Teacher modeling using complex informational texts

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Teacher modeling using complex informational texts. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 63-69.


This concise article is packed with information that will help teachers who are trying to implement the teaching strategy of modeling in their reading instruction. Here, the focus is on ways to model how to read complex informational texts.

Modeling is the second element in Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey’s previously published “Gradual Release of Responsibility” instructional framework. More information on that framework, and on the other instructional elements that they recommend, as well as video demonstrations, may be easily found by searching online for the authors’ names or for “Gradual Release of Responsibility”. Though I definitely recommend this article “as is” here, teachers will get a better view of what Fisher and Frey’s intentions are if they can see teacher modeling within the larger context of the complete instructional framework.

That being said, the article here has much to offer on its own. Fisher and Frey provide a clear discussion of what can make an informational text complex. One of the most useful pieces they provide is Figure 1, “Qualitative Aspects of Text Complexity” (pp. 65-66). Figure 1 is a table (or is it a rubric?) for evaluating the complexity of a text. There are 13 different aspects of text complexity, grouped under four categories. Then for each aspect, we get an operational definition of that aspect and how it would look in a text at three different levels of complexity.

These levels are like a reframing of the old Independent, Instructional, and Frustration levels known to most reading specialists, except now I would term these three levels as “Easy Reading”, “In the Prime Learning Zone”, and “Challenging Texts I Need Support to Understand”. Fisher and Frey’s article focuses on the kind of teacher modeling that mostly would apply to the last two levels. There is a lot there in Figure 1, and I intend to use it in my classes to further our discussions of text complexity and difficulty. We’ve often focused on the quantitative aspects of what makes a text difficult for students, but the things we can count (e.g., word length, sentence length, and word frequencies) do not provide a complete picture, as anyone who has taught reading knows. Fisher and Frey’s table provides some pieces that have been missing, or at least have been difficult to find and/or grasp.

Fisher and Frey provide several anecdotal examples of how modeling might look in a classroom; the type of modeling they write about involves the teacher “thinking aloud” and stopping at various points during the think-aloud to have students “turn to a partner” and respond. Again, go to the Internet to see examples; Fisher and Frey’s YouTube channel would be a good and easily accessible starting point.

Fisher and Frey provide two more helpful figures. Figure 2 (p. 66) looks at ways that reading a text might differ across three disciplines: science, history, and literature. This supports the view that reading is an interdisciplinary endeavor that differs for each discipline. Here is support for the notion that content area teachers must also be literacy teachers. Figure 3 (p. 68) is a template to scaffold teachers in designing think alouds. Seven instructional steps are provided, with space beside each step to write in teaching ideas and specific instructional details.

This article will be helpful for teachers, teacher educators, and professional development providers.