澳门跑狗论坛

Sparked by the Common Core State Standards, teachers and literacy experts are arguing about the role of a time-honored pillar of English/language arts instruction: classroom activities designed to help students understand what they are about to read.

The attacks on鈥攁nd defenses of鈥�"prereading鈥� are unfolding largely in cyberspace, through online forums, blogs, and email exchanges. What鈥檚 triggering them is educators鈥� reactions to the new standards and two key explanatory resources created by their architects: a set of 鈥減ublishers鈥� criteria鈥� and videotaped sample lessons.

That trio has created an impression in some quarters that the intent of the standards is to 鈥渂an"鈥攊n the words of one blogger鈥攑rereading and instead ask students to approach texts 鈥渃old,鈥� with no upfront assistance. That would represent a sharp turnabout from current practice.

Even as the standards鈥� authors insist that their aim is not to abolish prereading, but to curtail and revamp it, the debates persist, pitting schools of thought on reading instruction against one another. Teachers are asking themselves how to honor the heart of the practice, which is intended to help all students access text from a level playing field, but also to learn from its mistakes.

The debates, some in the field say, open the door to a broad-based re-examination of how to approach reading instruction.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 being played out in front of us is a war for the soul of English/language arts,鈥� said Alan L. Sitomer, a Los Angeles high school teacher who was California鈥檚 teacher of the year in 2007.

Interpreting the Standards

If the debates over prereading are a war, one of the battlegrounds has been the standards themselves, with critics claiming that they eliminate prereading.

But defenders of the standards argue that they do no such thing. The documents call for students to be able to read 鈥渋ndependently鈥� and 鈥減roficiently,鈥� without 鈥渟ignificant scaffolding"鈥攊nstructional supports鈥攂y teachers. The standards also note that students may have added need for teacher assistance when wrestling with material above their reading level.

鈥淚f someone is reading that as eliminating prereading activities, they鈥檙e reading it incorrectly,鈥� said Kelly Gallagher, an Anaheim, Calif., high school English/language arts teacher and the author of Readicide and other popular books about adolescent literacy. 鈥淏ut once you get into the publishers鈥� criteria,鈥� he said, 鈥渋t gets murkier.鈥�

Written by the two lead writers of the English/language arts common standards, David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, those criteria were designed as guidelines for the development of curricular materials that embody the standards.

But the criteria also include instructional strategies, and that inclusion has prompted many educators to accuse the writers of violating a promise made in the introduction to the standards: They 鈥渄efine what all students are expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach.鈥�

鈥淲hat鈥檚 in the publishers鈥� criteria is at odds with the 鈥榙efining the what and not the how,鈥� 鈥� Mr. Sitomer said. 鈥淚 am a big, big fan of the standards. But when the authors of the 鈥榳hat鈥� wade into the 鈥榟ow,鈥� it carries an awful lot of weight, and this is baggage that the movement doesn鈥檛 need.鈥�

鈥淭here鈥檚 a disconnect between the standards and what the publishers鈥� criteria say about prereading,鈥� said P. David Pearson, a professor of language and literacy at the University of California, Berkeley鈥檚 Graduate School of Education.

Publishers鈥� Criteria

The parts of the publishers鈥� criteria that have many teachers up in arms advise that 鈥渢ext should be central鈥� in instruction, 鈥渁nd surrounding materials should be included only when necessary, so as not to distract from the text itself.鈥� Publishers, the criteria for grades 3-12 say, 鈥渟hould be extremely sparing in offering activities that are not text-based.鈥� When 鈥減roductive struggle with the text is exhausted, questions rather than explanations can help focus the student鈥檚 attention鈥� on facets of the text that can aid in comprehension, they say.

鈥淚鈥檓 concerned that some teachers may read this and think, 鈥極oh, I shouldn鈥檛 do any prereading activity with my kids,鈥� 鈥� said Mr. Gallagher. 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 an incorrect reading. And it鈥檚 not in our kids鈥� best interest.鈥�

Mr. Coleman points out that the criteria specifically allow for scaffolding. But it鈥檚 scaffolding that 鈥渆nables all students to experience the complexity of the text, rather than avoid it,鈥� he said.

