that partner reading poses—real and perceived—can serve as barriers to implementation. In our own work with teachers, they express concern about needing to monitor all pairs simultaneously to make sure they remain on task, noise levels in the classroom with everyone reading at the same time, and how to balance supporting partner reading with meeting with individuals and small groups. Addressing these dilemmas requires taking a close look at how partner reading is experienced in the classroom, without interruption or intervention. In this article, we share our experiences of carefully and closely observing third graders as they engaged in partner reading. We also discuss key "take‐aways" for educators based on these observations.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-5">Classroom Context</hd> <p>This study took place in a third‐grade classroom over the course of about 3 months. The school was ethnically and socio‐economically diverse (Table 1) and the 10 students we worked with (five consistent pairs) were reflective of the diversity in the building, though demographic information for individual children was not available.</p> <p>1 Table School Demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Demographic indicator</th><th>Percentage of students<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Race/Ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">White</td><td align="char" char=".">41%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">African‐American</td><td align="char" char=".">39%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hispanic</td><td align="char" char=".">8%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Two or More Races</td><td align="char" char=".">7%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Asian</td><td align="char" char=".">5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">American Indian/Alaska Native</td><td align="char" char="."><1%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander</td><td align="char" char="."><1%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Income</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Low‐Income</td><td align="char" char=".">87%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char" char=".">55%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char" char=".">45%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Total enrollment = 330.</p> <p> <emph>Source</emph>: National Center for Education Statistics (2018).</p> <p>The classroom had a daily literacy block during which part of the time was dedicated to teacher‐led, whole‐group instruction and part to the teacher meeting with multiple small groups and individual students for targeted instruction. At the beginning of each session, students were asked to share whether they were planning to read with a partner or on their own, when not meeting with the teacher. At the end of the block, students volunteered or were asked to share their teaching points from their small group or individual lessons and how they applied them to their reading.</p> <p>Expectations and structures for partner reading time had been taught early in the school year (Figure 1) and were referenced throughout our time in the school (October–January). Instruction on partner reading included procedures or rules (e.g., how many people could read together, how and where students might sit) and ideas for the format of partner reading (e.g., taking turns with the same book, readers theater, reading and discussing books on the same topic, or by the same author). With the exception of the suggestion to share interesting parts of their books, students were not explicitly instructed on what to talk about. However, when the teacher sat in with partnerships, she would often model and directly refer to strategies the students had been taught via direct instruction at other points in the day or in their small‐group or individual instruction, such as summarizing, questioning, and various word solving strategies.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/RET/01jan24/trtr2256-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="trtr2256-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Partner Reading Anchor Chart" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175009504-7">Observing Partner Reading</hd> <p>When we were observing partner reading, the students were directed to interact as if we were not there. We recorded 10 students (five pairs), three times, at approximately 3‐ to 4‐week intervals as they read. Partnerships for the purposes of these observations were assigned by the classroom teacher based on her knowledge of students who had worked well as partners in the past. Students chose books from their book boxes, which generally contained five to eight books. About half of the books were self‐selected, based on interest, recommendation from peers, book talks by the teacher, etcetera. The other half were co‐selected with the teacher based on interest and individual instructional levels. Students were free to choose any book or combination of books in either of their book boxes to read during the 10‐minute recording session. As the students read, we took time‐stamped, anecdotal notes on all non‐verbal reading behaviors (e.g., facial expressions, gestures, pauses), which were later used to annotate transcripts.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-8">Analysis</hd> <p>To look more closely at students' social interactions during partner reading, we transcribed each recording and parsed them into individual interactions, defined as verbal or non‐verbal exchanges on the same topic. An interaction began when one student initiated an exchange and the other responded. A new interaction began when a new initiation occurred, after reading additional text, or when a new type of interaction or topic was initiated.