Text-based discussions are defined as the process of collectively building high-level comprehension of text among a group of students who use each other and text as sources of meaning. Teachers’ role in this process is two-fold: first, they ask questions that require extended exploration of text ideas and go well beyond literal, surface level understandings. Second, they support students as they do the heavy lifting of engaging deeply with the text and with each other by helping students link their ideas and those conveyed in the text together. Nearly 40 years of empirical research offers support for text-based discussion as an instructional technique with the potential to break persistent patterns of basic-level student reading achievement (Applebee et al., 2003; Murphy et al., 2009; Nystrand, 1997; Soter et al., 2009). However, this same research identified text-based discussions as infrequently used in classrooms, which suggests there is something preventing more teachers from utilizing them in the classroom. This two-study dissertation sought to identify and intervene on factors that influenced preservice teachers’ learning about and ultimately using discussion. I identified three factors: the ability to analyze text (i.e., to determine main ideas of text as well as text features that potentially facilitate or hinder students’ understanding of the main ideas); experiential knowledge gained from repeated cycles of planning, leading, and reflecting on discussions; and epistemological beliefs. Study One was an exploratory multiple case study of seven senior preservice teachers all enrolled in their capstone literacy methods class and working in their field placements. This study took a holistic look at the ways in which epistemological beliefs, instruction in text analysis, and repeated cycles of planning, leading, and reflecting on text-based discussions affected PSTs’ leading of discussions with students in their field placements. Results indicated that PSTs’ epistemological beliefs affected both their learning about and leading text-based discussions, they lacked specialized knowledge needed to analyze text and use this information to help students negotiate text meaning in the text-based discussions, and some gained experiential knowledge in the form of specific moves they could make to shift interpretive authority to students. These findings informed the design of study two. This study was quasi-experimental and situated in two pre-existing sections of a reading methods course for first-semester senior preservice teachers. One section served as a business-as-usual control group while the other section received a semester-long intervention into text analysis. Participants in the intervention section received direct instruction on text analysis including text structures and their common features, how to evaluate text complexity, and how to decipher main and supporting ideas. They also received instruction on how to use this knowledge to support students in text-based discussions. Results of ANCOVA analysis suggests intervention led to statistically significant improvement in participants’ ability to analyze text. Exploratory analyses shed light into the mechanisms behind the intervention’s effect: participants’ ability to monitor and respond to students improved significantly. Taken together, the findings from these two studies have implications for teacher educators seeking to create learning experiences that lead to preservice teachers taking up text-based discussions.