Week 7: Disciplinary Texts - Science

Synthesis

Jetton and Shanahan Chapter 6: 

There are several challenges that science texts present. The technical vocabulary can be a barrier to comprehension, and students "struggle with the structure" of many texts (155). Students also do not know how to focus on the pertinent information, and they "have difficulty with the combination of graphic information and text (155). One thing teachers can do to help students is to be aware of how science experts read. When scientists do not "know the information, they read to learn"; conversely, when they are familiar with the information, "they read for critique" (159). In terms of supporting students' understanding of vocabulary from science texts, it is important to note that those texts include "scientific terminology that [has] to be learned not only on the surface level but also in depth" (159). For general comprehension, teachers must know that the "various forms of representation" need to be explicitly taught and connected because they "represent the same concepts but in a different way" (160). Students must also be able to "[know] how and when to move from text to graphic to formula to text" when reading (160). Additionally, when writing, there are two important factors to keep in mind: precision, and disciplinary knowledge. In terms of implications for instruction, a few different instructional strategies can help, including: "expository text strategies" that are interdisciplinary, vocabulary notebooks in which students define all unknown terms within each definition, feature analysis charts, and RAFT (165-169).

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas Chapter 17:

The focus of this chapter is Reading Apprenticeship, in which teachers "reframe teaching as an apprenticeship into discipline-based ways of thinking, talking, reading, and writing" (312). The chapter focuses on a specific teacher named Will, who implemented the program in his science class. One strategy he used was that he "concentrated on a handful of reading and discourse routines that he used over and over again in different ways quote" (313). He also used "conversational routines" that involved individual reflection, group discussion, and "returning to the individual" for reflection and revision (314). The focal student is described as "and uncooperative and I'm not motivated student" (311). In spite of his struggles, at the beginning of the year he "seemed to enjoy being a part of class discussions," and as the year continued, he "became increasingly willing to take risks as a reader and learner" (317). Eventually, the student "gained confidence and expertise as a reader," which the teacher used to encourage him to expand his learning, such as by using disciplinary language (318). The student also eventually overcame "his initial resistance to working with others," and he "emerged as a leader among his peers" (319). This chapter describes a case study that is an exemplary example of how learner dispositions can be influenced by class from structures and instructional strategies.

Jetton and Shanahan Chapter 6:

In comparison to other forms of learning scientific information, text is supposedly "more likely... to teach students in a way that overcomes misconceptions" (156). This is definitely because of the way that scientific texts are usually written. I think this is awesome, since I feel like science is a field in which it is especially easy to develop misconceptions, and in which it is especially important to avoid misconceptions. We see this every day in terms of students' misunderstandings of science, as well as adults' misconceptions about science. Perhaps we'd have much less of that if we had more text-oriented science classes?

From a literacy perspective, I am intrigued by the fact that "one goal of science is to be able to predict what will happen in a hypothetical instance," based on evidence (161). I think this is a scientific skill that transfers into other reading situations very well. For instance, when reading  a fictional text in a language arts class, strong readers use textual evidence to make predictions about the text as the read. In history class, students should be reading headings, charts, etc. and using those things to predict what the chapter will be about. Learning how to achieve that goal in a science class could easily transfer into a general literacy skill.

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas Chapter 17:

(I feel like I had more questions than responses about this chapter, but this is one thing that came to mind while I was reading.) One section of this chapter talked about how "apprenticeship instructional routines normalize struggle," and I'm not sure what I think about that. I feel like the particular focal student in this chapter might be an exception to the rule in terms of what effect that might have on students. I would be anxious about how that would affect students' self efficacy and confidence. It's good to normalize struggle, in theory, but I also think that it could cause issues if you're too adamant about having students publicize their struggles in front of the whole class. However, I can see how it might encourage risk-taking in the classroom, so it probably just depends on how you approach it.

Questions

  
Chapter 6 talked about how students need to be able to know "how and when to move from text to graphic to formula to text" (160). How can we help students build this kind of judgment and reading fluency?

Have any of you tried to "normalize struggle" in your classroom environment to the degree discussed in chapter 17? How did it work out, or how do you think it would work out? 

If we are to concentrate on a limited number of strategies and routines throughout the year, like teacher in chapter 17 did, how can we determine which routines are best for us to focus on?