Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among the reader’s existing knowledge, the information suggested by the written language, and the context of the reading situation. (Michigan State Board of Education, 2002)
When you reflect upon your childhood reading instruction, what stands out? Was it memorable? Exciting? Meaningful? Did you love to read and devour books? Did you know how to grapple with difficult text? Did anyone show you how to get deeper into the text? Did you spend time exploring the depth and wonders of stories? Unfortunately for me, the answer to all these questions was no. I don’t recall reading being challenging or purposeful beyond the task at hand. I remember independent reading tasks where we plowed our way through the SRA leveled text box. We started at a specific color of story, read the stories and answered the questions, and when we got enough right, then we moved on to the next color. This was of course self-corrected with an answer key, self-monitored, and self-reported. I remember getting stuck on brown, and being frustrated that I was on a level while others were passing me. I also remember eventually cheating to move on. I didn’t have the comprehension strategies to help me when things got tough, but I did have an answer key. I also remember that we did have reading groups, and I was stuck in the middle one and couldn’t get out. I always felt I belonged in the highest group, but didn’t have a way of moving.
I am sharing this story because I often hear people lament about change. “Why do we need to change education? It worked for me.” And while yes, I am technically a success story because I did stay in school and become an educator myself, I disliked school growing up. I loved my teachers, but counted down the years until I would be finished. Ironically, I have now learned that I will never be finished. Now I do love learning, but when I was a child, school was not about learning, but rather about finishing. I was not a critical thinker, and it was not demanded of me. If I regurgitated what was taught, then I was awarded good grades. I never thought about reading comprehension until I became a teacher. Reading is so internal, it is just what you do, or so I thought.
So much research has come out about reading in the past 20 years, which has often been lost in implementation in the last 10 years due to scripted lessons. Many teachers across America have been forced into following set programs in published textbooks, rather than examining the needs of the students in their classrooms. These texts, such as Open Court, give little time to differentiation, reading aloud, or access to higher level texts. Instead of student learning being the focus of each reading lesson, the script created by someone far outside the classroom dictates what should be taught. Clearly this is counterintuitive to what teaching should be. The strongest supported reading program by the government, Reading First, is another example of a highly scripted program. These types of programs were developed based on the recommendations of a highly researched based practices found in the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) Report from 2000. Scripted lessons became the result of the NRP, although many flaws have since emerged from the summary of the findings within the report (Yearian, 2011). Since implementation of Reading First in thousands of classrooms, it has been found that while phonics skills improved, comprehension did not. (Gamse et al., 2008).
With the adoption of Common Core Standards, there is a much needed refocusing back on reading comprehension. Teachers are encouraged to examine their students’ needs within school sites and develop instruction that will be most meaningful for those students. For many teachers, this will be a huge shift from the current culture and practices within their schools and districts. While you may or may not agree with how Common Core came about, and how it was written, it seems to me that some change could really do us good.
References
Gamse, B.C., Jacob, R.T, Horst, M., Boulay, B., and Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First Impact Study Final Report Executive Summary (NCEE 2009-4139). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Yearian, S. J. (2011). Empowerment of Teachers and Students through Innovative Literacy Practices. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3474300).
As the first cluster of standards for both literature and informational text fall under the umbrella of key ideas and details, it is clear that they are important concepts. But what exactly are the key details students should adhere to? In literature, the elements of narratives are delineated for primary grades, along with questioning. However, aren’t the details students need to highlight relative to the task? If students are trying to unpack the characters, then perhaps the most significant details would be different from those that depict the setting. And while significant plot points should reveal elements of the character, they may not give a complete picture. This got me thinking about how to teach key details so that we understand the gist of what we read, but also have clarity in dissecting different elements of what we read. Although the standards do not mention minor details, students must also be able to distinguish between the details that represent the crux of what they are examining and the cursory details that enhance the story. Perhaps we can examine stories with a whole-part-whole approach. What are the key details that disclose the plot? What details illuminate the characters? What details paint the setting? Which details support the theme? Were these details related to the plot, characters, setting, or all? Can we pull from those key details to determine the theme? Which details are key to answering text-dependent questions? Perhaps through our process of close reading, we can read for each purpose, map out the important details for each area, and then analyze how they cross over. Perhaps then, we could all develop more clarity! Below is an idea of how to organize a class chart examining these different elements. Of course, there are still key details to think about for informational text, but I will save that for another day!
Learning is a journey, not an endpoint. 