![]()
CHAPTER 1
IN THE BEGINNING: THE HISTORICAL AND CONCEPTUAL GENESIS OF THE GRADUAL RELEASE OF RESPONSIBILITY1
P. David Pearson, Mary B. McVee and Lynn E. Shanahan
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the conceptual and historical genesis of the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) which has become one of the most commonly used instructional frameworks for research and professional development in the field of reading and literacy.
Design/Methodology/Approach – This chapter uses a narrative, historical approach to describe the emergence of the model in the work taking place in the late 1970s and early 1980s in reading research and educational theory, particularly at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana as carried out by David Pearson, Meg Gallagher, and their colleagues.
Findings – The GRR Model began, in part, in response to the startling findings of Dolores Durkin’s (1978/1979) study of reading comprehension instruction in classrooms which found that little instruction was occurring even while students were completing numerous assignments and question-response activities. Pearson and Gallagher were among those researchers who took seriously the task of developing an instructional model and approach for comprehension strategy instruction that included explicit instruction. They recognized a need for teachers to be responsible for leading and scaffolding instruction, even as they supported learners in moving toward independent application of strategies and independence in reading. Based in the current research in the reading field and the rediscovery of the work of Vygotsky (1978) and the descriptions of scaffolding as coined by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), Pearson and Gallagher developed the model of gradual release. Over time, the model has been adapted by many literacy scholars, applied to curriculum planning, used with teachers for professional development, reprinted numerous times, and with the advent of the Internet, proliferated even further as teachers and educators share their own versions of the model. This chapter introduces readers to the original model and multiple additional representations/iterations of the model that emerged over the past few decades. This chapter also attends to important nuances in the model and to some misconceptions of the instructional model.
Research Limitations/Implications – Despite the popularity of the original GRR model developed by Pearson and Gallagher and the many adaptations of the model by many collaborators and colleagues in literacy – and even beyond – there have been very few publications that have explored the historical and conceptual origins of the model and its staying power.
Practical Implications – This chapter will speak to researchers, teachers, and other educators who use the GRR model to help guide thinking about instruction in reading, writing, and other content areas with children, youth, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers. This chapter provides a thoughtful discussion of multiple representations of the gradual release process and the nuances of the model in ways that will help to dispel misuse of the model while recognizing its long-standing and sound foundation on established socio-cognitive principles and instructional theories such as those espoused by Jerome Bruner, Lev Vygotsky, Anne Brown, and others.
Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter makes an original contribution to the field in explaining the historical development and theoretical origins of the GRR model by Pearson and Gallagher (1983) and in presenting multiple iterations of the model developed by Pearson and his colleagues in the field.
Keywords: Gradual release of responsibility; scaffolding; reading comprehension; strategy instruction; explicit instruction; modeling
INTRODUCTION
This book represents a long journey for the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model since Pearson and Gallagher (1983a, 1983b) gave it a name in 1983. And we examine that journey twice in the current volume: (1) in this introductory chapter – so readers can start their journey through the portfolio of current applications and adaptations of the model with a strong grounding in the developmental history of the model and (2) in the ending epilogue (in which David is joined by long-time scholars of reading pedagogy Jan Dole and Gerry Duffy) – so readers can join in a reflection about where the model has been, how it is working now, and where it still needs to go. First, however, an account of how it came to be.
Since its publication by P. David Pearson and Gallagher (1983a, 1983b), the gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model has become an influential and significant model in the literacy field (Duke & Pearson, 2002). David notes that the model is the single-most reproduced graphic from all of his publications, having been reprinted widely in chapters and articles by a variety of authors. The GRR has demonstrated a remarkable endurance, spanning decades, and increasing in use and application over time. The Ngram graph (see Fig. 1.1) demonstrates the increasing frequency of the term from 1983 to 2008 (the last date for which there is Ngram data).
