This week I read Children's Literature for Reading Strategy Instruction: Innovation or Interference? by Patricia M. Cooper from Language Arts. Cooper argues that teaching reading comprehension strategies in kindergarten and first grade may not be the useful practice we think it is. She explains that "readers operate from self-interest" and so the most important thing to get young children to engage with a book is that it is one in which they are genuinely interested. At this point, I don't think Cooper ruffles many feathers. Personally, I remember falling in love with A Wrinkle in Time because I loved the idea of time-traveling, not because it's a great example of a character's conflict with their surroundings or because I could make a text-to-self connection about having a strange family.
Where I think Cooper might cause eyebrows to raise is when she says "The use of imaginative children's literature for overt reading strategy instruction is counterproductive in the pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grades." Cooper explains that she believes "the untaught story-or a story for story's sake" is not used in today's classrooms because there is not research documenting the benefits of such an activity. Schools, she says, have become so focused on teaching strategies and being able to measure student progress that things like imagination are being overlooked. Our current reading-strategy-focused system is flawed for two main reasons according to Cooper. First, young children need the opportunity to read and be read to just to use their imaginations. By being exposed to new ideas, characters, and places, students learn how the world might work outside their limited experiences so far. Second, Cooper does not believe that kindergartners and first graders are developmentally ready to get much out of the reading strategies they are being taught, particularly meta-cognitive reflections. So, is the untaught story a better model for literacy in K and 1 classrooms?
Cooper explains that "The untaught story plays a distinct and essential role in fostering young children's psychological relationship to and need for story-based children's literature, an essential first step in early of emerging literacy development." Using children's literature to teach reading comprehension strategies, Cooper argues, teaches children that there are right answers to enjoying a story. She uses the common classroom activity of predicting a story based on the book's cover. Because a teacher is usually hoping students will notice certain elements, children might get the idea that there are correct and incorrect connections to make to a story. Cooper puts it this way, "Innocuous as the prediction strategy seems, in reality it reflects a problem common to many reading strategies for young children: it engenders an uncertain sense of success." In my limited classroom experience, I think a good teacher can introduce or model reading strategies without taking away from a child's enjoyment of the story, but I think that depends on the teacher remembering that each student comes to a story with different background and developmental abilities.
Beyond potentially inhibiting imaginative development, Cooper worries that students are simply not developmentally ready to think about what they are thinking. She says about young children "How their thought processes work requires a level of cognitive sophistication that is only beginning to emerge by the end of first grade or so, and is so inexact as to be of very litter practical use to young children." I agree with Cooper that certain activities designed to strengthen reading comprehension are not appropriate for young students. For instance, it is unrealistic to expect a kindergartner to fit their feelings about a story onto a Post-it note. They probably haven't had enough experience writing to ensure that they will have enough space on that small square to express themselves fully. I think the answer here, though, is not to not teach reading comprehension strategies, but to modify them to fit the needs of the students.
Cooper believe that "The true contribution of story to the early childhood classroom is its power to teach young children, not to comprehend or even decode, but to imagine alternatives to the way things are." I do not disagree with her. I think the ultimate purpose of using great children's literature in the classroom is to show students all the wonderful stories in which they can lose themselves. I don't think, though, that reading comprehension as it currently being taught has no place in K and 1 classrooms. In many ways, learning to be aware of the connections they make as they read, can encourage students to read more. It is always vital, in reading comprehension or any other classroom activity, to think about what the students are getting out of it. No one benefits from just teaching a lesson because it is on a list somewhere.
Cooper, P. (2009). Children's Literature for Reading Strategy Instruction: Innovation or Interference? Language Arts, Vol. 86 (No. 3), pp.178-187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483524
Where I think Cooper might cause eyebrows to raise is when she says "The use of imaginative children's literature for overt reading strategy instruction is counterproductive in the pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grades." Cooper explains that she believes "the untaught story-or a story for story's sake" is not used in today's classrooms because there is not research documenting the benefits of such an activity. Schools, she says, have become so focused on teaching strategies and being able to measure student progress that things like imagination are being overlooked. Our current reading-strategy-focused system is flawed for two main reasons according to Cooper. First, young children need the opportunity to read and be read to just to use their imaginations. By being exposed to new ideas, characters, and places, students learn how the world might work outside their limited experiences so far. Second, Cooper does not believe that kindergartners and first graders are developmentally ready to get much out of the reading strategies they are being taught, particularly meta-cognitive reflections. So, is the untaught story a better model for literacy in K and 1 classrooms?
Cooper explains that "The untaught story plays a distinct and essential role in fostering young children's psychological relationship to and need for story-based children's literature, an essential first step in early of emerging literacy development." Using children's literature to teach reading comprehension strategies, Cooper argues, teaches children that there are right answers to enjoying a story. She uses the common classroom activity of predicting a story based on the book's cover. Because a teacher is usually hoping students will notice certain elements, children might get the idea that there are correct and incorrect connections to make to a story. Cooper puts it this way, "Innocuous as the prediction strategy seems, in reality it reflects a problem common to many reading strategies for young children: it engenders an uncertain sense of success." In my limited classroom experience, I think a good teacher can introduce or model reading strategies without taking away from a child's enjoyment of the story, but I think that depends on the teacher remembering that each student comes to a story with different background and developmental abilities.
Beyond potentially inhibiting imaginative development, Cooper worries that students are simply not developmentally ready to think about what they are thinking. She says about young children "How their thought processes work requires a level of cognitive sophistication that is only beginning to emerge by the end of first grade or so, and is so inexact as to be of very litter practical use to young children." I agree with Cooper that certain activities designed to strengthen reading comprehension are not appropriate for young students. For instance, it is unrealistic to expect a kindergartner to fit their feelings about a story onto a Post-it note. They probably haven't had enough experience writing to ensure that they will have enough space on that small square to express themselves fully. I think the answer here, though, is not to not teach reading comprehension strategies, but to modify them to fit the needs of the students.
Cooper believe that "The true contribution of story to the early childhood classroom is its power to teach young children, not to comprehend or even decode, but to imagine alternatives to the way things are." I do not disagree with her. I think the ultimate purpose of using great children's literature in the classroom is to show students all the wonderful stories in which they can lose themselves. I don't think, though, that reading comprehension as it currently being taught has no place in K and 1 classrooms. In many ways, learning to be aware of the connections they make as they read, can encourage students to read more. It is always vital, in reading comprehension or any other classroom activity, to think about what the students are getting out of it. No one benefits from just teaching a lesson because it is on a list somewhere.
Cooper, P. (2009). Children's Literature for Reading Strategy Instruction: Innovation or Interference? Language Arts, Vol. 86 (No. 3), pp.178-187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483524
No comments:
Post a Comment