</p> <p>We independently read all 15 annotated transcripts and noted trends in the types of strategies and other behaviors students engaged in, tagging them with descriptive phrases (Strauss & Corbin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]). Then, the descriptive phrases were reviewed and collapsed (Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]), resulting in four broad coding categories of social interactions focused on word identification, comprehension or text meaning, logistics for partner reading, or off‐task behaviors (Table 2). Subsequently, we identified and described within‐and across‐pair trends, wholistically. Looking at these trends also allowed us to identify implications for the use of partner reading for a diverse array of students.</p> <p>2 Table Coding Categories and Definitions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="left">Definition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Comprehension/Meaning Based</td><td align="left">Students engage in interactions related to understanding the text (e.g., discussing vocabulary, making connections to life or other texts, making predictions)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word‐Level/Word Identification</td><td align="left">Students engage in interactions to decode or identify a word (e.g., "sounding out" a word, discussing a letter‐sound relationship, asking for a word or providing a word for a partner)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Logistics</td><td align="left">Students engage in interactions designed to manage the process of reading (e.g., negotiating which book to read or whose turn it is to read)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Off‐Task Behaviors</td><td align="left">Students engage in interactions not related to reading (e.g., taking about recess, playing with an object, checking on the time)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175009504-9">What we Learned</hd> <p>As noted above, the descriptive codes fell under four broad coding categories. Two of the social interaction categories, comprehension or text meaning and focused on word identification, are directly related to reading, both with and without partners. We also coded for logistics for partner reading and off‐task behaviors.</p> <p>The following interaction between Ethan and Jenna (all names are pseudonyms) illustrates an interaction focused on comprehension and text meaning as they read an Elephant & Piggie book. Based on the text and illustrations, Ethan shares "They both be on the rock, so when they see each other, they will be like, 'Agghhhh!'" [acts out excitedly]. Jenna agrees by responding, "Yeah. That's how I read it too." As the interaction between the two students continues, they come up with various reasons for why Gerald cannot find Piggie. (Italics indicate reading of text.):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ethan Piggie is lost and about to fall off a cliff? Or maybe—</item> <p></p> <item> Jenna Or a bird ‐ a bird.</item> <p></p> <item> Ethan Or a giant bird grabbed Piggie and flew off with her!</item> <p></p> <item> Jenna And then a monster ate her.</item> <p></p> <item> Ethan He'd like that.</item> </ulist> <p>In this example, the children are making inferences. However, there were many other types of interactions around comprehension, including acting out the text, making and confirming predictions, making and evaluating connections, asking about or providing a word definition, and monitoring for meaning.</p> <p>Students also engaged in interactions around word identification, as in the following interaction between MyKayla and Sara. In this session, they were taking turns reading the text, <emph>That Bear is Back!</emph> (Best, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]), and as one of them had trouble identifying a word, the other provided it.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> MyKayla The polar bear liked Peter. He wanted to keep Peter from a pet ‐ for a pet. It was— [uses her finger to break down the word]</item> <p></p> <item> Sara Terrible</item> <p></p> <item> MyKayla Terrible... The growl was back. Peter learned over a—over and looked over the bed. That bear was back.</item> </ulist> <p>Here, Sara provides a word that MyKayla is having difficulty decoding. Students also engaged in interactions around word identification by explicitly asking a partner what a word was, self‐correction, sounding out words, monitoring for accuracy, and repeating text for accuracy.</p> <p>Other interactions happened specifically because students were partner reading and were coded as logistics for partner reading. For example, Ashley and Anna discussed how they would structure their time together and which book to read:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Anna OK, start.</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley You start. Like, just read a couple pages.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna Read for...So this is gonna be—</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley where you're at. I don't really care 'cause I'm already at the end of the book, too.</item> <p></p> <item> Anna I'm just gonna read this one [selects a different book]; it's easier.</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley OK, just like, three pages, and, like, two. Two pages, and then I'll read two pages.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to discussing the structure for partner reading (taking turns, when to trade off, choral reading, etc.), students also discussed and debated whose turn it was to read and where they were in a text throughout the sessions.