Reading between the lines
Written by Trisha Templeton, Assistant Head of Innovation, St Laurence’s College
Using text sets and explicit reading instruction to bolster learning outcomes in a diverse classroom.
The use of complex texts for learning is a well-established pedagogical practice and therefore the selection of appropriate texts is an integral part of teaching and learning. Traditionally, textbooks and single origin resources have been a staple in classrooms, but the use of a singular resource can be problematic in an environment that has significant variation in literacy levels and background knowledge (Cervetti & Hiebert, 2019; Lupo et al., 2019). This concern is because disparity between various students’ abilities can limit learning outcomes because access is an issue. As a constructivist approach to learning and an extension of literary learning, text sets are an effective pedagogical practice that supports student learning and develops literacy capacity in a diverse classroom. The efficacy of this classroom practice can be further supported with explicitly taught ‘reading for meaning’ strategies as it increases the number of access points students have to the text and therefore positively impacts literacy, reading comprehension and learning outcomes.
Text Sets
Text sets are a carefully curated range of resources that are specifically collated to meet a desired learning outcome for either a class or cohort of students (Beck, 2014, p. 13). Unlike single origin resources, text sets encompass a range of extracts from literary fiction, narratives, informational texts, infographics, images and data tables to support student understanding. This variety of resources increases access and widens student understanding of relevant content specific genres, which is imperative for all, but in particular for those with diverse learning needs. Furthermore, as text sets are an extension of Vygotsky’s and Halliday’s theories of literacy and language development in a social context, they promote collaboration and advance student learning (Derewianka, 2015; Lewis & Strong, 2020, p.41; Lupo et al., 2019; Elish-Piper et al., 2014). Other benefits of using text sets in classroom practice include increasing reading volume, improving text diversity through the provision of covert scaffolding, as well as expanding perspectives and connections to the text and to self (Lewis & Strong, 2020, p.41; Lupo et al., 2019; Elish-Piper et al., 2014).
Text sets can be created in multiple formats, and this will vary depending on the school, the availability of accessible technology and resources. At its most basic form, text sets are composed of a minimum of four different textual elements and can be physical, digital or multimodal in nature (Hoch, et al., 2018, p. 701). They can be a range of physical resources such as a picture book, to novel, information text and poster. Or they can be extracts from a variety of articles on a A3 page, or in a digital format such as padlet, SharePoint or LearnPath page. Unlike literary learning which utilises an entire text to facilitate the learning process, text sets use collated extracts that vary in length, literacy level and structure (Beck, 2014, p.13). It is important to understand that the format does not matter, only that a variety of texts are used. This means that text sets can be adapted and therefore very effectively differentiated to suit the needs of a class, or a small group, or even a single student.
The first element, or main text, is aimed at the median class cohort literacy and contains most of the relevant information, with the remaining resources used to support the targeted text’s comprehension (Lewis & Strong, 2020, p.47). Ideally, these sets will include a motivation component in a digital, visual or interactive format; at least one informational portion that provides additional background knowledge; and an accessible element drawn from popular culture (Lewis & Strong, 2020, p.47). It is important to note that for teenagers, it is the accessible text that the students use to make connections between themselves, the text and their world, thus placing the learning in that essential third space (Elish-Piper, 2014, p.565; Lewis & Strong, 2020, p.47). Posters, photographs, infographics, videos, reels or even multiplayer games can be used effectively as an accessible text.
Figure 1: Cognitive model of reading.
Reading for meaning
Reading for meaning is a constructivist approach to learning because it requires the reader to make active connections to prior knowledge and external concepts. This is a multifaceted skill set that extends far beyond the school gates. Furthermore, it has a higher cognitive load than recreational reading because it is purpose driven, often has extremely specific vocabulary requirements and can be very complex in nature (Eze, 2016).
There are many different models of reading available for teachers and educators to base their practice on, but the cognitive model of reading (Figure 1) by Stahl, Flanigan & McKenna (2020) is highly regarded because it clearly articulates the range of learned skills and knowledge that are required for reading a complex text. This reading model is consistent with Frey & Fisher’s (2013, p.19) theory that complex texts require multiple points of access for successful comprehension. This is especially pertinent in secondary schools where teachers can improve learning outcomes by focusing on the language comprehension strand such as explicitly teaching disciplinary literacy.
Figure 2: Reading for Meaning - Scaffolding the 5 access points.
