Strategic Readers
Good readers are active, set goals and evaluate progress, observe text structure, make predictions, are selective, create and question meaning, determine the meaning of unknown words, make connections to prior knowledge, monitor their understanding, and evaluate the value of a text (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Strategic readers are engaged; they read to answer questions and learn because they want to learn (Swan, 2003). Students who are engaged are motivated intrinsically; they feel competent, have choice and support, and feel important to others (Swan, 2003). Strategic readers use strategies to gain conceptual knowledge while interacting with others (Swan, 2003).
Strategic readers do these things, while students who are less strategic can be taught to be strategic readers (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Contexts that support comprehension instruction spend a lot of time reading, read for real reasons, read different genres, learn vocabulary through reading, learn decoding, spend time writing, and talk about text (Duke & Pearson, 2002). The gradual release of responsibility shows how over time, the responsibility shifts from teacher directed to student directed (Duke & Pearson, 2002). When teachers teach coherently, they model for students how to make connections and comprehend what they read (Swan, 2003). Teachers can do this by setting learning goals, encouraging real-world interaction, supporting student autonomy, selecting interesting texts, teaching strategies, encouraging collaboration, rewarding and praising students, evaluating engagement, and being involved (Swan, 2003).
CORI focuses on motivating students to read by providing them with engaging content, hands on activities, reading for a purpose, asking questions, finding answers, and a variety of formats for instruction, including working collaboratively with others. In an example CORI lesson, students learn reading and science concepts (conceptual knowledge), are learning and using strategies, are motivated, and are interacting with others. Meanwhile, the teacher is involved, learning goals have been set, the texts are interesting, strategies are being taught, and students are engaged. CORI provides content that is interesting to students, encourages them to ask questions and seek answers, and encourages them to talk to others.
Connections
The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) situates the text, the reader and activity within the larger circle of sociocultural context. The teacher can create an engaging classroom by building coherence (Swan, 2003). Teachers can model good comprehension and teach students to make connections, determining what is important, synthesizing information, visualize, and retell (Swan, 2003). If students are given the power to ask questions, seek answers, and talk to classmates they will become engaged (Swan, 2003). Classrooms should have balanced comprehension instruction; this means that students should engage in reading, writing, and discussion (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Students should also be taught comprehension strategies and when and how to apply them. Some comprehension strategies include prediction, think aloud, text structures, visual representations, summarization, and questioning (Duke & Pearson, 2002). If the classroom context builds coherence and provides balanced comprehension instruction, the text is of interest, the activity allows for social interaction, and the student is engaged, learning will take place.
I see a huge disconnect between these ideas and what is happening in my work context. I don’t think public school classrooms in Florida are providing coherence or encouraging student engagement. Comprehension strategies are explicitly taught and modeled through guided and shared reading, however, students are expected to apply them as they read for the purpose of answering the essential question of the days lesson. Our literacy curriculum is too structured in our public schools. Teachers do not have the autonomy to select texts that are relevant and of interest to their students. Teachers do not have the autonomy to create an engaging classroom by building coherence (Swan, 2003). The daily activity is reading to answer the prescribed essential question with the challenge of staying aligned with the curriculum map. Our teachers are not engaged nor are our students engaged. Just as Swan (2003) describes, engagement visually diminishes as students progress through school.
Implications/ Questions/ Critiques
My first implication is that teachers need to be engaged. Teachers cannot encourage student engagement if they are not engaged. Teachers in public schools in my county are provided with curriculum that dictates the text to use and the skills to focus on each week. The county needs to see teachers as competent so that they feel competent to select texts that are relevant and meaningful for their students as well as instruction that meets their students’ needs. Teachers need choice and responsibility. Teachers feel that they do not have control over the literacy curriculum because they are not allowed the choice to do things their own way. Teachers need to feel valued and supported. I do not think that teachers who are provided with curriculum feel of value as they are not given the freedom to make instructional decisions for their students. If teachers are not engaged, it is very difficult for them to foster engagement. Without autonomy, it is impossible for teachers to build an engaging classroom with coherent instruction.
My second implication is that pre-service teachers need to be engaged. My pre-service teachers are placed in the field several times per week, but are not given the autonomy to divert from the county curriculum. Right now, they are working on other things like teacher presence and classroom management, so they are not overly concerned that the content is being provided for them, however, they are learning from teachers who are not engaged how to implement curriculum that is not engaging.
My last implication is that something needs to be done to engage our students. They are spoken of in a very deficit minded way. Teachers talk about students by identifying their areas of weakness. Students are referred to as low, below grade level, and lacking in skills. It is difficult to build competence when they are being told that they aren’t good enough and are lacking skills. Students are not offered choice. The same text is read to them or they read the same text day after day. Children also need to feel that they belong at school. This is especially difficult in settings with a transient population, such as the schools where my pre-service teachers are placed. There is no time in our intensive, remedial literacy program for social skills instruction to occur. I have been in many classrooms in which the students do not know the names of their classmates.
I understand what strategic readers do. I understand what an engaging, coherent classroom looks like. I understand that the text, the reader, and the activity are situated within the larger sociocultural context. But I do not know how to teach pre-service teachers to provide engaging, coherent instruction when their instruction, and that of their collaborating teachers, is being dictated by the county. We can read about good literacy instruction in class, I can model for them, but if they become employed in this county, they will not be able to implement the things that they are reading about as “best practice.” I feel defeated. I do not know how to deliver engaging, coherent instruction to my undergraduates given the limitations the county places on teachers and literacy curriculum.
I think I, as an instructor of pre-service teachers, am engaged. I feel that I understand what strategic readers do and how to promote engagement in the classroom, I also know that I have the ability to choose, for the most part, what instruction will look like for my pre-service teachers, and I feel that I belong within the group of instructors at my university and within my class of pre-service teachers. I feel that I am engaged and able to provide engagement for my students in a coherent classroom. But I don’t feel that my instruction is a good example of what they will face both in their internship classroom and if they get a job teaching in a public school in this county in Florida.
References
- Duke, N. K. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. E Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed.) (205- 242). Newark, Del: International Reading Association.
- Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html
- Swan, E. A.(2003). Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learners. New York: The Guilford Press.