</p> <p>There were a very few interactions that were not related to reading; these were coded off‐task behaviors. These were interactions such as the two readers discussing other parts of their day, their seating arrangements, what time it was, or the like.</p> <p>These four themes highlighted the types of interactions that the students engaged in during partner reading. In the following sections, we share two broad take‐aways that we have come to by looking across reading sessions, partnerships, and interaction types: students are capable and context matters. Both of these take‐aways are widely accepted in the abstract; in the sections that follow, we discuss examples of how they manifested during these partner reading sessions as well as how understanding of these take‐aways can be leveraged by teachers to support students. Although we made these observations in one particular context, the take‐aways are applicable to any instructional structure in which there is time for students to read with a partner (e.g., centers, "read to someone" and "listen to reading" during Daily five).</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-10">Students are Capable</hd> <p>Students are capable of productively using their time to support learning during partner reading, as evidenced in three of the four themes, above. However, at times, students in this study appeared off‐task, on the surface. During partner reading, students are (by design) quite active; disentangling off‐task behavior from unconventional interactions around text requires careful attention. This is best illustrated by Cheo and Antoine, who brought unbounded energy to the partner reading sessions and their classroom. Cheo and Antoine rarely engaged in the expected sustained, verbatim reading of the text or direct discussion related to the book meanings. Their engagements were spirited and loud, and from a distance, often appeared to be off task. However, a closer look at their interactions showed that they were very much text‐ based. For instance, in one session, instead of reading the text on the pages and discussing it, Cheo and Antoine collaboratively told parallel stories guided by the illustrations of familiar books, inserting themselves as characters. In the following exchange, Cheo takes the lead and inserts himself into a riff on a <emph>Dogman</emph> plot with which both boys were familiar. Based on the illustrations, the boys dramatically narrated the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Cheo It's Cheo Tricks, but when (laughing) Cheo Tricks comes out, everybody just started running, and when everybody started running, they were like [gasp] he's gonna kill me!</item> <p></p> <item> Antoine One day a cop and a police dog got hurt in an explosion.</item> <p></p> <item> Cheo You remember that one time!</item> <p></p> <item> Antoine KABOOM! In the hospital, the doctor gave them sad news. Boo hoo! Your head is a cop—aw, man! And your body is going, "wah, wah!"</item> <p></p> <item> Cheo Hi, Cheo Tricks!</item> <p></p> <item> Antoine But the nurse lady got a great idea.</item> </ulist> <p>At a glance, they appeared noisy and off‐task (at times during our observations, they were both), but careful observation of this interaction reveals that they were mostly on task, but in unexpected ways. It might have been tempting to dissolve the partnership or decide that they were not ready for the responsibility, when in reality, partner reading was something they seemed to enjoy and be highly engaged in. Cheo and Antoine were clearly capable of engaging with each other around the text; they had read and understood it well enough to improvise innovative and animated retellings.</p> <p>Students also demonstrated their capabilities in more overt ways. For example, when reading <emph>Penny Pulls the Plug</emph> (Best, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]), Gregory got stuck on the word "huge." Instead of giving him the word, his partner Faith explicitly coached him, reminding him of letter‐sound correspondences they had been learning:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Gregory Big, fat tadpoles swam by. There was as‐</item> <p></p> <item> Faith They were</item> <p></p> <item> Gregory They were as...</item> <p></p> <item> Faith [points to the word "huge"] With this word, if you take away the e it would be "hug." But the g in this one actually makes a j sound. And there's a magic e on the end, so the vowel is u, so it'll make it say its name. So, huuuu</item> <p></p> <item> Gregory huge.</item> <p></p> <item> Faith Yeah.</item> <p></p> <item> Gregory Huge as whales.</item> </ulist> <p>This type of coaching was not something that the students engaged in often but was something that some students demonstrated that they were capable of, even without having been asked explicitly to do so.</p> <p>What does this mean for classroom teaching? From Cheo and Antoine, we learn not to confuse our expectations for what reading should look like with the best or only way to read. This has three implications for teaching. First, it is important to take the time to look closely at the full context of students' interactions because we might be surprised by their unconventional, yet meaningful interactions with each other and text. Of course, this can be difficult to balance in a classroom with the obligation to maintain settings in which all children can concentrate. This leads to our second implication, which is that teachers can spend time proactively establishing and teaching norms for interaction that allow for both creativity and relative classroom order. Finally, it is important to teach students to learn to self‐regulate their interactions around text (e.g., interacting at a volume that does not distract others), as opposed to addressing problematic behaviors by