"The cognitive actions that readers employ while processing print are essentially the same across levels. Readers are simply applying them to successively more demanding levels of text."
Someone gave me this quote and I find it very interesting to think about. Please take some time to think this over and react to this statement. Do you agree? Disagree? And if so why? State your case clearly and let's see where we end up. There has been a great deal of discussion about our younger primary readers...what do you honestly think and believe in terms of this statement?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
HI there,
Well, there is certainly brain research that could tell us scientifically if this is true....all kinds of things about synapses, neurons, and connections. That's about all the big words I could come up with, however when I thought of using a metaphor to help me decipher the quote, I thought about learning to play the piano. The first song we all learned (my four siblings and I), was "Left, Right". The entire song was playing middle C, switching from left to right thumb, and accompanied by the lyrics: " Left, Right, Left, Right, On we go, Left, Right, March Just so". Well, after that we learned a lot more...reading the scale, nummber of beats, playing with two hands, phrasing, crescedos...on and on....Was the recital piece after ten years of lessons similar to "Left, Right"...in the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha".....they both required reading note(s), timing, placement of fingers on the keyboard, and finally performing. I then decided to see what my family neurobiologist said.....he explained our brains are basically the same looking in structure....but we differ in the amount of activity (practice) we use to make our brain grow.....(I thought he said glow)....but our brain does grow---each time we do a task, we build connections in our brain...experience shapes our learning..... So yes, I would agree with the quote...now I am wondering about how to keep sharp in my old age.....keep on learning somthing new...
fj
Hello,
I would have to agree with the quote and with Faith. The statement that readers process print essentially the same across levels is true. I think this because as we all read especially unfamiliar text we revert back to use all those skills we learned when we were in grade school to help us figure out what we are reading.(Well I know at least I do I know I shouldn't speak for all of us) I know when I pick up a book today that I think might be of interest to me I look at any pictures that may be present or I go directly to the back of the book and read what the story is about. I also read at least 3-5 pgs. to see if the book is of interest to me. When a child is beginning to read and they are only looking at pictures and know the names of those pictures they are beginning to add to their vocabulary for future reading. When I come to unfamiliar words I go to the dictionary to find out the meaning and I too am adding to my vocab and the understanding of that book or topic better. Now the discussion about primary readers we had during class- I see both sides of everyones points the other night. When people were saying yes they are reading with only pictures and not saying words- I agree BUT on the other hand the issue that kept coming up was will these students do fine without my direct one on one group? That pressure and fear comes from the top down- the state says the students should be doing abc and so on and district has expectations as well because the state is pushing it down their throats so now it is getting pushed onto the classroom teacher. Yes in time some of these students will catch up but we often want to code these kids and not give them the time they need. I do like the readers workshop but their is still that pressure on our shoulders of having all proficient students and we have that accountability issue as well. So what I am trying to say is yes this is good what we are doing but we do have outside sources interfering with what we think is right.
I'm having a hard time following the metacognitive thinking going on. My initial reaction is that the way that readers process print at an early age is not the same as that of an older reader. Thinking on a developmental level, more mature children process differently than the younger, inexperienced students. The 'in the head' thinking that good readers do can be taught as a useful strategy. Why would some readers find the task so difficult and others so simple? Many demands on the mechanics of reading can interfere with being successful and able to decode/read the text. I need to do more thinking about this and blog again. Are my cognitive abilities as sharp at 11:50pm to even attempt this comment?
Those little guys trying to read the print in front of them are working hard on the decoding. That is the main focus for them right now. Like the fingers that have to touch the keys for the beginner pianist. There is a great deal of thought going into when to strike the key and which way do I go now?? Left or Right??? As that gets easier, the fingers move, even flow form key to key. Couldn't each level reader's brain work, just as hard, with a different focus?
I love that hockey mom Sarah Palin, made it into our BLOG!!!
Winky-winky!
I know a very old senior citizen who reads voraciously. He would have been a client in Angela’s class (he admits he’s not the brightest bulb on the chandelier) because to this day he reads haltingly & out loud. I am certain he does not understand “the author’s big idea.”
I also know a young woman who reads voraciously. She can complete a “Harry Potter” book in 24 hours and retell, in detail, everything about the book, main idea, etc.
The only things these two individuals have in common are 1) both like to read and are human beings, 2) they’re lefties and related.
