This post will most likely be pretty short because I, again, did not post right after reading and now have to go back through the chapter. (Ugh! Why did I not learn the first time?)
Some take-aways I got from this chapter:
1) Pick texts that invite the social (whatever that may mean--interaction, debate, connections, ect.). This will act as intrinsic motivation (147).
2) Teachers should choose texts that sustain engagement and embody the right amount of challenge. As I have said before...this is so much easier said than done since students will be at varying levels within a class and all have different interests. As we see from the way they read the various stories the researchers ask them to read, different students are engaged with different texts. Some like one story over another--they vary (as to be expected).
I thought is was pretty interesting that most of the boys tended to do story-driven readings when reading the given/assigned stories. This seems like encouraging news. The results are not devastating, most students are at the very least on the right track. Cup half-full view?
I agree with their point on front-loading reading. This is something that we talk a lot about in class and the authors' view on front-loading supports much of what we have already concluded. I think front-loading reading can also be used to achieve the authors' suggestions to "cultivate concern" for the characters in the readings (175).
Hey Sarah! I just wanted to say that I think this idea of front-loading is one of the most salient that they make. I feel like it is very similar to what Schoenbach describes in the Knowledge Building component of Reading Apprenticeship. However, Schoenbach describes it more as schema building. I appreciate that this is a concept that should be easily transferable to a classroom setting.
ReplyDelete