Another interesting perspective can be found using Google Scholar. A search conducted at the beginning of 2019 turned up 217,000 hits for the term, “gradual release of responsibility,” in titles, articles, abstracts, books, chapters, and papers. The more restrictive term “gradual release of responsibility model” still yielded over 68,600 hits. A search of Google Images reveals hundreds of images of the GRR model including published versions, but also including teacher-made posters, captions for photos, posters for sale, and cartoons (and more) which indicates that the visual representation of the GRR is widely used, adapted, and shared.
Despite the longstanding use of the GRR framework, no book has been published that is exclusively devoted to the history of the model developed by Pearson and Gallagher (1983a, 1983b) and the application of the model in various aspects of literacy learning and education. As such, this edited volume takes up this charge, first exploring the history and evolution of the GRR (including some variations on the model), then considering how the GRR has been or could be used in various aspects of literacy instruction and research, and concluding with a look back reflecting across the volume and across the decades of work connected to the GRR (see Dole, Duffy, and Pearson, Chapter 16).
Fig. 1.1. Ngram of “Gradual Release of Responsibility” from 1983 to 2008.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GRR
The Origins and Motivation for the Model
The model arose gradually (fittingly!) over time predominantly between the years from 1978 to 1983 as part of a search for a model of instruction that could demonstrate how explicit reading comprehension pedagogy could be used to assist teachers and schools in more effective instructional approaches to teaching reading comprehension. The search for a model to alter current instructional practice was precipitated, in part, by the startling revelations of Dolores Durkin’s (1978–1979), now classic, study which had demonstrated that what was being carried out in schools under the guise of reading comprehension instruction was neither effective nor instructive.
In her examination of over 17,997 minutes of reading instruction in the intermediate grades, Durkin found that rather than teaching students how to understand, teachers were simply requiring students to answer questions in both small group and large group discussions and in assignments. Simply, put comprehension instruction consisted of assessments and assignments: Teachers asked questions, and students answered them. The assumptions in this widespread default approach are (a) that students can answer the questions teachers ask them about the texts they read and (b) if they cannot, they will improve their question-answering abilities if teachers just increase the amount of question-answering practice they provide for students. The irony, of course, is that this approach simply perpetuates, perhaps even exacerbates, and the gap between those who can and those who cannot answer questions successfully in the first place. More practice allows those who can to refine their good practices and those who cannot to refine their maladaptive practices. In other words, “Practice makes perfect, if you’re already pretty close to perfect.” But, Pearson and his colleagues were looking for an alternative to the “practice makes perfect (or imperfect)” model of pedagogy. For Pearson and several of his colleagues (all but David were doctoral students when this quest began), including Jane Hansen (Hansen, 1981; Hansen & Pearson, 1983), Christine Gordon (Gordon, 1985; Gordon & Pearson, 1983), Taffy Raphael (Raphael & McKinney, 1983; Raphael & Pearson, 1985; Raphael & Wonnacut, 1985), and Meg Gallagher (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983a, 1983b), the GRR model emerged gradually through work undertaken during time at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois.
The Collegial Scaffolding
Fortunately for Pearson and his colleagues, others at the Center for the Study of Reading in the early 1980s shared their concern and their quest for more effective pedagogy and for ways to describe how children could be supported in reaching comprehension of text that was just beyond their grasp alone. Most important, David and this group of emerging scholars encountered the work of Ann Brown and Joe Campione, who were using a Vygotsky (1978) perspective to conceptualize instruction. For Brown and Campione, learning occurred in zone of proximal development (ZPD) – a space in which students encountered the helpful support of “more knowledgeable others,” who could assist students in progressing from what they can accomplish on their own to what they can accomplish with a little boost from their friends or teachers. It was Brown and Campione who introduced David and his colleagues to another student, Annemarie Palincsar, who was conceptualizing a dissertation (which led to the now famous pedagogical routine known as reciprocal teaching) dealing with these very issues (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987).
Equally as important, Brown and Campione introduced the group to the work of Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) and their recently coined construct of scaffolding and to the dynamic assessment practices of Reuven Feuerstein (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). Along with Brown and Campione’s pedagogical research, the constructs of scaffolding and dynamic assessment were driven by the then recently rediscovered Vygotskian socio-cognitive views of learning and development (Vyg...
