Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss Authentic Texts – Part 4

I promised last week that I would get to looking at this High-Leverage Teaching Practice from Glisan and Donato’s book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction today.

Since it’s Christmas Eve, most people are probably with family and friends, and I don’t expect anyone to look at this right away. Still, I promised.

After spending three posts discussing the whole idea of “authentic texts”, I should note that “Guiding Learners to Interpret and Discuss (Authentic) Texts” works for all kinds of texts – and many teachers do this already.

Even though this is listed as a single practice, there are really two separate and distinct practices that go hand in hand: Guiding Learners to Interpret a Text and Leading a Text-Based Discussion.

Before deconstructing the two practices, let’s look at some questions that we need to answer first. I’ll give the question, summarize Glisan and Donato’s answer, and then comment.

Foundational Considerations and Questions

1. How do I select authentic texts?
   1. By applying three criteria
      1. Context appropriateness
      2. Age appropriateness
      3. Appropriateness for linguistic level of learners (determined not just by vocabulary but also by contextual support and the nature of the task)
   2. My response:
      These three criteria are applicable to any text, including graded readers, that I choose for my students. The problem with most “authentic texts” (by native speakers for native speakers) is that they are not context appropriate for the classroom community. In addition, age appropriateness and linguistic-level appropriateness are hard to match.
2. Should the focus be on literal or interpretive comprehension?
   1. Both
      1. Textbooks are typically poor at developing interpretive comprehension, typically asking questions that students simply to match language in what has been called the “look-back-and-lift-off” approach. Students often can answer these questions without understanding either the questions or answers.
   2. My response:
      1. This critique of textbooks reminds me of my time with ALM substitution drills. I could see the pattern and do all of the substitutions without any idea of what was being said.
      2. Learners (and native speakers!) do need to demonstrate an understanding of the literal meaning before moving to the interpretation of a text. In this regard, I am reminded of CS Lewis’s comment in his essay “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism“: “These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves.” If we do not understand the lines of the text, then any discussion or interpretation will be based on ignorance. That is not something we should seek.
      3. Expectations for interpretation also need to be aligned with the abilities of learners. This is true in first-language instruction as well as second-language instruction and perhaps more applicable to lower grades than upper grades. Brain development must take place before figurative language is fully understood – and this understanding comes earlier or later depending on the individual. I believe I was in the seventh grade (perhaps eighth) when I really understood metaphor. We were reading a text that mentioned a man with “the snow of seventy winters on his head”, and I realized that it meant he was 70 years old and had white hair. Obviously, it made an impact because I remember the moment all these years later. Had I not understood this, having someone else tell me what it meant would not have been the same.
3. Is making inferences appropriate for more advanced readers?
   1. Even novice learners can do this.
   2. My response: Glisan and Donato are dead on with this one. However, the reader must be able to read the lines before reading between them.
4. What type of preparations do learners need prior to interpreting a text?
   1. Activate learners’ “background knowledge, target language vocabulary / expressions, world experiences, and cultural insights. This preparation can be used as a tool to mediate their interpretive process when reading the text.” (P. 69)
   2. My response: This is good as far as it goes, but often students do not possess the background knowledge, vocabulary, experience, or cultural insights necessary to interpret a text, even in their own language. Part of the preparation for a text may need to be not simply activating these factors but providing them in the first place. The necessity of knowing things like historical setting was brought home to me at a professional development session I attended several years ago. My district was introducing philosophical chairs to the faculty, and the session I attended had us practice close reading followed by a round of philosophical chairs. The text was Don McLean’s “Bye, bye, Miss American Pie.” It just so happened that all of the younger faculty ended up in the chairs with the older faculty standing behind them. For those not familiar with philosophical chairs, this is a discussion technique in which only those seated in the chairs may speak to the group. The participants standing behind the chairs listen and, depending on the ground rules, may be able to whisper to their partner. Preparation did not include any presentation of the historical setting, and it quickly became obvious that the younger participants did not have any idea what the historical and  cultural referents (e.g. “the day the music died”) were. This was with a text in their native language about their native culture, so simply “activating” knowledge is insufficient, unless by “activating” we really mean instructing.
5. Should interpretive tasks always be done in the target language?
   1. There is a place for checking comprehension, including interpretation, in the native language. For one thing, it helps ensure that interpretive skill is assessed, not the ability to understand complex questions in the target language. However, it is important to remember that the target language “is to serve as the language of communication when interpreting and discussing the text with others once overall comprehension has been achieved.”
   2. My response: Once again, I agree with this position. The question will always be one of balance, and this must be addressed by the individual teacher in each setting and context. First and foremost must be comprehension. Many teachers ensure that and then discuss the text. However, this is not – and should not – be limited to “authentic texts”.
6. Does reading aloud a printed text in class promote comprehension?
   1. When learners read aloud in class, they become preoccupied with pronunciation rather than meaning, and their peers probably are unable to attend to meaning, either.
   2. My response: I agree with Glisan and Donato about having learners read aloud, especially in lower levels. However, they do not address the teacher’s reading aloud. I believe this can be very helpful for students in associating the marks on the page with the sounds of the language that they have been hearing. I often have students ask what a written word means. Before stating the meaning, I say the word out loud. Many times, the student says, “Oh! I know that!” They simply did not have sufficient experience with the writing to associate that set of symbols with the sound they had been interpreting. In addition, the teacher can prepare the text as a “dramatic reading” and use vocal inflection, pauses, gestures, etc. to aid in negotiation of meaning. This is far different from the often halting, even painful, “reading” (in any sense worth discussing) by students.
7. How can learners be motivated to read/listen/view authentic texts?
   1. Allow learners to select their own texts
   2. My response: This sounds great. The problem most teachers will have is finding potential texts to present to students for selection. Glisan and Donato could have done us a great service here by providing examples and resources of how to do this. This failure is one of the minor but frustrating shortcomings of the book.
8. What role does collaboration with peers play in the interpretation of a text?
   1. “Learners should be given opportunities to collaborate to make meaning with a text. Within a sociocultural view of language development, learners can progress in their understanding and language use if they work with others.”
   2. My response: Yes, but … This question cannot be taken out of context with everything else. Students need the support implied in the first seven considerations before they can help one another. If students lack the necessary background information, vocabulary, world experiences, and cultural insights, then no amount of collaboration will enable them to interpret the text. They will simply be pooling their ignorance.
9. What strategies can I use to encourage learner participation in text-based discussion?
   1. There are several:
      1. Ensure all learners have multiple turns in conversational exchanges, sufficient time to offer ideas, and opportunities to take the floor
      2. Accept a variety of responses from learners, including short answers where they are appropriate (e.g. responses to yes/no questions)
      3. Expect learners to respond to ideas of others and connect them to their own ideas
      4. Offer scaffolding and assistance to facilitate discussion
   2. My response: Once again, this is an iteration of good teaching practice and should not be limited to “authentic texts”. I would, however, rephrase #1 to ensure that learners have multiple opportunities in conversational exchanges. Not every student is equally vocal, and some students are not ready to speak at all – by personality, knowledge of the subject, language ability, etc. Allow students to choose to participate by listening as long as they indicate that they are actively listening.

Well, that took longer than I thought it would, so I am going to end with these preliminary considerations.

Look for more on this next week. In the meantime, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas.