Teaching Disciplinary Texts

Synthesis:

Jetton and Shanahan
In this chapter, the authors discussed effective ways of teaching text in English/Language Arts.  The chapter began by showing how one teacher led her class through a study of Of Mice and Men.  To an outsider, Mrs. Smith's approach to teaching the text seems like a good one.  When we look closer, though, we discover that teaching English/Language Arts is far more complicated than it seems.  In response to such a complex subject area, teachers must learn to use various types of lessons and allow different types of responses so that all adolescent learners can appropriately respond to texts.  English teachers must also work to keep their students motivated and engaged while providing a purpose for reading and writing.  The importance of connecting texts to students' lives and other curriculum areas cannot be understated.

Because teaching English language arts can be so complicated, Jetton and Shanahan gave some practical suggestions for teachers to follow, both for reading and for writing/composing in the classroom.  Before reading, teachers should present themes for students to consider.  This allows students to establish a purpose for reading and to connect with the text in a more thought-provoking way as they are reading it.  After reading, students must be asked to respond to the text in a meaningful way.  Usually, "meaningful" does not include a test, and it often does not include an essay in the sense that Mrs. Smith requested essays for her class.  Students are now surrounded by different types of text and media; thus, these elements should be included in a summative assessment upon conclusion of the reading.  The authors also suggested including more young adult literature into the classroom.  In some cases, a set curriculum or canon of literature is required.  In these classrooms, teachers must work especially hard to make the readings meaningful and connect them to other literature or life experiences.  As in many of the other chapters we have read, the authors suggest moving forward by using technology and by modeling and explicitly teaching reading and writing strategies.

Hinchman and Sheridan-Thomas
Chapter 10 of this book focused on reading and writing across multiple texts.  It began by giving reasons for writing and reading across multiple texts.  In sum, "discipline experts all read and write multiple texts" (p.171), so we should teach adolescents to do the same.  Unfortunately, adolescents often do not know how to navigate the wide variety of information that is available to them.  They cannot determine which sources are credible and which are not.  They also have trouble doing formal writing activities, despite the many informal writing activities that they engage in every day.  The authors discussed three processes that can help readers across multiple texts: sourcing, contextualization, and corroboration.  All three of these processes help students evaluate the credibility of the texts they are reading.  In this chapter, the authors also suggested presenting multiple texts on the same topic to students.  No more than three texts should be used, and the first text should primarily be used as an introduction to build background knowledge.  Though mathematicians do not value sourcing and contextualization very highly, they do read critically.  Historians engage in all three of the processes mentioned, while scientists focus on learning unknown information first and then engaging in one or all of the processes.

Chapter 12 talked about reading challenging texts.  Similar to other texts we have read, this text highlights the value of choice in reading and writing.  Motivation does matter.  Texts must be embedded in social networks, since these are very important to adolescents.  The chapter then moved from discussing motivation through close reading to talking about the types of knowledge and skill needed for meaningful reading.  These included: semantic knowledge, mathematical knowledge, historical knowledge, geographic knowledge, discursive knowledge, and pragmatic knowledge.  The authors concluded the chapter by giving teachers practical ways to make close reading meaningful to students.  Some of the suggestions that stood out to me were modeling (again!), asking students questions and allowing them to process their answers out loud, and building knowledge as a group.  Students also need to be reminded of why disciplinary texts are important to them in their everyday lives.

Responses:

Text-to-text
Every week, I am amazed by how much the authors all talk about motivation.  It seems like motivation and engagement are mentioned in every chapter we read.  Apparently, these really are issues at the heart of teaching adolescent literacy.  We must make an effort to connect to our students on a personal level and through literature.  Most of the authors discuss modeling, as well.  We cannot expect our students to become expert readers if we are not actually showing and directly teaching them how to do it.

Text-to-self
When I first started reading about Mrs. Smith's approach to teaching Of Mice and Men, I thought she was doing a great job.  After all, this is the way I grew up reading and responding to literature when I was in school.  I do consider myself to be a strong reader and writer, but, looking back now, I don't think that all of that can be attributed to my teachers' instruction.  I think that sometimes I just "got it," and this is not the case for many students.  Because so many different types of technology, texts, and resources are now available to everyone, I need to make an effort to incorporate those into my classroom instead of assuming that all students learn the way I do.

Text-to-world
By teaching students to read disciplinary texts more effectively, we will have a much more knowledgeable and interested society.  I'm trying to imagine a world in which no one read critically or asked questions of the text.  (Isn't this often how our classrooms look?)  This world makes me think of The Giver, in which no one had an opinion about anything or felt anything because the information was controlled, and no one ever asked any questions.  If students can learn to evaluate texts and judge whether or not they are credible, we will be producing a more forward-thinking, informed society.  I think that people have a tendency to just believe things because they have read them, which can obviously be dangerous.

Questions:

1.  Do you use "choice boards" in your classroom to allow students to respond to texts in different ways?  If so, how do these work, or could you give an example of one that you have used?

2.  Are there ever instances in which math texts should be judged for their credibility, even when they present the correct answers to a problem?  We read that mathematicians do not concern themselves much with sourcing, corroboration, and contextualization, but I can't help but think that sometimes these things would be necessary.