Readicide

Thanks to all the teachers who are participating in this book discussion. I think our first meeting raised some provocative questions and began a thoughtful discussion. We will be reading chapters 3-5 prior to our meeting on March 4th, 4 p.m. - 5p.m.

Any thoughts on last week's discussion?

I'm interested to see if we can use this forum to generate our discussion next week. Any questions, comments or reactions to Chapters 3 - 5?

O.K. I'll start!

I think what struck me the most in the second half of the book was Ken Burke's notion that adolescents read to provide
"imaginative rehearsals" for their lives.

I agree with Gallagher's argument that reading has been hijacked by well-meaning educators.
It needs to return to what it was meant to be: helping us make sense of our lives, providing a narrative context to our experiences, discovering our true "self" - not just a vehicle we use in order to identify literary elements on a multiple choice test.

I appreciate that Gallagher gives concrete examples of how to balance over or under-teaching a novel. I have never personally been a fan of the packet approach to novels, but also found out first hand that you can't just turn most kids loose on the novel. I also appreciate that he recognizes that some kids won't read unless they are held accountable in some way.

I like his point of "imaginative rehearsals", too. Isn't this the higher purpose of reading that gets lost in the dissection of an author's work? I think it's true for me as a reader, and I would love for my students to get this.

I was pretty interested in this concept of finding the sweet spot too. I've been experimenting a little bit with a novel study I'm doing with some students right now. I did some preparation with the students who were reading it. I started by doing quite a bit of interrupting/talking/questioning as we went, but then with these particular students, I really got the feeling that I was interrupting the flow. I kind of backed off for right now and we are doing more of just reading the text and sharing the experience. For right now, with these students, this feels right.

True, Judy. Some kids need to be held accountable, but the packet approach is one of the main ingredients of readicide. I really like the idea of reading for a purpose, that students are given a final exam question before they even start reading. I often do the same thing with primary sources in my social studies class, to help them frame the context for a particular document. I might show them a political cartoon about the Spanish-American War and ask, "What does this document tell us about a particular issue in the past?"

Gallagher really paints a picture of how unpleasant reading can be when it entails "trivial" interruptions. Since the short-term gain negatively impacts the long-term reader, how can we induce our colleagues to abandon a chop-chop methodology and search for the elusive sweet spot?

I'm continually wrestling with the elusive sweet spot, and why we (I'm talking the royal "We" here), as a system, have allowed ourselves to be so swayed by quantifying factoids related to a one-time-shot test that we neglected to engage kids in deep thinking and discourse. More concerning to me is that we seem to blame the kids for their apparent lack of skill in developing and defending a clear argument ("Why, they can't even_______"), when we've seldom asked them to think deeply and engage in meaningful conversation as a regular part of the way we do business.

While Gallagher makes it sound so easy, it's really a lot of work and takes knowing your your kids -- inside and out. I do appreciate the concrete methods he recommends like framing, second-draft reading, big/little chunk approach, etc. Am wondering where we might fall in a continuum of behaviors related to the ending of readicide? Am applauding all of you who consistently fend off readicide in your classrooms daily.

I think that what Gallagher is really saying is that we need to scaffold (anyone remember this term?) learning for our students. I agree with Jean that it is hard work, and you have to know what you're doing, and be willing to do it. For example, right now we are studying Tom Brokaw's book and documentary The Greatest Generation in English as a way to begin our study of persuasive writing (Brokaw clearly uses one technique called anticipating objections.) However, I also know that I can't turn the kids loose on his article from Newsweek where he references the Great Depression, Vietnam, Watergate, McCarthyism, Jim Crow, and uses phrases like "economic recovery ". I need to be able to put these historical ideas in context for most students and explain Brokaw's use of this line (which I love - the language, not the scandal) "Now, as this tawdry year of scandal staggers to a close . . . " referring to 1998. It's scary as a teacher, because you never know where the conversation will go. We also have to acknowledge that in some ways Brokaw's article is outdated when he says"There is no world war to fight today, no prospect of another Great Depression, no overarching national crisis."

I also know that I'll need to conquer a few chapters of the book and related articles before I can turn students loose on a jigsaw reading of other WWII stories. But, by the end of all this, I feel pretty confident that students will be able to write persuasively about whether or not they agree with Brokaw, and why. I think this is the real purpose for reading Gallagher is talking about. I hope.

This unit has a different feel to it than what I'm doing in reading - book groups at independent level. I really think most students are appreciating the "stretch" of the Greatest Generation unit. But, few could do it well without the teacher as a guide.

I agree with Judy's scaffolding comment. I have to do this all the time in ESL and it is a tried and true way to get any student beyond their surface level of learning. Even the students who seem to get it, probably have holes in their understanding that get glossed over because they are able to answer the fact driven questions.

I like Gallagher's sweet spot suggestion and the examples he provides about how to get to it. My favorite example is when he is able to give tons of background information about the story's subject matter before the students even crack open the book. I am able to do that with Science or Social Studies, but not during reading groups. My problem so far, as an ESL teacher, is that it is not always possible or plausible to read one novel as a group with the varying degrees of English proficiency in my class. It is much easier to have small groups that are not reading the same topic or theme because of shortage of materials about the same subject matter at different reading levels.

On the other hand, I am a believer is the synthesized approach where you teach reading skills to students such as finding the big idea, questioning, vocabulary review, connections, thinking about prior/ background knowledge, and etc. Eventually however, the power and control of group discussions about the book gives way to student controlled and monitored discussions. This approach is not about killing the story, but about having students be active in their reading so that something is remembered and found significant in the book. I don't know if this is leading toward readicide, but I do feel it is helpful. Comments?

Shalonda, I think you recognize what Gallagher pointed out: teaching is an art, and finding the "sweet spot" of instruction
requires a number of strategies and approaches. It sounds to me like you are very aware of not creating a "readicide" approach, but are concerned that the right amount of teacher led and student led learning is taking place.
Thanks for your thoughts.

-Bruce