The Gradual Release of
Responsibility Model
The Study to determine the effectiveness of the GRR Model in an Elementary General Music Classroom.
“As teachers, it is our responsibility to prepare young individuals for life beyond school, not just prepare them for college”
John Sommerfeld IV
Overview of Study
Research Problem: The purpose of this study is to describe the use of
the GRR in an elementary general music class, and the model’s
effects on student learning through the application and analysis of pre
and post-test data.
Hypothesis: The use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model
will lead to an increase of pre to post-test scores.
Content Area: General Music, 5th grade.
Participants: A fifth grade general music class, containing 17
students, in Western Maryland.
Students' family households range from low-income households to upper class
households.
Literature Review
What is the GRR? Key Findings
The Gradual Release of Responsibility Model was derived in 1983 by Pearson and
Gallagher (Webb et al., 2019).
Taking the findings of Dolores Durkin’s (1978/1979) study of reading comprehension
instruction, Durkin found that although students were completing multiple
assignments and question-responsive activities, the students were not retaining any
information (McVee et al., 2019).
Taking these findings, along with Vygotski’s Zone of Proximal Development, Pearson
and Gallager began to see how students could remain in the “sweet spot” of the zone
of proximal development, while weeding out scaffolding (Webb et al., 2019, p.76).
Pearson and Gallagher created a model that allowed for a higher retention rate of
information, while also teaching students about individual responsibility.
Literature Review
Why Use the GRR?
In The gradual increase of responsibility: Scaffolds for change, Collett (2011) creates what she calls “The
Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model (GIR)” (2011 p. Viii). Collett (2011) combines the GRR model with
increased scaffolding. While Pearson and Gallagher wanted to move students away from scaffolding (Webb et
al.), Collett (2011) argues that this progressive structure is needed for the GIR to be the most effective.
Another approach to the GRR model is the commonly known as the “I do, we do, you do” frame. “…this
second view of GRR suggests a contextualized, flexible implementation of GRR” (Webb et al., 2019, p. 79).
This second view is one of the most used forms of the GRR in today’s curriculum. Useful in all grade levels as
its flexibility allows it to be. Most suited for elementary classes.
Most teachers find the GRR fitting for primarily student's comprehension and responsibility. While the GRR
does excel in these fields, the GRR is also beneficial when teaching literacy (McVee, 2019). In the Gradual
Release of Responsibility in Literacy Research and Practice, McVee (2019) discusses how the GRR can be
used for teacher change, literacy retainment, developing learning environments, comprehension and more.
In GRR to Conquer Classroom Management, Michelle Hovland (2008) discusses the ways in which new
teachers can utilize the GRR model to help manage their classrooms. By using the GRR to effectively plan
lessons to manage class time, the lessons will help to ensure smooth transitions which help to maintain
management in the classroom.
Study Complications
Initially planned for five lessons to be taught.
The first complication was that classes were to be taught virtually for only 20 minutes ONCE a week.
Due to time constraints of the internship, five lessons were no longer possible, so four lessons were now planned.
Then as grades K-3 were returning to school, the schedules were changed again every week. This led to a A/B day
schedule with everyone all virtual every Friday. As I was at two schools not all classes got music those weeks.
Due to the numerous schedule changes, I lost another day with the students. This led to only three lessons being
instructed. As the first five minutes of every class was dedicated to attendance, my lessons were shortened to 15
minutes each.
First Lesson: Pre-Test only
Second Lesson: The fundamentals of note literacy and duration
Third Lesson: Short review, and post-test
Pre-Post test adjustments.
Method
Content: Used various visual aids to help in modeling first on my own,
then with students, and then having students complete the
assignment on their own.
Data was collected using the software Kami, which allows teachers to
assign a scanned document to students and allow the students to
digitally write on the document. These documents are then submitted
back to me via Schoology where I can review all submissions.
The scores were graded by hand and then recorded into Excel. The
collected data was then processed through Excel to create various
charts, graphs, and statistics.
Data and Findings A
B
0
0
2
5
C 1 3
D 1 3
E 1 4
F 4 5
Before the students were exposed to the Gradual G 3 5
Release of Responsibility model, they were given a H 0 5
pre-test on the basic elements of music. More I 4 4
specifically, the students took a test on note names, J 5 5
note durations, rests, and dynamics K 2 5
Scores Ranged from 0-5 on the pre-test, and from 1-5 L 2 3
on the post-test. M 3 5
N 1 2
70% of students scored a 40% or lower on the pre-test.
O 2 1
The post-test results yielded only 17% scoring a 40% or P 5 5
lower. Q 2 5
16/17 students improved or maintained their pre to
/5 /5
post-test scores.
Data and Findings Pre-Test Post-Test
Mean 2.176471 Mean 3.941176
The average raised by 40% after just one lesson Standard Standard
with the GRR. Error 0.385732 Error 0.326192
Median 2 Median 5
The sample variance decreased showing tighter
grouped test scores. Mode 1 Mode 5
Standard Standard
The most common score on the pre-test was a Deviation 1.590412 Deviation 1.344925
1, while on the post-test was a 5. Sample Sample
Variance 2.529412 Variance 1.808824
Tstat>Tcrit Kurtosis -0.7446 Kurtosis -0.40337
Null Hypothesis Rejected Skewness 0.519099 Skewness -0.92851
Range 5 Range 4
Minimum 0 Minimum 1
Maximum 5 Maximum 5
Sum 37 Sum 67
Count 17 Count 17
References
Collet, V. S. (2011). The gradual increase of responsibility: Scaffolds for change
[ProQuest LLC]. In ProQuest LLC.
Hovland, M. (2008). GRR to conquer classroom management. New Teacher
Advocate, 16(1), 4–5.
Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K.. (2005).
Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and
professional development. Routledge
McVee, M., Ortlieb, E., Reichenberg, J., & Pearson, D. P.. (2019). The gradual
release of responsibility in literacy research and practice. Emerald Publishing
Limited.
Webb, S., Massey, D., Goggans, M., & Flajole, K. (2019). Thirty‐five years of the
gradual release of responsibility: Scaffolding toward complex and responsive
teaching. Reading Teacher, 73(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1799
