Week 4: Reading Disciplinary Texts

Summary

J&S Chapter 1:

As students enter the secondary grades, they transition from learning to read into reading to learn. Particularly, disciplinary texts, which become “much more technical in nature,” become difficult for many students to decipher (2). One reason for this is that they are “replete with abstractions,” rather than relying solely on concrete events and ideas (3). This chapter also explains various comprehension strategies and instructional strategies, as well as the importance of differentiating the two. The authors claim that “teachers need to understand the reading strategies that they need to teach explicitly” so that students focus on the strategies for reading that they can use rather than the process for practicing those strategies (such as K-W-L) (7). The chapter continues by outlining a few comprehension models for disciplinary texts. One model the DIME model, focuses on “background knowledge, inference, reading comprehension strategies, vocabulary, and word reading” (7). A framework that teachers can use to focus on textual engagement is Reciprocal Teaching (which we discussed last week), emphasizes “strategies of prediction, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing” with a gradual release framework (9). Another framework discussed is CORI, in which “readers utilize specific cognitive strategies that include activating their prior knowledge, generating questions, searching for information, organizing new knowledge, and monitoring their comprehension” (10). The chapter concludes by discussing the difference between comprehension strategies with digital literacies and traditional literacies, as well as the value of using discussion to promote comprehension.

J&S Chapter 2:

This chapter discusses how language within disciplinary texts “varies from one content area to another” (35). Science, mathematics, and history texts can all be a challenge for adolescents because of their use of nominalizations, which are “nouns that derive from grammatical structures such as verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, prepositional phrases, or clauses” (42). Science and math both can be challenging in terms of having “long noun phrases” because of the use of nouns to expand information (40). One challenge that is specific to the field of science is the technical vocabulary. Many of these words are “unique to the realm of science,” and many others “assume specialized or metaphorical meanings when used in a scientific context,” which can make them difficult for students to comprehend (39). One of the challenges that mathematical texts present is the need to “understand hierarchies of relationships among the terms” in the text (48). Mathematics also relies less on language itself and instead relies more on “mathematical symbolism and visual displays [that] are often juxtaposed with language in the construction of mathematical meaning” (51). As for history texts, history on the secondary level is often discussed with the use of generic nouns so as to talk about the “big picture” of history rather than just chronological events.

J&S Chapter 3:

This chapter focuses on how experts within fields read disciplinary texts. According to this chapter, experts “know whether or not a particular piece of information belongs in their field or not,” since there are key textual markers that can clue readers in about the topic of the text (72). Experts are also able to look at information and identify “what was created, how it was created, and for what purpose was it created” (72). In terms of knowledge sharing, different disciplines have different conventions for conveying information, such as temporization in science or narrative in history. When historians read, they tend to be “nuanced, conscious, critical, and reflective” (77). They compare what they read to other interpretations of history that they have seen, and they take into account the context of the text, such as the author, the time period in which it was published, etc. Chemists, on the other hand, are more “flexible, pragmatic, and recursive” in their reading (80). Chemists tend to fixate “only on the important information,” such as the content of the chemical principles, rather than the context of the text (81). Conversely, mathematicians focus on “convergence, repetition, accuracy, reason, and elegance” (84). Rather than focusing on evidence to prove theories or the author’s textual context, mathematicians fixate on whether or not the mathematical principles described in the texts are logically sound. This chapter argues that teachers can focus on teaching strategies that are “general, adaptable, and specific,” including K-W-L (general), comparison-contrast charts (adaptable), and contextualization (specific to history) (88).

H&S-T Chapter 6:

This chapter discusses text complexity, particularly within the context of the CCSS standard that "students should read and understand texts that gradually increase in complexity from grade to grade" (101). One way to measure text complexity is through quantitative means, which "gauge the readability of texts based on formulas including word repetition, word and sentence length, vocabulary, and syntax" (101). Qualitative measures, on the other hand, evaluate a text's "levels of meaning, text structure, language conventionality/clarify, and knowledge demands" (104). Determining text complexity is important, but these methods "do not take into consideration the specific characteristics of readers or the tasks in which they engage," so this chapter advocates for a holistic perspective on text complexity (106). Teachers should also take into account "social configuration..., type of response..., and allocation of time" (106). When approaching challenging texts, students should be given ample opportunity for deliberate practice with the complex texts. These opportunities should, as the chapter explained through a sports metaphor, provide "frequent practice sessions at an appropriate level of difficulty, with just the right progression of difficulty, immediate and frequent corrective feedback, and some level of determination" (107). Students should be encouraged to consider not only what good readers do, but also how good readers gained the skilled reading practices that they use--by "deliberately engag[ing] in reading texts that are challenging to them" (110). As students develop automaticity with reading skills, they must increase the challenges that texts make on them, or their skill development will halt. Teachers must also consider "what students bring to specific learning situations" when selecting texts and when selecting instructional approaches" (113). Finally, as the sports metaphor described, teachers must provide "immediate and valid feedback to learners" so that students can develop better skill-developing and problem-solving strategies when approaching challenging texts (113).

