I think that it is really difficult to think about how I comprehend things when I read because I feel like I do it automatically. Without realizing it, I think I go through all of the steps talked about in the article by Gregory. I think that when I first see a story, I mentally question what it will be about and make inferences based on the picture on the cover and the title. As I am reading the story, I really do visualize it playing out like a movie in my head, so I like the term “mind-movie” that the article uses. I also make connections to things I have learned in the past. One strategy that I do not think I use as often is to make connections to other texts. I do not remember doing this unless the texts are in the same series or are specifically mentioned in a book.
My new classroom that I started at on Friday is a Montessori classroom and when I came in for literature, they were doing discussion circles. It was really interesting to read the article by Gregory and Cahill after seeing that, because almost all of the comprehension elements mentioned in the reading were used in the discussion circle. Each student in the circle had a job. One was the discussion leader, and he asked three open ended questions about the reading. That matches up with the questioning part of Mrs. Hope’s discussion strategy. The second person was the literary luminary and they were choosing a couple paragraphs or sentences to respond to with their group. Depending on what sentences they picked, the resulting conversation may include inferring, as mentioned in the Gregory article (and on page 262 of Tompkins). The third person is the connector, finding connections between the book and life, community, or similar events. This was like the text-to-self and text-to-world connections mentioned in the article. The fourth was the visualizer and they provide a visual (sketch, cartoon, diagram, collage, etc) related to the reading. This would involve visualization, and would be a visual representation of the mind movies mentioned in the Gregory article. I think it is amazing that the discussion circles I see in class include all of the elements of comprehension in the same discussion. I think that the teacher I am observing must have done a lot of scaffolding before this so that the students would stay on task and the discussion would run smoothly.
Jamie, I definitely agree that I find it difficult to think about my own comprehension. I, too, find myself doing it automatically. At first I thought that this would mean that since it comes naturally, I will have a difficult time teaching these strategies. However, the more I thought about it, I realized that I feel like it makes me better prepared because I will be able to give personal examples. Like you Jamie, I like the idea of a 'mind movie.' I feel like I visualize when I read, but this is a great way to introduce it to students. Chapter 8, of "Litaracy for the 21st Century" made me realize how many factors are a part of comprehension. Comprehending texts usually come easy to me because I have those 'prerequisites' for comprehension and have built upon them throughout my schooling.
ReplyDeleteThe Gregory & Cahill article was titled "Kindergarteners can do it too!" So, I'd like to add that "Preschoolers can do it too!" Unfortunately, I haven't seen very many signs of comprehension in my first grade field placement. However, I work in a child development center and the students are already working on making text-to-self connections! At such a young age, it is beneficial for these strategies to be taught explicitly, though. Just like the teacher in the article, the teacher that I work with "began by defining the strategy." Then she provided "a visual representation" with a picutre of a book and an arrow pointing to a child. Finally, she "asked the students to use the strategy."
As for my placement, like I've mentioned before, I've witnessed a few DRAs, but I don't feel like the reading questions help to promote making meaning. However, I was happy to see students making predictions about a text like Chapter 8 of 'Literacy for the 21st Century' mentions.
I completely agree with you both as well about the ability to not have to think about how to comprehend what we're reading or that we have to make an effort to comprehend what we are reading. This relates to fluency.
ReplyDeleteI read the Applegate, et al. article. It broke readers down into groups of the way they comprehend and understand what they are reading. I definitely relate to the first group called literalists who just look for the literal answer in the reading. The other groups spanned from readers who diverge from the question to readers to write a novel about the question. I would rather find the literal answer in the text and have that be it.
The reading explained that I may comprehend this way because of text-base learning that my education might have been focused on. I remember especially in middle school and high school social studies and history classes answering questions from the back of the chapters with specific answers that could be found right in the readings.
The Applegate reading did a good job of breaking different readers and ways of comprehending down into different profiles. It discussed what each type of comprehension is and what it means for the reader who comprehends a reading that way. This is good for the classroom because it lets us as teachers understand how our students' minds are working a little bit better so that we can assist their comprehension even more.