A randomized control trial of Shared Evaluation Pedagogy: The near-term and long-term impact of dialogically organized reading instruction

Abstract

This randomized control trial evaluated the impact of dialogically organized reading instruction provided twice per week over six months in small-group settings to fifth grade students, primarily English learners, assessed as needing additional support in comprehension development. Our dialogically organized instruction treatment, which we call Shared Evaluation Pedagogy (SHEP), was premised on: a) instigating dialogue about text, b) probing student thinking, and c) eschewing teacher evaluation. The 22 students in the SHEP treatment group demonstrated statistically significantly greater gains on near-term, researcher-administered measures of comprehension and decoding than did the 41 students in the control group. Treatment students also outperformed control students on two measures on the California Achievement Test 6 administered one year later-spelling (statistically significant) and reading (large enough to be practically significant, but not statistically significant). We close by arguing there are strong pedagogical reasons for shifting the prevailing reading comprehension intervention paradigm toward dialogically organized forms of instruction that invite students to think and reason with one another about texts.

Integrating Wikipedia editing into health professions education: a curricular inventory and review of the literature

“…However, there was variation in how much agency the students received toward that goal. For example, while many courses included peer-evaluation activities, which allowed for epistemic agency and shared evaluation [ 60 – 62 ], only half offered students opportunities to select the article they edited. Wikipedia offers great potential to instructors seeking methods of engaging learner autonomy in their courses and to medical practitioners who take Wikipedia courses to participate more readily in current medical discourse and to apply current medical knowledge in their clinical practice.…”

What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

“…Indeed, research has increasingly harnessed high‐quality text discussion to promote comprehension and closely related skills, such as vocabulary (Lawrence, Crosson, Paré‐Blagoev, & Snow, 2015; Murphy et al, 2018). Effective discussions often emphasize open‐ended questions, allow extensive student interpretive authority, and utilize provocative text to encourage different viewpoints (Aukerman, Martin, Gargani, & McCallum, 2016; Murphy et al, 2018; Pearson et al, 2020; Zhang, Anderson, & Nguyen‐Jahiel, 2013). Evidence also suggests that heterogeneous discussion groupings best support comprehension gains, particularly for low‐achieving students (Murphy et al, 2017).…”

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

“…Studies belonging to the first pattern (low-structured sensemaking) tend to describe argumentative dialogue as an organic, whole-class, student-driven (Aukerman et al 2016) or student-dominant (McNeill and Pimentel 2010) dialogue, aiming at the co-construction of ideas and shared interpretive authority among teacher and students alike (Chisholm and Loretto 2016). Within this study pattern, argumentative dialogue is a learning conversation (Simon et al 2008), in which student agency and authority in discourse (Forman et al 2017) is promoted.…”