Response

J&S Chapter 1:

One recommendation this chapter has is that students be exposed to “a variety of expository texts as they progress through elementary school” (3). I think that’s absolutely imperative, and it’s possibly a major part of the comprehension issue that students are having. I don’t remember reading very many expository texts in elementary school. When we did read them, I remember having fill-in-the-blank worksheets and hunting for the “answers” rather than actually reading the texts. Students deserve better than that, and I think the mere exposure would be more beneficial than we might realize.

I really liked the instructional strategies section of this chapter. I especially loved the description of the teacher who changed “KWL” to “KWHHL.” I think it’s so important for teachers to take instructional strategies that they find valuable and tweak them to their style and the needs of their students.

J&S Chapter 2:

I think that since nominalizations exist as a challenge for students in almost all content areas, they are one of the most important things to focus on. Perhaps that’s something that could be approached through language manipulation, or maybe with a game? I feel like having students create their own nominalizations, and perhaps introduce it with the idea of “verbing” (which is something most of them would be familiar with) might help make it easier for them to grasp.

I’m intrigued by the idea of helping students understand generic nouns for history class. I wonder if it would help to teach them explicitly by having students brainstorm specific nouns that would fit under the umbrella of some of the generic nouns. I bet that it’s possible to teach it in such a way that they make the connection even when they see a generic noun that wasn’t “brainstormed” together in class.

J&S Chapter 3:

I thought it was interesting to learn this week that disciplinary knowledge isn’t just about technical vocabulary and topical knowledge, but instead it also includes “knowledge of the way information is created, shared, and evaluated” within a particular field (71). I think that might explain why I sometimes struggled with readings in science class—maybe I never understood the discourse surrounding scientific theory, hypothesizing, experimentation, etc. Fascinating!

I liked how the section “The Way Knowledge Is Created” implies very adaptable principles for teaching comprehension. For example, readers should keep in mind “what was created, how it was created, and for what purpose it was created” when reading disciplinary texts, and I would argue, when reading any text at all (72). If students can determine those three things, they can approach the text with their own goals in mind, and they can better understand how to determine which information is important and how it should be interpreted in context.

H&S-T Chapter 6:

One aspect of text complexity that I felt wasn't properly addressed in this chapter is text appropriateness, which I think affects students' ability to approach a text as much as syntax, word count, etc. could. For example, I'm pretty sure that To Kill a Mockingbird is on a fourth grade reading level according to Lexile measurements, and even more qualitative measures would likely fail to account for the fact that it is appropriate perhaps for late middle school at the earliest. We, as teachers, must be conscious of topics and themes that our students are ready to tackle, as well as what would be appropriate in the eyes of school administration and parents. Asking them to do so too early comes with a lot of issues, but it certainly would add an extra challenge to their reading of the text.

Qualitative measures seem to me to be very appropriate for evaluating disciplinary texts. A lot of times when students struggle with informative texts, they have issues with the text structure or the topical knowledge. A text with straightforward language construction could be very demanding for an adolescent who is unfamiliar with another aspect of the informative text. Combining various forms of text complexity measures is always important when selecting a text and supporting students' reading, but I feel like it might be even more important within the content areas.

Questions

Chapter 1 of J&S discusses the “apparent comprehension differences between traditional printed texts and online information,” since “online information is linked in so many more ways than traditional text” (12). This section really emphasized the importance of intertextuality. One thing that I think I would struggle with would be how to emphasize intertextual links when reading long works of fiction. What strategies and types of texts do you think I could bring in for that situation?

The section about “texture” in chapter 2 of J&S totally went over my head, and it still didn’t fully click no matter how many times I read over it. Did anyone else understand what it was talking about? Can you explain it to me in layman’s terms?

How do you motivate students to read texts that they find challenging? I have a student who's been begging me to let us read Bluford series books in class, when they're not part of the curriculum (nor are they challenging enough), and I'd love some tips for engaging him in the complex texts that I need him to approach!