halting interactions. This allows opportunities for continued and consistent social interactions around text and all the associated benefits (e.g., Asress, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]; Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref45">25</reflink>]; Rosenshine & Meister, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref46">34</reflink>]; Topping, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>From Faith and Gregory, we learn that students are capable of helping each other move through the text (e.g., when Faith corrects Gregory's misreading of "there" for they"), but also to become more skilled readers (e.g., when she coaches him to use known strategies to decode a difficult word, "huge"). Although research has not explored the effectiveness of increasing these types of interactions, similar research on techniques such as reciprocal teaching (e.g., Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]) indicate promise for improved literacy outcomes when children are taught to intentionally scaffold each other. The students in this class were not specifically taught to coach each other, but occasionally engaged in these types of social learning interactions, which are critical to the learning process (Beck & McKeown, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]; Lee & Shute, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]). An implication of this is that, if teachers were to leverage this capability and explicitly teach and encourage students to engage in these types of social interactions around literacy, strategy instruction might have exponential potential as instructed strategies would be explicitly revisited more frequently.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-11">Context Matters</hd> <p>We have long known that contexts for reading change reading events (e.g., Rosenblatt, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>]); this was evident in our observations. How and when students engaged with each other changed with the text, their interests, the patterns they had chosen for taking turns, and likely many other less overt factors. What we found most interesting was partners' abilities to tailor their interactions around comprehension, decoding, and logistics to the context, within and across reading sessions.</p> <p>For example, in two of their three readings, both of familiar, less challenging texts, MyKayla and Sara had few interactions except around logistics, such as turn taking or how to use a text feature (i.e., a "flip‐o‐rama" in a <emph>Dogman</emph> book). However, in their third reading session, they read a more challenging trickster tale. This shifted the context of the reading. While they still engaged in logistical negotiations, they also interacted several times at the word and comprehension levels, as the demanding text provided more opportunities to do so:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> MyKayla You know that's not actually shrinking powder. See? Look. [points to picture]</item> <p></p> <item> Sara Oh, yeah.</item> <p></p> <item> MyKayla When he's...right there, there it says " scratchy." [Shows Sara that the powder that the character thought was shrinking powder was really labeled itching powder]</item> <p></p> <item> Sara Oh, yeah! " Itchy, scratchy powder !"</item> </ulist> <p>In this exchange, MyKayla points out the trick in the story, that a little boy has tricked a polar bear into believing that he is going to sprinkle him with shrinking powder, when what he really has is itching powder, which was essential to understanding the rest of the book.</p> <p>Another way in which context seemed to affect interaction patterns was that partners sometimes interacted more or less depending upon the logistical decisions they had made around turn taking. For example, when Anna and Ashley took turns reading long excerpts of text, the partner not reading tended to disengage. In the first half of one session, Anna read a book for the first several minutes while Ashley spent most of her time browsing other books. However, in the second half of the session, when they took turns reading shorter excerpts and choral read, their interactions were more frequent and varied—inclusive of logistics, word‐level issues, and comprehension issues. In the following exchange, they first focus on an issue at the word level, followed by an interaction related to the comprehension of an illustration.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ashley I was definitely ready to move a notch up the totem pole. Yay, kick!</item> <p></p> <item> Anna it says "yeah."</item> <p></p> <item> Ashley Yeah, kick. Yeah, kick. Great. Is that him [in the picture]?</item> <p></p> <item> Anna Yeah, Yeah, that's—yeah. That's him and that's him.</item> <p></p> <item> Ashely Oh.</item> </ulist> <p>The degree to which one partner was engaged while the other read for a longer period of time appeared to vary by partnership, likely due to the interaction of other factors. In contrast to Ashely and Anna, for Ethan and Jenna, when one partner read for an extended period of time, the other frequently jumped in at both the comprehension and word level. For example, in the following interaction, Jenna was in the middle of reading a long excerpt from a book in the <emph>Diary of a Wimpy Kid</emph> series. As she read, Ethan initiated several comprehension exchanges, such as the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Jenna It's [sic] that's what started his [sic] this thing called "The Cheese Touch". It's basically like—</item> <p></p> <item> Ethan [jumps up] Oh, yeah! I know! Remember? You have it in their pocket for a whole bunch of years and then last time... the other book...I think it was "Last Straw," everyone was "Aaaah! Aaaaah! [acts out panic]. That was just made up.