Into, Through, but Not Beyond
English-language arts teachers and reading experts certainly agree that pre-teaching a reading selection is an essential component of good reading instruction. To help students get into a text, teachers may need to pre-teach some vocabulary, establish a context for the reading, explain the genre, and introduce the author to facilitate optimal comprehension. Additionally, teachers need to assist students in reading “between the lines” to ensure that students understand the reading as the author intended. Help through the text can include teaching vocabulary, pointing out literary devices, explaining literary references, and interpreting difficult passages.
However, at the beyond stage many English-language arts teachers and reading experts will part ways. Constructivists will argue that unless the reading is made personally relevant through various instructional means such as KWLs, dialectical journals, and reflective writing responses, the reading is essentially meaning-less. Comprehension is defined as meaning-making.
A brief example may be helpful. In a freshman English-language arts course, a constructivist teacher limits the through instruction to get to the meat of the instruction, that is, the beyond activities, with this discussion prompt: “When Shakespeare says, “To be, or not to be: that is the question” he argues that finding meaning in one’s existence should be the driving force behind all decision-making. It is only in the process of questioning one’s very own existence can one rise above the pedantic necessities of life and be self-actualized as true human being.” Students then complete “Agree or Disagree” quick writes to be followed by heterogeneously mixed groups (by reading ability, learning style, multiple intelligences, etc.) to share and process the responses. Risk-taking teachers might even bring up the “Is suicide ever a morally justified option?” angle. The culminating project would involve creating individual epitaphs on the purpose of life etched into artsy clay tombstones, which may or may not (individual student choice) be displayed at Open House.
Others would disagree with this approach. These non-constructivist, literature-based English-language arts teachers would focus (not limit) the reading experience to what the author says and means in the context of his or her own writing. Personal relevance is deemed to be superfluous or, at least secondary to understanding what and the character means and why the character says it. Thus, the personal connection to reader is minimized. Group discussion and writing responses would focus on the text and not the application beyond the confines of the text.
In the same freshman course described above, a non-constructivist, literature-based teacher begins the into activities with a class discussion. They work through Shakespeare’s word choice (the infinitive “to + the base form of the verb” as a repetitive and ongoing action that can express a generalization), ask for a summary of events that led up to this soliloquy, ask students to interpret Hamlet’s words in light of the plot, predict how this crisis of thought may affect the next or ultimate plot event(s), etc. Students then add the “To be…” quotable quote to their character development charts as evidence that Hamlet serves as a dynamic character. Students finally compose a response-to-literature essay to this prompt: “If Shakespeare ended the play Hamlet at this point, would Prince Hamlet truly be considered a tragic character? Cite textual evidence from Acts I, II, and III to justify your point of view.”
Clearly, both lessons would be engaging and promote critical thinking. The constructivist approach is using the text to teach content. The non-constructivist, literature-based approach is to teach the text as the author intended. The former focuses on the beyond application of the text. The latter focuses on the through approach and minimizes the beyond. This is not to say that the non-constructivist, literature-based approach would not bring in outside source material or compare different texts to enhance comprehension.
My view is that English-language arts teachers have moved more toward the constructivist approach over the last dozen or so years. As an MA reading specialist, I tend to believe that letting the literature speak its own voice to students will accomplish the ends of content and process acquisition better than imposing content on the text. The constructivist approach is essentially isogesis-reading something into the text that is not there. The non-constructivist, literature-based approach is accountable to the rules of exegesis-how to properly derive meaning out of the text itself. And I personally think that Shakespeare would prefer his readers to follow the latter approach.
Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use. Get multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, formative assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games. Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Perfect for ESL and Special Education students, who struggle with language/auditory processing challenges. Simple directions and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program, with or without paraprofessional assistance. 364 pages