They do not process print in a like manner. “Variety is the spice of life” for every action and person.
I HAVE A CONNECTION!!! When I was participating in a graduate class at Rivier, the instructor commented that “everyone has some kind of learning disability. It is how we compensate for it that makes the difference.” I believe this is true even in reading.
I have to make a comment about Linda V.'s on how we all have a disability, the difference is how we compensate for it. Oh, that rings true...I think I am a candidate. When it concerns childrenm sometimes they have too many disabilities, they just can't compensate because of the sheer number of difficulties. I also worry about children that may not be 'at risk' students, but are labelled because of youngnesses, behavior problems inexperience and English Language Learners.
This is proving to be an interesting discussion. On the one hand, I agree with the quote. Readers need to have strategies available to decode text and make meaning. Proficient readers will choose the most efficient way to make meaning from text. On the other hand, when it comes to young readers, reading is developmental. They are introduced to decoding strategies and reading aloud provides a means for understanding. The skills build on one another. As the readers build their knowledge of reading strategies, they begin to efficiently decode text and use the seven comprehension strategies to understand it. We tend to use those strategies that work the best for us. In addition, the more experiences wh have in our life, the more connections we can make to text. Learning disabled students can and do become readers. However, a one size fits all approach to reading instruction does not fit everyone. I strive to find the best approach to meet their individual reading needs and work on the identified skill areas requiring improvement. Once the students see themselves as "real readers" the joy of understanding is evident in their eagerness to read and comprehend. Readers do use the same strategies to comprehend from text all of their lives. It is a constant spiral of strategies to understand text.
This quotation has given me a headache over the last several days. It has me flip flopping on the way I want to answer the question with either an agree or disagree... I guess I wouldn't be any good on a jury! On the agreeing side- it does seem evident that the process would be similar as we develop as readers- picture clues, decoding, stringing words together, becoming more fluent, and moving on to more involved text...
Conversely- on the disagreeing side- those little primary kids are just beginning trying to remember which letters make which sounds, putting these strange symbols and sounds together and coming up with something that we can put together and understand- what a monumental task for them (and their teachers) it seems to me that the begginng stages present much more of a struggle in a beginning readers life. As time goes on we practice it and hone the skills and look for more involved text. As time goes on we practice and get better, but is the process as much of a struggle than those first few steps? Perhaps this would be a great debate question among the reading "experts" to hash out??? As for me , the jury is still out!
Through my own experiences teaching readiness then 5th grade, I realize how our students are more the same than different. In Reader's Workshop different ability readers are employing their "cognitive actions" to a variety of texts in one classroom. Together we work with the strategies,and all of the students employ them to whatever they are reading.That is why choice of reading material is so important. It isn't so much that the students cannot apply "cognitive actions" but their motivation to do so. To motivate readers, the joy needs to be instilled by parents and if not them, by teachers. No one is going to choose to read unless there is a payoff. . .some sort of success or enjoyment. Modeling and choice again are key.Like building a puzzle, studying the picture on the box makes it so much easier and is motivation to figure out where the pieces fit. While teaching, all the decoding tools in the world will not instill the joy of reading if it still doesn't make sense in a big picture kind of way. And if it doesn't make sense, then why do it.This is not to say that phonics instruction is not part of the puzzle.You can't have a puzzle without the pieces so ALL of it is important. How we structure and balance our approach is crucial. If kids don't see the big picture, then we are missing the point. Coming at reading from both angles makes for a deeper and hopefully lasting love of reading. If we as teachers make more of our thinking visible, showing our "cognitive actions" won't readers model us and become the real readers we want?
Well, here goes my third attempt at putting my thoughts on this issue into print. Each time I begin to answer I stop and put it off until I've thought about it some more. I guess my reaction to this quote depends upon how I define "reading." I keep thinking back to an idea I heard somewhere in my past, probably graduate school. When you ask a parent when their child first began to talk, they usually report when their child uttered their very first real words. Same for when they first learned to walk. Parents or caregivers don't usually report when the child could successfully walk up and down stairs independently but rather when they took their very first steps. This relates to my blog about what is reading and I believe reading is thinking and making connections. Although most parents wouldn't say their 2 year old began to read when they first pulled into the drive-thru and the child exclaimed "McDonald's," but isn't that child "reading" the environmental print and making a connection or association? Isn't this a building block to reading just as the first time a baby pulls herself up from the floor and begins to "walk" while holding on to the furniture, is a building block to walking? With time and practice we start to become more proficient walkers, talkers, and readers. Yet we don't put such pressure on children to walk and talk proficiently by a certain age like we do for young children to become more proficient readers. Maybe the "struggling" readers are feeling the pressure that society puts on them to "start reading" and the joy of self-discovery is being taken way from them. I felt this pressure last year with my youngest child. Even though I knew better (being an early childhood educator for many years and a Title I reading teacher), I felt disappointed and even sad when my own child was identified as qualifying for Title I support. What had I done wrong? My middle daughter needed this support as well but she had a very difficult birth experience and had already overcome a speech and language delay, so I chalked that up to a medical reason. Did I not spend as much time with Brighid since she was my fourth child? Of course I know in my heart that wasn't the case but I still felt pressure and guilt. I began trying to push Brighid harder and "instruct" her. The more I did this, the more she resisted. Finally, I trusted my instincts and just backed off. I realized I was pushing her away. She wanted her bedtime stories and reading times to be spent enjoying the stories together. She just wanted me to read them to her and not have to answer my questions about it or be pressured into reading to me. Eventually, on HER own time, not mine, she slowly wanted to begin reading to me. One year later in second grade, her teacher tells me she is in the "highest reading group" and doing great.
This leads me back to the quote. I guess decoding is considered to be a "cognitive action," yet the 2 year old in the back of the car is not decoding when he recognizes the golden arches. He is, I believe however, thinking and making a connection and this eventually leads to learning decoding strategies and recognizing other words that begin with an /m/ sound and so forth. I don't think ALL cognitive actions are present all at once. I think children discover them as they construct knowledge and this is more meaningful than another person forcing them upon a learner. Just as a baby needs time getting used to scooting along the furniture before we take away the baby gate near the stairs, kids need TIME to process print at their level before we pressure them to move on to harder text.
Ilove reading your blogs, Karen. Much to think about. It's evident that you have done lots of CLEAR thinking. Just before I read your blog, I had a small epiphany. Not knowing what type of sequence this new way of thinking and teaching reading, I felt that I'm transferring my disjointed thoughts to my children. How important it is to see/understand the sequence prior to attempting these lessons. Having a direction, building on prior knowledge...oh, that schema word, is what I need to relay the message to my children. I've tried to hurry the process, and probably haven't given the lessons their due. I am going back to schema and text-to-self before I forge on with creating mental images and questioning. My anxiousness at 'not keeping up with the group' has lead to some inaccurate thinking. I'm feeling a bit better now. Thanks go out to my first grade co-workers, Kellie and Sheila. Thanks also to Karen C., Eileen and Carrie. We're on our way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the interim of reading/writing the blogs, I came across Kerrie's. We must have been blogging at the same time...Love your connections with your Brighid. It's true you can't push when a child is not ready. It's true about reading and so many of life's learnings. The thought continues, would our children (some 15-20 years ago) have prospered under this 'reading with meaning' thinking? My son could have.
HI again,
I am just wondering how we relate the cognitive processing.....being the same or different.....when it comes to other aspects of school....what about Math? In math, we constantly try and have the children question, (problem solving), connections, (patterns in number sense), create mental images, (geometry)....I am just hopeful that the more we work on the strategies of metacognition in reading, it might carry over into the other subjects---
On another note.....we talk about our children needing to do things on their own time.....can we please allow ourselves that as well---? After all we are learners, too.
I know from my own experience as a child I don't ever recall having any phonics. For those who remember Joy Faulkingham, a former Title I director, she claimed that there was a period of whole word teaching. My first experience with phonics was in college with a professor who gave us phonetic passages to translate and English paragraghs to write phoneticly. I felt that I'd been thrown into a foreign language class that made no sense. I think about this as I see kids struggle with the sounds and rules that only made sense to me once I started teaching it. I guess this has been a long way of saying that we may all start off differently, using our strengths and weaknesses to get us where we need to be in order to read for meaning. Once we become fluent, again the process of how much thought and effort we make to uncover the depth of the author's meaning or knowledge will differ with each individuals background. I like Karen's thinking about the motivation for reading. How quickly will children learn to read a menu, identify a sign, or read the directions of a new game. How many of us were inspired in literature classes by professors who brought new meaning to text. A variety of rich literature is crucial to keep all our readers interested and growing.