</item> <p></p> <item> Jenna Yup. They were all screaming. Wait, where was I? Cooties. If you get the cheese touch, you''re stuck with it until you pass it on to someone else. Screeeeeam!</item> <p></p> <item> Ethan See how they''re doing that? And, oh, um, you know frankly, they got the other guy. [points to picture]</item> </ulist> <p>In this example, when Jenna was reading for an extended period, Ethan took full advantage and focused his attention on comprehension. This presented considerable opportunities to learn through social interaction focused on building understanding of the text.</p> <p>What can we learn from these pairs? First, from MyKayla and Sara, we learn that students are capable of flexibly adjusting to their own needs and those of their partner, a clear benefit of partner reading. This is in keeping with research that suggests that flexible strategy use is a hallmark of strong readers (e.g., Block et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>]; Reutzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]). As educators, we also (re)learned the importance of being patient. It is tempting to teach a mini‐lesson, for example on prediction, and then assume that the students did not fully learn the lesson if they do not apply the skill to their partner reading in the session that immediately follows. However, the example from MyKayla and Sara and others like it indicate that getting an idea of what students really know and can do is likely to take time because students apply skills and strategies on an as‐needed basis.</p> <p>Gradual release of control over using new strategies is important (Pearson & Gallagher, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref56">26</reflink>]) and students need opportunities to apply newly‐learned strategies in their own reading. However, when students do not demonstrate application of a strategy immediately after instruction, it may be because they simply did not need to within the context of that reading. Thus, teachers should encourage students to identify opportunities to apply their learning, observe and call attention to opportunities for application during independent reading, and help them "name and claim" strategies when they use them. The opportunities for social learning that are inherent in partner reading can increase exposure to flexible, as‐needed, strategy use (e.g., Block et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>]; Flint, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]; Murad & Topping, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref59">20</reflink>]; Reutzel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref60">31</reflink>]) as each partner not only engages on their own, but also has opportunities to observe their partner's strategy use (e.g., Christ et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Secondly, Anna and Ashley and Jenna and Ethan provided us with examples of how turn taking, as one contextual factor, can intersect with others (e.g., text and reader factors) to influence the nature of engagement, thus changing the whole interaction (e.g., RAND Reading Study Group, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]; Rosenblatt, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]). For some students, such as Ashley, not actively participating in the reading as frequently can lead to disengagement. However, for others, such as Jenna and Ethan, when one partner takes on reading the text, the other might have greater freedom to shift their efforts to comprehending challenging text more deeply. An implication of these observations is that there is no one best way for all partners to interact. If partner reading does not seem to be prompting helpful engagement with partners and text, teachers can make suggestions for contextual changes—for example changing the text, format of partner reading, or partners. Changing one or more of these factors is likely to result in different (and potentially better) opportunities for learning (e.g., Christ & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-12">Final Thoughts</hd> <p>Students in this classroom benefitted from structural supports, teacher support, and opportunities for social interaction around reading with peers. Under these conditions, they engaged freely in a variety of supportive interactions, which when closely examined, highlight opportunities for teacher practices that may leverage naturally occurring interactions and encourage additional productive interactions. This study took place in a particular instructional context; nevertheless, the findings are applicable to other instructional contexts in which students have the opportunity to read with peers, though the change in context may affect the types and frequencies of interaction, just like any other contextual change. Partner reading can pose challenges, and this classroom was no exception. However, it also poses a multitude of opportunities, each with the potential to improve student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-13">TAKE ACTION</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Provide students with instruction and scaffolding on at least two ways (to begin) in which they can structure their time and interactions during partner reading.</item> <p></p> <item> Provide students with instruction and scaffolding for thinking aloud as they use reading strategies during partner reading to either support their own reading or that of their partner.</item> <p></p> <item> Provide ample time and flexibility for students to engage in partner reading. It's ok if they change structures, partners, and books!