 |
I found both readings extremely insightful and eyeopening. Both readings point out the issue of the low number of students who can read at grade level or above. Lee & Spratley state that "at the most advanced level, less than 10 percent of 17 year olds, regardless of race/ethnicity or SES, are able to comprehend complex texts." Biancarosa & Snow bring up a similar point in their text stating, "approximately eight million young people between fourth and twelfth grade
struggle to read at grade level."They go on to explain that their most common problem is that students are unable to comprehend what they read. To me it is hard to believe that so many students are struggling to comprehend text at the level they are supposed to. When I was a student in elementary school and high school it was obvious who had a difficult time reading. The students would usually skip words they did not know or understand, would read at a really slow pace, and would generally stumble while reading. At that time I would have never thought that students who seemed to be reading at grade level could also be students who could not understand what they were reading.
In Reading in the Disciplines Lee & Spratley present strategies that good readers use to comprehend text. They present asking questions as the number one strategy to use. I believe that students who do not understand text ask plenty of questions about the text, maybe even more so than those who are good readers. I think, however, that students who do not comprehend text also do not know what type of questions they should be asking. Lee & Spratley also state that comprehension requires knowledge of topics in a particular field before even considering those strategies. Using history as an example, when does it become appropriate to expose students to more complex ideas, like the struggles between countries that lead to war? How do you expose students to knowledge and ideas in history in an educational system that has students learning and testing on the constitution in seventh grade and then doing the same thing in tenth? How do we build a students knowledge and understanding when we have a system that dictates what students should be learning at what grade level?
Being a Teaching of History major what I found more interesting in Lee & Spratley's reading was the section reading in history. They make an interesting point that sometimes reading a textbook is harder to understand than a primary source. I can understand the point that they are trying to make. With the attempt to simply textbooks a lot of contextual information is left to the reader to fill in. Students might not have enough knowledge of a topic to be able to make inferences on their own. However, I do believe that their point is dependent on what you are reading. It would be easier to read a textbook about the amendments to the constitution than actually reading the amendments.
In Reading in the Disciplines Lee & Spratley present strategies that good readers use to comprehend text. They present asking questions as the number one strategy to use. I believe that students who do not understand text ask plenty of questions about the text, maybe even more so than those who are good readers. I think, however, that students who do not comprehend text also do not know what type of questions they should be asking. Lee & Spratley also state that comprehension requires knowledge of topics in a particular field before even considering those strategies. Using history as an example, when does it become appropriate to expose students to more complex ideas, like the struggles between countries that lead to war? How do you expose students to knowledge and ideas in history in an educational system that has students learning and testing on the constitution in seventh grade and then doing the same thing in tenth? How do we build a students knowledge and understanding when we have a system that dictates what students should be learning at what grade level?
Being a Teaching of History major what I found more interesting in Lee & Spratley's reading was the section reading in history. They make an interesting point that sometimes reading a textbook is harder to understand than a primary source. I can understand the point that they are trying to make. With the attempt to simply textbooks a lot of contextual information is left to the reader to fill in. Students might not have enough knowledge of a topic to be able to make inferences on their own. However, I do believe that their point is dependent on what you are reading. It would be easier to read a textbook about the amendments to the constitution than actually reading the amendments.
Hi Jaasiel,
ReplyDeleteI found the points you made about history rather interesting. I myself am not very much a "history person". Much like the reading, I remember my history professor urging me to read primary sources because I never really understood how some material was almost over simplified in a textbook. Even to this day I find it difficult to read textbooks because of the generalizations they make. Yet, I never really thought about the amendments and how much easier it is to read an article about them rather than the amendments themselves. But again I think it depends more on the language used. The amendments are obviously written in older language that is hard for us to make sense of yet if it were in more current language then it may be easier to understand that than an article. I completely agree that comprehension levels are not at the level they should be. It seems rather hard to teach students how to comprehend texts. My question to you would be how would you help those that have trouble comprehending history textbooks? Any tips?
-Marisol
Response from Christopher Sunner:
ReplyDeleteJaasiel:
You make several good points. First, sometimes reading the textbook is much harder for students than reading other forms of literature in the class. As a history teacher, I have found problems with textbooks over the years: 1) too difficult to read since it is above the reading level of my typical students; 2) sometimes they are too easy and do not challenge our students enough; 3) the organization or layout is too complicated or not organized well enough; 4) not enough pertinent information; 5) outdated.
In addition, we often don’t have enough textbooks, and are given only a classroom set. Therefore, we have to construct lessons around using the textbook only in the classroom. Sometimes, that is not good enough, especially when a teacher may wish students to take home the textbook and continue reading.
I have learned not to rely on the textbook only, and have built up a diverse array of literature that I can print and use in the classroom. They range from in-class readings to poems to stories and primary sources as well. This gives me flexibility to arrange the readings in a particular order that enables students to build upon their reading comprehension of the content material. The readings are challenging enough to the students without hitting their frustration levels (as elaborated in “A Vision For Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy”). I have found that building a body of diverse text (as a key strategy stated in both readings) not only gives teachers more flexibility, but works well for the students as they will read many different types of readings that will add some change and keep them from getting bored if one read only from the textbook.
But there are times when reading from the textbook is good, especially if it has good material for certain topics being taught. It’s a balance that must be struck: when to use the textbook and when to use other reading materials from a bank of good diverse texts. I have also scanned or physically typed the readings onto digital files that I can display on the SmartBoard in my classroom to highlight certain words or sentences for comprehension. And the nice thing about being digitized is that you can easily share these materials with colleagues to be use din their classrooms, fostering teacher collaboration and give others access to greater resources.
Thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteI know all too well about not having textbooks in a classroom. When I was attending high school both math classes and history classes were always short on textbooks. I certainly agree that reading from a text book can be good as well. I took a history class about two years ago at Harold Washington and used a textbook that I loved. Not only was it fairly easy to understand but it had detailed maps and figures showing how and where different countries had colonized the US. I think just about everyone enjoyed using that book. Maybe if more textbooks were laid out in a similar matter and not so bland students would be more interested in reading them.
Uriel Rosales
ReplyDeleteThis American Myth has puzzled me for many years since I first learned about the ones who set the foundation for this nation of ours but of course had they own interests at heart as wealthy elitist.