Kelly Gallagher makes a lot of valid points about not "over-teaching" or "under-teaching" a novel and about fostering a life-long love of reading. I didn't find anything new, however, in his suggestions except for new names for old strategies. Students training to be teachers learn these basic expectations.
My student teachers are evaluated by their supervisors on "finding the sweet spot," although that is not the term the supervisors may use. They are expected to "frame" the reading (also known as providing background knowledge, the anticipatory set, etc.), setting the stage for the topics that will be discussed and tapping in to student's existing knowledge of a topic or issue. They are expected to understand the concept of providing the right amount of guidance, leading students from their current plane of understanding to a slightly higher one (aka scaffolding). They are expected to lead students through the process of analysis through such tools as "big chunk, little chunk" and 2nd and 3rd draft readings (aka close readings). Finally, Gallagher discusses sharing his final exam question with the class so that they have an understanding of their ultimate goal. Student teachers are taught to do even more than provide one question, but rather to plan their curriculum units around big understandings and essential questions, of which the students are apprised repeatedly throughout their learning experience. It is clear that Gallagher is a good teacher; he is doing what most good English teachers across the country are doing, he just has new names for old tricks.
He is correct that teachers can get sucked into guiding the students through the entire novel, never allowing them to read for themselves. It is vital to model the process, allow time for both group and individual practice, and most importantly, allow students to do it themselves. I also agree that students need to be allowed to make their own reading choices-to an extent. I remember my high school English teacher saying: "There is so much good literature out there, why waste time reading anything else?" Our students will read what we provide for them and there is a plethora of interesting reading material out there that is also considered "good literature." I think it is important to moniter their reading just as we moniter films: nothing above an R rating- for sure.
Further, Gallagher cites Scieska, who states that we should expand reading choices: non fiction, graphic novels, magazines, etc. Colleges and University Professors have been begging for students to be more proficient at reading non-fiction. Let's provide more biographies (perhaps of Michael Phelps as suggested in a previous blog:)), histories , and the like. A few of my seminar kids picked out my personal copies of Lord of the Flies (which had slipped into the SSR crate) because they had heard about it from kids in the CP class and they wanted to see what it was all about; they wanted to challenge themselves and "try on" a "CP" book. One of those kids enrolled in CP English next year, not because of that novel, but because she wants to challenge herself and she has gained confidence in her abilities.
No matter if you are an English teacher or an art teacher, we all must support, encourage, and teach reading (and writing- but maybe we'll tackle that next year:)) across the curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment