A Framework and Definitions- The Big Picture Approach
Chapter two of Reading for Understanding uses the results of educational research to show how and why the authors built their Academic Literacy course the way that they did. They created this course based on the following assumptions about reading:
- · Reading is not just a basic skill
- Reading is a complex process
- Reading is problem-solving
- Fluent reading is not the same as decoding
- Reading is situationally bounded
- Proficient readers share some key characteristics
The authors cite Vygotsky’s socially mediated theory of cognitive development as the reason for their apprenticeship model. A social-cognitive view of learning involves a knowledgeable person who models and scaffolds the development of the desired skills until they have been internalized by the students. This approach is mirrored in Gee’s Discourse theory, which also required an apprenticeship model with plenty of scaffolding for Discourse fluency (Gee, 1989) . The goal of the authors is to help students become confident and competent readers, which they believe can be achieved through an apprenticeship model.
This kind of an approach clearly defines the differences between learning to read and reading to learn. To them, learning to read is decoding of words on the page. The students in this program had been successful at that goal. They had no problems with decoding. What they were lacking were the skills to read to learn. There are so many other things involved in this process. Students need to understand the purpose and structure of particular types of writing. They need to have sufficient background knowledge to be able to make connections to new information. They also need to be able to identify and extract important information from a dense or difficult text. To be successful, these skills and strategies require critical and strategic thinking. This is not something that can be transmitted to students through a traditional teaching model. It needs an interactive and immersive classroom environment that encompasses all dimensions of classroom life, or in other words, an apprenticeship.
The next part of the chapter defines and discusses the dimensions of classroom life that the authors deem essential to supporting apprenticeship.
The figure is the graphical depiction of their dimensional model. At the center of all of the dimensions is the metacognitive conversation. This is required for students to connect their personal experiences to each of the classroom dimensions, and to teach them to think about and evaluate the processes that they use in reading. This metacognitive conversation touches each of the dimensions identified by the authors, the social dimension, the personal dimension, the cognitive dimension, and the knowledge-building dimension. True fluency in academic literacy is not possible unless the instructional approach includes each of these dimensions. If we accept the initial assumption of reading as a complex process, we can see how any approach to fluency would need to be complex as well.
Chapter two concludes the first section of the book. In the second section, they delve into the details of their academic literacy apprenticeship program. Each chapter highlights one of the dimensions, defines it in more detail, and includes strategies and activities for increasing literacy in each of these dimensions. Then they talk about how to embed these strategies into subject area classrooms, in case you don’t have the luxury of an entire class devoted to this subject. The third section goes beyond the classroom, using these strategies for both professional development and for school-wide initiatives.
References
Gee, J. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 5-17.
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide for improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
It is interesting to see that the authors used educational research to build their literacy course. I wonder how many educators use research to create their literacy course versus practice, learned techniques, etc. What is your take on this? What methods would you use to create a literacy course? The assumptions that they use are making the course inclusive in my opinion. I am curious about how they use the assumption that reading is problem solving. Are there any assumptions you think are missing from their list? I agree the social-cognitive view sounds very similar to Gee. Is the apprenticeship model done in classrooms, small groups, or individually? With the goal being for students to become confident and competent, are the parameters for success based on level of reading or something else? With your statement that students need to understand particular types of writing, what types of writing does the text go over? With the students needing to have sufficient background knowledge to move forward reminds me of scaffolding. To take in new information, they have to use the information they have just learned. Many studies also show that students gain more from an interactive and immersive classroom experience and the effects from this type of classroom are longer lasting than a traditional classroom. I am excited for the next chapter because to see what is essential will give me better perspective and a better view of the classroom experience they are creating. I was seeing Gee's "Mushfake" Discourse present in the statement that "true fluency in academic literacy is not possible unless the instructional approach includes each of these dimensions." If a student is able to grasp only some of the dimensions then they may fall into this Discourse. I look forward to reading more of your blog postings!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I agree wholeheartedly that this program as described would be a great guide for a CNM course on academic reading.
ReplyDelete