</item> <p></p> <item> Carefully observe students during partner reading. Focus on the content of students' interactions, looking for evidence of engagement with text, learning, and mutual support. Remember, this may not look or sound like what you are expecting.</item> <p></p> <item> As you observe, take advantage of opportunities to (briefly) point out when students are or could be using instructed strategies.</item> <p></p> <item> For partnerships that are having difficulty engaging productively, step in and help them determine whether they might need to change the text, the structure, or even the combination of students.</item> <p></p> <item> Invite partnerships that experience successes to share them with the rest of the class.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175009504-14">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors hold no conflicts of interest, financial, or otherwise.</p> <hd id="AN0175009504-15">MORE TO EXPLORE</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Meisinger, E. B., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Bradley, B. A., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Interaction quality during partner reading. <emph>Journal of Literacy Research</emph> , <emph>36</emph> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>), 111–140.</item> <p></p> <item> Michigan Virtual. (20 November 2017). K‐3 Essential 1, Bullet 3: Collaboration Sample Video. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx6mZvkCxFA.</item> <p></p> <item> Ogle, D., & Correa‐Kovtun, A. (2010). Supporting English‐language learners and struggling readers in content literacy with "partner reading and content, too" routine. <emph>Reading Teacher</emph> , <emph>63</emph> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>), 532–542.</item> <p></p> <item> Reading Rockets. (n.d.). <emph>Partner reading</emph>. https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/partner_reading</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0175009504-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref33" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Asress, B. (2020). Reciprocal teaching: Effects on EFL students' reading comprehension and challenges. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 10 (1), 92 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 385 – 414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Best, E. (2005a). Penny pulls the plug. Rigby.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref42" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Best, E. (2005b). That bear is back! Blake Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Block, C., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Improving comprehension instruction. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, S. A. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse surrounding partner reading. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34 (1), 29 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐006‐0109‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (5), 631 – 658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Christ, T., & Wang, X. C. (2012). Young children's opportunities to use and learn theme‐related vocabulary through buddy "Reading". Literacy Research and Instruction, 51 (4), 273 – 291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christ, T., Wang, X. C., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Emergent readers' social interaction styles and their comprehension processes during buddy reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54 (1), 45 – 66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downs, J. D., Mohr, K. A. J., & Barrett, T. S. (2020). Determining the academic and affective outcomes of dyad reading among third graders. The Journal of Educational Research, 113 (2), 120 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1755615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flint, T. K. (2010). Making meaning together: Buddy reading in a first‐grade classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 289 – 297.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2013). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 136 – 151). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffin, M. L. (2002). Why don't you use your finger? Paired reading in first grade. The Reading Teacher, 55, 766 – 774.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept‐Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J., & Shute, V. J. (2010). Personal and social‐contextual factors in K‐12 academic performance: An integrative perspective on student learning. Educational Psychologist, 45 (3), 185 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.493471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maybin, J., & Moss, G. (1993). Talk about texts: Reading as a social event. Journal of Research in Reading, 16, 138 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.1993.tb00043.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murad, C. R., & Topping, K. J. (2000). Parents as reading tutors for first graders in Brazil. School Psychology International, 21 (2), 152 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300212003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oczkus, L. (2018). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons for improving reading comprehension (3rd ed.). ASCD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogle, D., & Correa‐Kovtun, A. (2010). Supporting English‐language learners and struggling readers with the "Partner Reading and Content, Too" routine. Reading Teacher, 63 (7), 532 – 542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S. (2013). Reciprocal teaching. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 369 – 371). