Well, let’s see how much further we get with this High Leverage Teaching Practice.
Last week we looked at the first step in the Interpretation phase:
Choose the (authentic) text
That led to an excursus on writing. If you didn’t see that, go here.
The second step in the Interpretation phase of this practice is
Plan the sequence of interpretive tasks
Glisan and Donato note that there are several recognized models for guiding students through texts, and the model they use draws on two different approaches.
Obviously, they had to choose a model for their book. It is not the only model, and teachers need to find and use a model that works for them.
In “Models of the Reading Process“, an article written for PMC, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Keith Rayner and Erik D. Reichle note: “Reading is a complex skill involving the orchestration of a number of components.” (2010)
Reading is a complex skill involving the orchestration of a number of components.
The authors list what they call “ten central questions regarding reading of central interest to cognitive scientists”. Some of these questions are also of central interest to teachers who are asking students to read. Glisan and Donato do not address this underlying consideration as it seems to lie outside the scope of their work, but classroom teachers should evaluate and choose interpretive tasks based on the following questions:
- How are written words identified?
- How does the system of oral language interact with word identification and reading? [I believe this is an extremely important question in language acquisition and literacy.]
- Are words identified in text differently than in isolation?
- How does the reader go beyond the meaning of individual words? (e.g. literal meaning of sentences, inferences, parsing)
- What is the end product of reading? (formation and retention of mental structures – VanPatten’s Mental Representation)
- How does the skill of reading develop?
Beyond these questions from cognitive science, teachers need to evaluate interpretive tasks on the basis of efficacy, efficiency, place in the overall classroom context, and student interest.
Evaluate interpretive tasks on the basis of efficacy, efficiency, place in the overall classroom context, and student interest.
The sequence of tasks given by Glisan and Donato is as follows:
- Pre-reading/Pre-listening/Pre-viewing: Some will know this as “Setting the Stage”, in which learners are prepared for the text and their interest is piqued. Techniques for this include an initial look at the text, activating background knowledge and experiences, and anticipating pertinent vocabulary and text language. The authors provide no checklist of tasks for this or any other step in the sequence; they do, however, provide an example from which teachers can extrapolate tasks.
Note: I hope a lot of teachers are saying to themselves, “Duh! I already do that!” The purpose of the book is not necessarily to introduce new practices but to remind us of high-leverage teaching practices and encourage us to use them. They work, and good teachers have used them for a long time. We often have not been very good at articulating them, though.
- Skimming for Main Idea(s): This is the first step in actual interpretation. Some teachers will know it and step 3 as the “Into” phase. Glisan and Donato give two possible tasks: look at a webpage and describe in English the main purpose of the page; identify 8 words that relate to the metro system (since the unit they are working with is the metro system in Madrid and the webpage describes the metro). Here we see the importance of step one. If students have no vocabulary with which to work, they will have a difficult time identifying key content words.
- Scanning for Important Details: The teacher can guide students by asking them to find certain information or can ask students to identify details that support the main idea. Once again, Glisan and Donato note that this step can be done in English “to avoid the likelihood of learners resorting to the ‘look-back-and-lift-off’ strategy.” Often the only certain way of checking for comprehension is to use the native language (English for most reading this and Enacting the Work of Language Instruction).
- Guessing Meaning in Context: Many of us would call this a “comprehension check” and know it and the next step as parts of the “Through” phase of interpreting a text. Glisan and Donato once again suggest having students use English to express their guess of the meaning of various words and phrases in context.
Note: This is the shortest of the steps, and I believe the authors have not done it justice. English does not necessarily have to be a first resort in negotiating meaning. If learners have been taught to paraphrase and are at a level to use synonyms in the target language, this can be done. The teacher also needs to consider questions 3 and 4 above:
- Are words identified in text differently than in isolation?
- How does the reader go beyond the meaning of individual words?
- Interpretation/Discussion Phase: Here we see some of the limitations and lack of clarity in the book. Is the Discussion Phase a separate practice? Is Interpretation part of Discussion? Is Discussion part of Interpretation? At various points, Glisan and Donato have answered “yes” to all three questions. Important to note is that from this point on, the authors maintain that only the target language should be used for discussion. Since this phase is the second of the practices in this chapter, the main discussion – and my response – will occur later.
Note: At several points, Glisan and Donato have advocated for the use of English. This is a departure from the previous stricture that many teachers have struggled with: “Target language only”. I do not know to what extent the ACTFL leadership endorses this advocacy, but it is contained in an ACTFL-published work. It is not a wholesale endorsement of teaching about the language in English. It reminds me of Carol Gaab’s advice: “How much English should I use? Just enough to stay in the target language!” Another way to look at is through the ACTFL position on 90%+ target language use. If we have only 10% of our teaching time (for most teachers about 5 minutes per class period) available for speaking English, then we need to be judicious about what we say and make the most of it.
- Creativity Phase: Many will recognize this as the “Beyond” stage of “Into, Through, and Beyond”. According to Glisan and Donato, “Learners continue to use the information from the text to create their own meaning in the interpersonal and then presentational modes.” The tasks that Glisan and Donato suggest include student-to-student discussion, role play, preparation of a brochure, and a short talk. The authors also mention the importance of creating an audience other than just the teacher for the presentation.
Note: In other words, this phase consists of output. This phase is the most controversial part of this particular practice. When is output appropriate? Is this forced output? Does this interfere with acquisition? (Output is not input for the speaker but possibly for the audience.) Is this efficacious? Is it efficient? Obviously the purpose of learning a language is communication, and even Bill VanPatten discusses the need to develop communication skills by actually communicating. The question that each individual teacher must answer is how output may or may not fit into the classroom context, what to expect from students, etc. A key question remains: Are these output tasks communication or merely “language-like behaviors”? Glisan and Donato do not address or even raise any of these questions in evaluating the tasks they propose.
Once again, my post has gotten long, so we will have to wait to take a look at “Leading a Text-Based Discussion”. Come back next time for more.