All classrooms, and in particular diverse classrooms require explicit instruction on developing the skills and knowledge to access complex texts. Frey & Fisher (2013) point out that for rigorous reading of complex texts, multiple points of access must be made available for the student. They argue that students need to be intentionally guided through each of these steps for mastery by using the Gradual Release of Responsibility method (Fisher & Frey, 2008). This clearly indicates that literacy skills are not casually inferred or deduced. Instead, they need to be explicitly taught and then students need to be given time to learn and practice these skills through modelling and guided practice before achieving mastery. Figure 2 illustrates the steps the teacher can use to instruct and model ‘reading for meaning’. While this model can be used effectively to teach ‘reading for meaning’ for any resource, text sets allow for this explicit process of instruction, modelling and practice as the teacher or teacher librarian is able to ‘explicitly instruct’ through one of the supporting texts and then use the gradual release of responsibility to develop student capacity through the range of resources with the student themselves attempting the main text independently using the strategies practiced.
Text sets in a diverse classroom.
Text sets are an effective pedagogical tool in a diverse classroom because of the variance in lexile density and complexity allows diverse learning students to access the information as at least one resource will be with in their zone of proximal development. This access facilitates didactic dialogue which promotes knowledge connection and construction. Furthermore, this dialogue provides a covert scaffold for the students to attempt accessing texts at higher lexile densities along with the explicit reading instruction. This combination of collated resources, didactic dialogue and explicit instruction through the gradual release of responsibility model develops a student’s self-esteem which is vital for student learning.
In conclusion, the combined use of curated text sets and explicit instruction in reading for meaning is a highly effective pedagogical practice in building reading comprehension and literacy capacity in students. This combined process acknowledges the literary and cognitive variation of a diverse classroom and as such, allows students a range of access points into the text. This means that students of varying abilities are able to inclusively engage and participate in the class environment and positively impact their literacy, reading comprehension and learning outcomes.
References
Axford, B., Harders, P., & Wise, F. (2014). Scaffolding Literacy. ACER Press. Australia.
Beck, P. (2014). Multigenre Text Set Integration: Motivating Reluctant Readers Through Successful Experiences with Text. Journal of Reading Education, 40(1), 12–19. CSU Library.
Cervetti, G.N., & Hiebert, E.H. (2019). Knowledge at the center of English language arts instruction. The Reading Teacher, 72(4), 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1758
Derewianka, B. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. In J. Turbill, G. Barton & C. Brock (Eds.), Teaching Writing in Today's Classrooms: Looking back to looking forward (pp. 69-86). Norwood, Australia: Australian Literary Educators' Association. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2620&context=sspapers
Elish-Piper, L., Wold, L., & Schwingendorf, K. (2014). Scaffolding High School Students’ Reading of Complex Texts Using Linked Text Sets. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (7). DOI: 10.1002/jaal.292 © 2014 International Reading Association (pp. 565–574). CSU Library
Eze, A. (2016). Teaching purpose setting to support reading comprehension for readers. Journal of Educational Studies, 16:2, pp227-241.
Fisher, D., & Frey. N. (2012). Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework. IRA E-ssentials. 1-8. 10.1598/e-ssentials.8037.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). Rigorous Reading: 5 Access points for comprehending complex texts. Lisa Luedeke & Corwin Publishing. USA.
Hoch, M., McCarty, R., Gurvitz, D. & Sitkoski, I. (2019). Five key principles: guided inquiry with multimodal text sets. The Reading Teacher, 72 (6) pp701-710. International Reading Association CSU Library.
Lewis, W., & Strong, J. (2020). Chapter 3 - Designing content area text sets. In Literacy Instruction with Disciplinary Texts: Strategies for Grades 6-12. Guildford Publications. CSU Library.
Lupo, S., Berry, A., Thacker, E., Sawyer, A., & Merritt, J. (2019). Rethinking text sets to support knowledge building and interdisciplinary learning. International Literacy Association, 73 (4). Pp. 513-524. CSU Library. DOI:10.1002/trtr.1869
Lupo, S., Strong, J., Lewis, W., Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. (2017). Building background through reading; Rethinking text sets. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 61(4), p.433-444. https://doi-org.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/10.1002/jaal.701
NSW Department of Education. (2020). Planning EAL/D support. Multicultural Education. https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/multicultural-education/english-as-an-additional-language-or-dialect/planning-eald-support
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1). CSU Library.
Sisson D., & Sisson, B. (2024). The Literacy Coaching Handbook – Working with teachers to increase student achievement (2nd Edition). Routledge, New York.
Stahl, K., Flanigan, K., & McKenna, M. (2020). Assessment for reading instruction – 4th Edition. Guilford Publications, USA.
Victorian Department of Education. (2019). Literacy Teaching Toolkit – Close Reading. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/teachingpracclose.aspx