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension‐fostering and comprehension‐monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117 – 175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A., Malloy, J. A., Parsons, A. W., Peters‐Burton, E. E., & Burrowbridge, S. C. (2018). Sixth‐grade students' engagement in academic tasks. The Journal of Educational Research, 111, 232 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1236408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8 (3), 317 – 344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popov, V., van Leeuwen, A., & Buis, S. C. A. (2017). Are you with me or not? Temporal synchronicity and transactivity during CSCL. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 424 – 442. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preast, J. L., Burns, M. K., Brann, K. L., Taylor, C. N., & Aguilar, L. (2019). Class‐wide partner reading intervention for science comprehension. School Psychology Forum, 13 (1), 29 – 40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. RAND.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59, 206 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 276 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L. M. (1964). The poem as an event. College English, 26, 123 – 128. https://doi.org/10.2307/373663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1363 – 1398). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479 – 530.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing the reading‐thinking process. Harper & Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. (1995). Paired reading, spelling & writing: The handbook for teachers and parents. Cassell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. (2014). Paired reading and related methods for improving fluency. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7, 57 – 70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J., & Lindsay, G. A. (1992). Paired reading: A review of the literature. Research Papers in Education, 5, 199 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152920070302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Utami, Y. P., & Sugirin, S. (2019). Fostering students' reading comprehension ability through directed reading thinking activities (DRTA) strategy. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 4, 129 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kathryn L. Roberts; Poonam Arya and Kathleen K. Plond</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Kathryn L. Roberts is a Professor of Reading, Language, and Literature, Wayne State University, 281 Education Building, Detroit, MI 48202, USA; email.</p> <p>Poonam Arya is a Professor of Reading, Language, and Literature, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA; email.</p> <p>Kathleen K. Plond is a Instructional Coach, Cornerstone Schools; Doctoral Student, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA; email.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref62"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1408610
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Partnering for Success: Text and Peer Engagement during Paired Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathryn+L%2E+Roberts%22">Kathryn L. Roberts</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0229-1713">0000-0003-0229-1713</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Poonam+Arya%22">Poonam Arya</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathleen+K%2E+Plond%22">Kathleen K. Plond</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Teacher%22"><i>Reading Teacher</i></searchLink>. 2024 77(4):453-461.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Aloud+to+Others%22">Reading Aloud to Others</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Groups%22">Peer Groups</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/trtr.2256
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0561<br />1936-2714
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this article we report the results and classroom implications of a qualitative study that explored third-grade students' interactions with each other as they partner read. Participants included 10 students, each of whom engaged in three readings with a partner during recorded observations. All students had been taught structures for partner reading and numerous reading strategies by their classroom teacher. The transcripts of the readings were parsed, annotated with observational notes, and coded using descriptive phrases. Students' interactions with each other during the readings revealed that they are capable of productively using their time to support learning during partner reading and spend relatively little time off task and that their use of strategies varies with context (text interest, text difficulty, turn-taking patterns). Classroom implications for these findings are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1408610
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1408610
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/trtr.2256
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 453
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Aloud to Others
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Groups
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Partnering for Success: Text and Peer Engagement during Paired Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathryn L. Roberts
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Poonam Arya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathleen K. Plond
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0561
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2714
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 77
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Teacher
              Type: main
ResultId 1