I found the article by Patricia Cooper, "Children's Literature for Reading Strategy Instruction: Innovation or Interference?" a little bit extreme. I tend to be a proponent of literature-based reading instruction. However, I do understand Cooper's concern of killing children's aesthetic connection with stories through over-instruction. I appreciated my classmate's disagreement with Cooper and the solutions suggested.
Literature should always be read at least once for enjoyment before the instruction of any skills with it. The exception to this would be prediction, which I see more as a motivation for children to read a story than an opportunity for them to be turned off by worrying about getting their prediction right. I prefer to do prediction with a preview of the book, looking at more than the cover, so unusual titles or covers don't confuse kids. Then the first read of a story with all the expression possibly mustered provides a wonderful foundation for children to discuss different parts of the story on a second pass. Dr. Cooper did assent to some post-reading discussion and activities, and that's when the instruction should come in. In that way, she goes against her premise, weakening her original argument.
Yes, literature for enjoyment only is an extreme as is literature for instruction only. The key is balance between the two. Enjoyment first, instruction afterward. Kids have to see that people read for pleasure. That's motivating. Once they're hooked, bring on some skills instruction. One reading curriculum with which I am familiar uses this sequence. As a former editor of this curriculum, I can say that literature searches were my favorite part of the job. Poring through stacks of great children's literature was more fun than work! The selections are meant to entice young readers, as well as to be good examples to use for skills instruction.
The other point made in class was that reading instruction should not be the only time for read-alouds. Kids of all ages love to have stories read to them. Reading is a powerful way to connect with students. We can feel sadness, worry, or happiness, together, along with the characters in a story. As children build a love of reading, their skills will improve as well. So, if this was the author's point, then I'm in agreement. I think I'd just clarify a few things before bashing a perfectly good practice.
Thanks, Cassie, for sharing the article and starting this great discussion!
Hey Carolyn,
ReplyDeleteI can’t help but agree with you about the importance of learning writing skills in context. I just wrote a post on an article I found in the New York Times that retells the story of Malcolm Gladwell and his preparing to write a column by reading hundreds of previous columns. I think there is learning to be gained from some additional learning in isolation, but it feels so much more authentic to learn by using – I know I have trouble synthesizing and even remembering (!) skills I’ve learned that I can’t immediately apply to an example.
In the past I’ve used a really successful inquiry method of text-type explorations where I provided students with several examples of one text-type, like a report or procedure, and we’d collaboratively figure out what the common features of this genre were. We’d read lots of different examples to confirm our hypotheses and then synthesize them to a point where the kids became so familiar, they could easily produce their own example of the text. It was a really nice way to integrate the process of reading and writing and a satisfying way for the students to figure things out for themselves - and their writing really did improve!
Cassie