I personally do not think comprehension can be achieved without bringing in one’s personal experiences. In Mosaic of Thought, the quote “but really, I have no idea what their questions are – about their lives, their writing, or their reading” (Keene & Zimmermann 2007). I understand that the authors are using this as an example to emphasize how important it is for students to ask questions to comprehend but to me, I believe that the questions students ask are a direct reflection of their personal experience – whether it be an advantage or disadvantage. In other words, asking questions are essential yes. But how do we as teachers navigate the different questions, we receive from students based on their background? On page 125 of Mosaic of Thought, the authors discuss how teachers are quick to jump to ask questions instead of answer questions but if we as teachers can adapt to allowing a bit of silence and students to ask their own questions, it leads to independence which would affect the students in every aspect not just reading.
Brown & Dewitz make the claim that “planning comprehension instruction begins with selecting texts” (2014). While I do agree with this to an extent, I believe that Brown & Dewitz emphasize a lot on the methodologies of teaching comprehension when they should also be incorporating natural things like discussed in Mosaic of Thoughtlike the simplicity of asking questions. In addition, Brown & Dewitz also directly state that students should read at an instructional level where the students “read with 90% accuracy or better (2014). To argue against this, in the article Scaffolded Reading instruction of Content Area Texts, the authors explain that students learn more when taught with reading texts that are above their level (2014). When I read this, I immediately took a step back and thought about my own experiences in my classroom. The majority of my students are below grade level but if I give them texts on their current level for example, grade 3, then they will never show growth. They will stay at level. In Building Background Knowledge Through Reading: Rethinking Text Sets, the authors also state that “the amount of challenging texts that middle and high school students read has the potential to improve literacy outcomes” (Lupo, Strong, Lewis, Walpole, & McKenna 2018).
One thing I really enjoyed from Brown & Dewitz and will probably implement into my classroom when we return to campus, is the R5 procedure (2014). This is where students “read, relax, reflect, respond, and rap”. The students choose a spot to relax and read. After readings students reflect in a journal of some sort and then they respond by sharing with a partner or a group (rap) (Brown & Dewitz 2014). This procedure gives independence to the students but also holds them accountable to show their thinking about what their reading as well. The article Reading Comprehension Requires Knowledge— of Words and the Worldmakes the claim that there are 3 principles that have been proven to increase reading comprehension: “fluency allows the mind to concentrate on comprehension, breadth of vocabulary increases comprehension and facilities further learning, and domain knowledge increases fluency, broadens vocabulary, and enables deeper comprehension” (Hirsh 2003). I see this a lot in my classroom. My students that have an advantage with domain knowledge shows an increase in fluency and vocabulary where as my students who are a disadvantage lacks this. I think this comes full circle in showing that students who are bring their background knowledge into reading show improvement when asking questions and then improving comprehension. The question I am still not sure of an answer or if it can or will ever be answered is the following: Is there a way to make an equal playing field for students who come from a low SES background with students who come from a high SES background with advantages?
Brown, R., & Dewitz, P. (2014). Building comprehension in every classroom: Instruction with literature, informational texts, and basal programs New York, NY: Guilford.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction: second edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Fisher, Douglas, & Frey, Nancy. (2014). Scaffolded Reading Instruction of Content-Area Texts.
Lupo, S.M. Strong, J.Z. Lewis, W. Walpole, S. & Mckenna, M.C. ( 2018). Building Background Knowledge Through Reading: Rethinking Text Sets. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61( 4), 433– 444.
Jr, Hirsch,. (2003). Reading Comprehension Requires Knowledge— of Words and the World Scientific Insights into the Fourth-Grade Slump and the Nation’s Stagnant Comprehension Scores. American Educator. 27. 10-29.
Cognition, Comprehension, and Content 