Such strategies, he said, 鈥渟hould not pre-empt or replace the text by translating its contents for students or telling students what they are going to learn in advance of reading the text; the scaffolding should not become an alternate, simpler source of information that diminishes the need for students to read the text itself carefully.鈥�

The K-2 criteria echo those themes and allow for scaffolding 鈥渨hen necessary,鈥� 鈥減rior to and during the first read鈥� that focuses on 鈥渨ords and concepts that are essential to a basic understanding and that students are not likely to know or be able to determine from context.鈥�

No 鈥楤an鈥�

鈥淭he publishers鈥� criteria never, and very clearly don鈥檛 now, in any way abolish or ban prereading,鈥� Mr. Coleman said in an interview. 鈥淭hey are very clear that strategic uses of prereading that don鈥檛 pre-empt the text are consistent with the standards. We need to ensure that kids actually grapple with text.鈥�

He added that the criteria have been revised repeatedly, based on the input of teachers, literacy experts such as Mr. Pearson, and others. On the topic of prereading and scaffolding, the most recent version takes care to 鈥渓eave room for a wide range of instructional approaches鈥� that engage students in reading, while at the same time 鈥渟etting some basic parameters based on the standards,鈥� such as ensuring that scaffolding 鈥渄oes not pre-empt or replace the need to read the text,鈥� Mr. Coleman said in an email.

Mr. Coleman acknowledged, however, that in speaking engagements and videotaped sample common-core lessons, he might have contributed to the impression that common-core authors want to eliminate prereading.

In those settings, he has been frank and emphatic about his view that prereading activities have 鈥渟piraled out of control,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 appreciate that my words encouraged a one-sided view, and I am trying to be more careful in my public statements to take a more nuanced view,鈥� he said.

Mr. Coleman has company, though, in his view that prereading strategies need an overhaul.

鈥淲hat they are reacting to is really appropriate,鈥� said Tim Shanahan, who chairs the department of curriculum and instruction at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Education. 鈥淭here is some really bad prereading going on out there, and the field has just sat on its hands. So the notion of someone calling us on it is fair.鈥�

As part of his current research, Mr. Shanahan has been viewing scores of videotaped K-3 reading lessons, and a startling portion of them are 鈥渁trocious,鈥� he said. In one kindergarten example, the teacher spends 20 minutes preparing children for a six-minute reading.

By the time they actually read the book, 鈥渢here wasn鈥檛 a single shred of an idea in there that the kids didn鈥檛 already know,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hat they were learning was that reading [the text] wasn鈥檛 really necessary.鈥�

Nevertheless, Mr. Shanahan said, 鈥渏ust because lots of people are doing it badly doesn鈥檛 mean we shouldn鈥檛 do it at all. The question should be, how can we do prereading better?鈥�

In a blog post penned in response to the hubbub over prereading, Mr. Shanahan, who served on one of the panels that helped shape the common standards, offered six guidelines that should shape the practice, from keeping prereading brief and strategic to making sure it 鈥渞eveals instead of conceals鈥� the text.

Ignoring Research?

The debate about prereading has angered many educators who cut their teeth on the research and theory that helped forge such strategies.

鈥淭o argue that meaning resides solely in the text is antithetical to several decades of research which shows that meaning is in the interaction of reader and text,鈥� said Karen K. Wixson, a literacy expert who served with Mr. Shanahan on the writing team for the common standards and is the dean of the education school at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

In the current move to curtail prereading, Mr. Pearson hears the echoes of the 鈥渘ew criticism鈥� of the late 1920s and 1930s, which focused solely on text for meaning and helped shape literacy instruction for many years.

He also sees a reaction to multiple strands of thought that have reshaped it in recent decades: the idea that studying an author鈥檚 life is important to understanding a text; the view that 鈥渄irected reading activities,鈥� such as supplying background information or word definitions or helping students predict what might happen in a text, are key aids to comprehension; and the recognition that people learn new things best when they connect them to what they already know.

But when sound ideas wander into excess in practice, Mr. Pearson said, a backlash can鈥檛 be far behind.