Well, I'd have to say I agree with this comment. As with anything, a sport, learning to walk, ride a bike, cook, you name it, we have to learn the basics and them keep applying them and practicing and we will get better, faster, stronger. Kind of like superman! I think the difference between readers as they get older is that they are better at the basics (phonetics, etc) and can move on to a new level of reading. I know that first graders can be taught to think about their reading, but it does evolve as the student get older, just as your schema gets larger. But I do want to note that even as we get to be better readers, we still have to go back to the basics when we see a new word and have to decode it or find it's meaning. That's why every part is so important.
I agreed with this statement right away,but I kept getting stuck on the words "print" and "text". I wanted to be clear in my mind - to distinguish my comments from any beliefs I have about children's first connections to interpreting pictures or symbols, because to me, that's where reading really begins.
We know that everyone's learning styles differ, so as teachers, don't we try to give students a variety of strategies to use when learning to read print? Many of these strategies are "mechanical" and some are intrinsic. The intangible ones (motivational) are the ones that keep the reader moving forward. It's my hope (and goal) that children will use a combination of these methods to read, no matter what age or reading level. When observing Sara's class, I saw the same questioning strategies I've introduced to my 1st graders, but the 3rd graders were applying them in a more complex manner. And when my class shared wordless books with their 5th grade buddies, the 1st and 5th grade interpretations of the same stories were similar, but the 5th graders inferentces were deeper. As readers continue to add to their "toolbox", they have more alternatives at their fingertips when solving and comprehending text.When they become more adept at using these tools, they then apply them to ever-increasing levels of text. They are the same tools, just used with greater familiarity and skill.
Faith, I thought of the same thing you did (yeah, a text to world connection), both with the neurological make up of our brains and the ability to learn, as well as, the connection to mathematics and other disciplines. I kept thinking in my mind the quote I used to hear in Bedford, “trust in the spiral” as it related to EDM. I know that as we teach the reading ideals, we will continue to revisit them again and again, spiraling, and creating continuity. In addition, our students will continue to build on the skills they learned in first, second and so on to help provide a solid framework for understanding not only what they are reading, but reading itself.
As far as the quote, I find truth in it. I know that what I taught last year has helped my students construct meaning this year. Although all my students’ abilities were different, I modeled and practiced these reading strategies (mechanical and comprehension). Some students used pictures to create meaning, some used both the decoded words and pictures, and some used only words because they were already reading chapter books, but they all READING. So yes, I do believe that students can use the same concept and continuously use it throughout the grade levels to become enhanced readers.
I purposefully first looked at this quote, took it in, read some of the other posts and then let it sit for a few hours before responding to it. I did this because I think there is a lot that is packed within these few sentences and what it means for readers across grade and skill levels. After really thinking about it I would have to say that I do agree with the statement, but I definitely need to clarify much in regards to this.
I think that initially in the younger grades there is a lot that needs to be established in terms of learning phonics and having a strong sense of phonemic awareness before the deeper critical thinking skills can be fostered and developed more deeply as useful strategies. However, while phonics and phonemic awareness are being developed along with other initial and essential strategies like: holding the book upright and reading from left to right… these deeper level thinking strategies are (and can be) already being utilized on a simpler level. Students are (and can be) wondering what the pictures mean, curious and guessing what the story will be about, reading pictures and making inferences, determining whether they like a book or not, etc. These are the exact strategies that as they become older and more skilled with their reading they will be able to employ more successfully with increasingly more difficult text, all while still using some of the more basic strategies (phonics and phonemic awareness) that they have learned from their earliest days which by then have become intrinsic… especially when coming to challenging and new words.
However, with all of this said, I do have to completely agree with Karen’s response in terms that these pieces do not mean much if there is no motivation and enjoyment of reading. Students need to want to be invested in their reading in order for these strategies to have meaning and be truly successful…I agree with the analogy, it is very much like a puzzle where all of the pieces have to be there and fit nicely together in order to be significant. Choice, motivation, investment and a tool box of strategies…all the important aspects that need to be fostered and taught from the earliest levels and continued on.
Post a Comment