|
COPYRIGHT 2004 International Reading Association Inc.
In training a child to the activity of thought, above all things we must beware of what I will call "inert ideas"--that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations (Alfred North Whitehead, as cited in Lincoln & Suid, 1986, p. 130)
To test and throw ideas into fresh combinations is the challenge before educators as they engage students in genuine conversations with literature, real "talk." With increased emphasis on testing results, how does an educator elevate literature instruction to a conversation rich with ideas? How can educators shift from using literature-circle roles described by Daniels (2002) to using comprehension strategies as a springboard for rich conversations? Reflection on these questions prompted my investigation into this shift. In this article, I detail the progression of my own experience implementing comprehension strategy instruction as the conduit for effective discussions through the gradual release of responsibilities. I conclude with implications for instruction to foster genuine student talk with literature.
Strategies and roles
Keene and Zimmerman (1997) and Goudvis and Harvey (2000) promoted seven main comprehension strategies as a springboard for teachers as they engage students in literature discussions. Goudvis and Harvey listed the following comprehension strategies that active, thoughtful readers use when constructing meaning from text: making connections (personal, text to text, and text to world), questioning, inferring, visualizing, determining importance, synthesizing, and monitoring. They added that Keene and Zimmerman expanded the list with making "sensory images" (p. 7).
Instruction in America's elementary reading classes has been based on this theory: a series of comprehension questions--coming from the basal reader or the teacher--were posed, and the goal was to see if children could answer them in the way the teacher believed they should. (Keene & Zimmerman, p. 16)
Reflecting on this statement, I found myself in agreement as I recalled hours of designing questions related to a text, with the intent of encouraging higher order thinking skills, only to find that they engaged few of my students in a discussion. Keene (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997) challenged teachers to reflect on the use of comprehension questions by stating that many "children were not (and are not) learning to comprehend using this approach, and they certainly weren't becoming proficient, independent, confident, critical readers" (p. 16). The challenge accelerated my shift away from the literature-circle roles to the explicit instruction of questioning as a reading strategy.
Daniels (2002) promoted the use of four basic student roles: (a) The "connector" makes connections between the text and his or her own life; (b) the "questioner" wonders about and analyzes the meaning of the text; (c) the "literary luminary" or passage master identifies parts of the text that are memorable; and (d) the "illustrator" provides a graphic depiction of the text. Even after I investigated and implemented the literature-circle roles as described by Daniels in the early 1990s, the literature discussions in my classroom were stilted and assignment driven and did not reflect a genuine give-and-take of ideas. Because too many students come through my classroom door who allow text to "wash over them" (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6) as they read instead of actively participating in the process of understanding, I wanted to encourage engagement in the text through "talk" in literature discussion.
Babbitt (1996) agreed that literature circles have value as students test their ideas about a story through genuine talk but shared that students' letters written to her after classroom discussion reflected a perfunctory response focused on what each child learned in the story. The students' letters revealed that, instead of inspiring a heartfelt reaction from the reader, classroom talk focused on assignments. Babbitt implied that educators may have taken literature and turned the opportunity for rich conversation into an empty assignment. Daniels (2002) concurred that, "in some classrooms, the roles did become a hindrance, an obstacle, a drain" (p. 13). Yet he defended the role structure as a conduit for genuine discussions, as a temporary support to get the discussion groups started. Nevertheless, he concluded that the role structure could undermine the goal of student-directed, literature-circle discussions.
I resolved not to use roles in literature circles on the basis of past observations of students relying on a role simply to complete an assignment. The roles I assigned for discussion distanced the student from the text and resulted in a flat, oral recitation. My goal in focusing on a comprehension strategy was to shift the control of the discussion away from being a teacher-directed activity to being a student-driven conversation.
As I thought about Tovani's (2000) experience in an adults' book club, in which the discussion emerged from questions, and as I observed students exhibit passive behaviors in reading, it became apparent that my students needed to recognize the value of asking questions as they read. Reflecting on my anecdotal records taken during reading conferences, I noted that a majority of students were not asking themselves questions as they read. In addition, even the students who demonstrated "good" reading behaviors and asked themselves questions as they read did not realize how a question helped them understand the text, or how to use the strategy as a tool for aiding their comprehension...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
