Abstract
Text-based discussion refers to the instructional modality where students engage in a collaborative process of building textual understandings using each other and the text as sources of meaning (Hogan & Salinger, 2024). It is widely considered an important component of a comprehensive approach to reading instruction due to its demonstrated capacity to improve reading comprehension (e.g., Murphy et al., 2009), vocabulary (Ford-Connors & Paratore, 2015) and argumentation skills (e.g., Reznitskaya et al., 2001, 2012). It has also been specifically highlighted as an evidence-based recommendation for adolescent learners (e.g., Kamil et al., 2008), especially when integrated into multi-component interventions that support students in acquiring information contained in text (Vaughn et al., 2022). The relation between discussion and comprehension stems from both this empirical work as well as theory. Sociocognitive and sociocultural theories identify dialogue as integral to the development of understanding and reasoning broadly (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; Piaget, 1928; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky 1934, 1986, as cited in Murphy et al., 2009). When applied to text specifically, the sociocultural context shapes reading comprehension (Snow, 2002). This context can facilitate the interaction of readers who bring their lived experiences and developing understandings into conversations where they build understandings both of specific texts and the process needed to understand text (Bakhtin, 1981).
Though often referred to as a singular practice, there are many variations of text-based discussion. Variations include discussion types (i.e., teacher-led vs. student-led; Almasi & Garas York, 2009), enactment of different stances toward textual interpretation (i.e., efferent, critical-analytic, aesthetic or expressive; Jakobson, 1987; Rosenblatt, 1978; Wade, Thompson & Watkins, 1994), and procedures (e.g., Quality Talk, Wilkinson et al., 2010). Across these variations, text-based discussions represent a form of dialogic interaction. Dialogic interactions are characterized by: (a) generation and discussion of authentic questions (i.e., open-ended, cognitively challenging questions to which there is not a single correct answer), (b) co-construction of text comprehension through discussion, (c) increased student talk and reduced teacher talk, (d) provision of uptake (i.e., integrating the contributions of others into the flow of the conversation) by discussion participants, and (e) metacognitive reflection on discussion (Reznitskaya et al., 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2015). Reznitskaya and colleagues (2012) theorized that discussions characterized in this manner result in students’ developing new skills for argumentation available for independent use.
