Week 3: Comprehension

Synthesis:

• Jetton and Shanahan: Before selecting texts and activities within the academic disciplines, according to this chapter, teachers should take into consideration students’ sociocultural context. This is important because their “social and cultural identities mediate and are mediated by text,” and their identities are “developed through activity” (95). In terms of the learning environment, teachers and students should discuss learning goals in order to increase “students’ motivation and self-efficacy in that discipline” (97). Teachers should also support students’ autonomy through controlled choices to encourage students to be more persistent and responsible with their literacy tasks. Teachers must additionally focus on fostering topic knowledge within the discipline, as well as teaching students “the mode of inscription experts use to convey information within [the discipline]” (98). In terms of text selection, teachers should “contemplate… the nature of the text itself and the goals they have for using that particular text,” and then they should help students better understand the language of the discipline so they can be more equipped to approach the texts (100). Regarding instructional strategies for approaching literacy within the disciplines, teachers must scaffold student learning by activating and supplementing their prior knowledge. They can also work with students to learn how to determine the importance of information within texts, depending on the learning goal. Students can learn to tackle informational texts within the disciplines by creating visual imagery and symbols to better aid their understanding. Additionally, teachers can work with students to develop general literacy strategies, such as generating various types of questions to  “develop a more personally driven interpretation,” making inferences about texts, or continually monitoring their comprehension (106). Finally, teachers should use discussions to help create a “bridge between the everyday-world discourses of an adolescent and the various academic discourses in which students engage in school” to make the disciplinary areas more relevant to students (112).
• Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas: One of the comprehension strategies discussed in this chapter is questioning, and the text describes both the value of questioning and what types of questioning are valuable, such as focusing on text-dependent questions before text independent questions. The chapter posits that these questions should be a foundation for discussions about the text, rather than being framed as isolated, independent tasks. The text continues by discussing the importance of vocabulary development for reading comprehension, and the chapter stresses the importance of equipping students with multiple strategies for tackling unknown words. In terms of instructional practices, teachers should work with students to think about the learning objective and establish relevance. Teachers should also help students “experience their teachers’ thinking” by using “I” statements so that students can better understand the necessary thought process behind the expected skills (147). Additionally, students can develop close reading skills through repeated readings (with various methods: independently, with auditory support, or through partnered reading), annotations, and text-dependent questions.
• Fisher, Frey, and Ross: This chapter begins by discussing factors that influence comprehension, which include variables related to the reader, the text, the educational context, and the teacher. The text emphasizes the importance of activating prior knowledge within the context of reading comprehension, and it suggests that the best way to create prior knowledge when students lack it is to “get them to read, and to read a lot” (330). As discussed in the other texts, teachers should also work with students to determine their purpose for reading, and this purpose should be “authentic, in that [students have] a choice” (331). There should be a focus on not just one purpose for reading, but rather there should be a discussion about the various purposes that a reader could have for approaching a particular text. Teachers should also focus on vocabulary development, particularly “vocabulary across content areas,” rather than focusing solely on content specific words or solely on vague academic terms (333). In terms of instructional strategies, teachers should model their thinking during the reading process (including all aspects of the process at once), and they should give students repeated exposure and opportunity to practice. Teachers can also set up a reciprocal teaching activity (within a gradual release framework) so as to help students practice and model reading strategies with one another.

Responses:

• Jetton and Shanahan:

o   This chapter reminded me of why I have been trying harder to talk in-depth with my students about their learning goals. The book emphasizes that “classroom contexts where the focus is solely on grades and performance relative to other students causes students to focus less on the norms of practice within that discipline” (97). I think there are several reasons why this is an issue, but I really want my students to know what they are learning and why those things have value.

o   I loved the idea of using disciplinary literacy as an opportunity for students to explore their own identities. The tandem stories project described in the chapter allows students to “reconsider their own textual interpretations in light of [peers’] views and restructure their own beliefs and views about the diversity issues represented in the literature” (96). That’s one reason I place so much value on open-ended discussion questions. Our students need to be able to see themselves in literature, and talking about these things within an open-ended sociocultural framework helps them do that.

• Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas:

o   I really liked the point about how “too many questions are text independent and therefore take students quickly away from the text” (140). I think text independent questions are very important, but we really need to scaffold them. I went to a NMSI workshop this summer that was super useful in relation to this issue. I’m really working on scaffolding complex questions this year. For example, if I want students to be able to use close reading to talk about how a novel would have been received during its time period, I would perhaps have to start by having students discuss motifs that they notice, then themes that might relate to those motifs, and then connect those themes to the historical context. I’m finally starting to get a good idea of how scaffolding ideally should work!

o   I loved the way this chapter discussed modeling skills. The text describes modeling as helping students “experience their teachers’ thinking,” which I think is very apt (147). Often, explaining processes won’t be enough for students who aren’t already using those skills on some level. They need to step inside the head of someone who is using the thought processes they need to develop in order to truly understand what a particular skill involves.

• Fisher, Frey, and Ross:

o   I like the idea of giving students controlled choices within the context of determining their purpose for reading. I really think that makes it more authentic for them, and it helps them be more motivated to learn. I think a lot of times students struggle to know why they are reading, and even when teachers are always dictating their reading purposes, they lack investment in the learning process.

o   I’m glad that the modeling section talked about specific aspects of modeling the reading process. One thing I hadn’t really thought about was that you really do need to model the whole process at once, rather than focus on one strategy at a time. I’m personally fairly weak in this area. Sometimes I will ask students to focus on one or two strategies on a given day, but I fail to emphasize that they need to still use the other strategies—I definitely need to model this for them.

Questions:  

• I’ve been seeing a new problem in my classes this year, in relation to the “questioning to deepen comprehension” as discussed in Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas. I find that even when I give students question starters, leveled question guides, or other constraints for their questions, this year many of my students are either trying to jot down questions that they already know the answer to, or they’re asking good questions but refusing to go back to the text to explore them. How can I increase their motivation for repeated readings to aid in answering the questions that they have about the text?
• I want your opinion about the reciprocal teaching discussed in Fisher, Frey, and Ross. I teach a literacy for life class that has a very wide range of reading abilities. Some of my students are definitely still in the decoding stage, despite being in high school. Do you think that reciprocal teaching would work in those classes, and do you think I’d be able to get my more struggling readers to be willing to participate surrounded by higher level readers? If so, how do you think you might structure it?