鈥淚n too many classrooms, the actual text never enters the discussion,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 all about kids鈥� feelings about it, or their experiences related to it. The teacher spends 45 minutes wallowing in that space, but never gets into the information in the text.鈥�

An overreaction to weak practice, however, risks dispensing with valuable strategies, he said.

鈥淚 think they鈥檙e making too much of a fetish out of this鈥� push to curtail prereading, Mr. Pearson said. 鈥淲hen you read, the two fundamental things you use to construct meaning are your knowledge base and your version of what the text says.鈥�

Many teachers view prereading strategies as indispensable and see the attempt to restrict them as naive and even disrespectful, given the vacuums in background knowledge many students bring to school.

鈥淚 am dealing with kids who are just as smart as kids have always been, but they鈥檙e coming to me with much narrower prior knowledge and understanding of the world,鈥� said Mr. Gallagher, a 27-year veteran who teaches at the predominantly low-income Magnolia High School in Anaheim, Calif. 鈥淵ou have to know things to read things.

鈥淚 wonder if the framers of the standards understand the high level of frustration that some of my 9th graders have,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f help from the teacher comes too late in the process, it won鈥檛 matter, because they鈥檝e already tuned out.鈥�

To prevent that, and make sure his students can understand what they are about to read, Mr. Gallagher said he has 鈥渢o do quite a bit of framing to get my kids to the point where they can wrestle with the text.鈥�

But the prereading debate doesn鈥檛 need to be an either-or, he said. The key is to make sure that scaffolding 鈥渓eads students to the wrestling match.鈥�

Reversing the Order

Christiana Stevenson, a second-year teacher at Arsenal Technical High School in Indianapolis, has found that she can accomplish both aims鈥攂ackground information and context for students, as well as a 鈥渃old read鈥� of the text鈥攊n reverse order.

Using that approach, she had her students read the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 鈥淟etter From Birmingham Jail鈥� without any preparation. As they asked questions, she guided them to more information about civil disobedience and the clergymen鈥檚 criticism that prompted his letter.

鈥淎fter we did the cold reading, we talked about that stuff, because that content knowledge is really important with something like this,鈥� Ms. Stevenson said. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 not at all bad to do it after the first reading. Then it was the kids who were driving the understanding. The conversation led to more and more. And then we reread it with more background knowledge. It worked out really well.鈥�

Employing both cold-reading and prereading strategies is necessary to good literacy instruction, said Doug Lemov, the author of Teach Like a Champion and the managing director of the New York City-based Uncommon Schools charter school network.

鈥淪tudents need to be able to encounter a text, often a disorienting one, and make sense of it on a first read,鈥� said Mr. Lemov. 鈥淐ommon core is right in saying our students need to be able to do that. But I also think that over the long haul, one of the biggest barriers to reading success and comprehension is the knowledge deficit. We need to close that knowledge deficit.鈥�

To do that, teachers have many strategies at their disposal, he noted. They can supply information upfront, when appropriate. They can plan a cold reading but assign texts leading up to it that will fill in knowledge gaps. They can ask students to read a group of surrounding pieces in conjunction with a central text.

鈥淩eading the same thing multiple times is good. Prereading is good. Reading multiple texts is good. The best 鈥榩rereading,鈥� 鈥� he said, 鈥渋s reading.鈥�

At Uncommon Schools, where Mr. Lemov supervises middle-grades literacy, teachers have been using a technique they call 鈥渆mbedded nonfiction,鈥� which they find effective, he said. When reading a novel, they assign four or five nonfiction texts on a related topic.

Recently, when reading Lily鈥檚 Crossing, a novel set in World War II-era New York City, students stopped after a couple of chapters to read an article on the rationing of supplies during that time, he said. They gained additional perspective on events in the novel with other such articles as they went through it.

鈥淣ow, the novel makes more sense because you understand about rationing, and the nonfiction article has meaning because you have come to care about Lily and seen it through her experience,鈥� Mr. Lemov said.

The practice grew from observations within the charter network that students absorbed content better on the second, third, or fourth reading of related materials, he said. Given those observations, cold reading is challenging for students since it 鈥渋mplies reading in a low-absorption-rate context,鈥� he said.

Reading from multiple sources on a topic, combined with rereading, can address that problem, Mr. Lemov said.