In Praise of Wiggle Room: Locating Comprehension in Unlikely Places
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Research Directions
Research Directions
Maren Aukerman
In Praise of Wiggle Room:
Locating Comprehension in Unlikely Places
The spiders that Americans but I believe there is far more to as containing certain information,
call tarantulas are part of a fam- José’s idiosyncratic reading— and comprehension means having
ily, or group, of spiders named and to his comprehension—than the predetermined “right” under-
Hairy Mygalomorphs. Hairy first meets the eye. José was, after standing of that information. If the
Mygalomorphs are known by sci- all, actively hypothesizing and author of The Tarantula meant one
entists as primitive spiders. They making his own meaning. I will thing by “millions of years” and
have existed for millions of years, argue here that our pedagogies José thought it meant another, then
yet have changed very little. of teaching reading need to take José did not comprehend. When
(McGinty, 2002, p. 7) this active meaning making more we rely on comprehension tests,
seriously than we often do. both standardized and nonstan-
Just after reading this section Of course, what we think dardized, we usually are seeing
of The Tarantula (McGinty, about José’s reading compre- comprehension in this light. I label
2002) in his small reading group, hension (and what we think we this view the comprehension-as-
fourth-grader José (all names are ought to do about it as teachers) outcome perspective.
pseudonyms) offered aloud this depends on what we think com- Teacher B: “José has poor
understanding of the text: prehension is. I begin, then, by comprehension. He simply doesn’t
looking at three ways that com- have the strategies, skills, and
“Right here, I think with prehension has been conceptu- prior knowledge that he needs to
the ‘million years,’ ‘millions of alized, and then consider their figure out what the text means.”
years,’ I think, like, spiders can implications for the teaching of
live for a million years and that’s In this case, comprehension is
reading. seen as a stable, relatively uni-
how long scientists have been
studying them. For millions of form procedure that enables stu-
years, to get used to them and to WHAT ARE SOME dents to arrive at the “right”
get a lot of information and facts MEANINGS IMPLIED understanding of texts. The
about them, so they can, like, tell BY “COMPREHENSION”? good reader is seen as one who
us, so they can tell us which ones accesses a fixed set of strategies
It is helpful to think about three to arrive successfully at the out-
are deadly and which ones are
September 2008
different hypothetical teachers, come with which Teacher A was
not deadly.” and how each might describe concerned. Those without suffi-
what was going on with José’s cient expertise with these strat-
Now, we know, in fact, that comprehension.
a single spider cannot live for egies will not comprehend. I
a million years. (Male tarantu- Teacher A: “José did not call this the comprehension-as-
Vol. 86 ● No. 1 ●
las seldom live much more than demonstrate comprehension of procedure perspective.
10 or 12 years; the more fortu- The Tarantula book. He re- Teacher C: “José’s com-
nate female tarantulas may live ally missed the boat when he prehension of the text does not
up to 25 years or so.) Scientifi- started talking about how long he always match the ways I am
cally, then, José’s understanding thought spiders lived, didn’t he?” constructing my understanding of
was incorrect. In this case, comprehension is the text as I am reading it. I have
Language Arts ●
There are those who would seen as an outcome, something to really think about how he is
extrapolate that José, an English- that one has or does not (perhaps constructing his understandings,
language learner, demonstrated to varying degrees) as a result of what his reasons are for saying
poor reading comprehension, having read a text. The text is seen what he did.”
52
Copyright © 2008 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
LA_Sept2008.indd 52 7/28/08 11:04:47 AMIn this case, comprehension is NONSTANDARD not successful in finding a way of
Research Directions
seen as a purposeful decision- UNDERSTANDINGS VERSUS using what she already knew to
making process about what a THE SENSATION OF NOT
account for what the text might
text might mean, a process that mean. Even though his reading
does not depend on the reader
UNDERSTANDING was “wrong,” Jóse had far more
arriving at any one particular It is important that we recognize in common (as a reader) with
“right” understanding. that there are times when read- those of us whose readings are
ers are unable to generate any “right” than he did with Rebecca.
From this perspective, we
hypothesis about the text that sat-
comprehend whenever our minds
isfactorily explains the text from The Comprehension-as-
engage in figuring out what a
their own perspective. This is not Outcome View
text could mean. Different peo-
the same thing as having a non-
ple will engage in this hypothesiz- Differences like those between
standard (“incorrect”) under-
ing differently, and this “figuring José and Rebecca get overlooked
standing, as José did; José, after
out” counts as comprehension, when the comprehension-as-
all, had a meaning worked out for
regardless of whether the result- outcome view predominates. From
what he thought the text was talk-
ing understanding is always rec- this perspective, either a student
ing about.
ognizable as “right.” There is gets the one “right” meaning, or
a radical premise involved in It would be a very different (like both José and Rebecca) s/he
accepting Teacher C’s view: even situation if one of José’s class- doesn’t get some or all of it—and
though José arrived at a differ- mates, Rebecca, had said, “I have thus does not have comprehension.
ent understanding (and one that no idea what that paragraph was
If comprehension-as-outcome
was scientifically incorrect), he about. Something about hairy
is the primary goal of instruc-
was still doing the intellectual Mygalomorph somethings, but
tion, the teacher’s job is to make
work of comprehension. He was I have no idea what. Just tell me
sure that the student learns what
engaged in sense making—an what it means!” Of course, even
the text is “really” saying. In
active pondering of how the text Rebecca (like José) expressed an
José’s case, this might involve the
fit with his understandings of the idea that involved a few dimen-
teacher providing a mini-lesson at
world and with what he wanted sions of a standard understand-
what would seem to be a teachable
to accomplish—in order to con- ing (one recognized as plausible
moment—the point when José’s
struct a meaning that he found by the teacher). She was not
nonstandard understanding came
textually consistent. I term this proposing that the passage was
to light. (Perhaps even better, from
comprehension-as-sense-making. about Rumpelstiltskin. Rebecca,
this perspective, would be for
I argue that this perspective on though, was overwhelmed by the
the teacher to present the accu-
meaning making should become sensation of not understanding.
rate information beforehand—to
central to how we conceptualize José and Rebecca would both “build prior knowledge” before
reading comprehension pedagogy. probably fail a reading compre- the reading so José would be sure
While I have attributed these hension test question about this to “get it” when he got there.)
three distinctive views of com- part of The Tarantula. But José
In the mini-lesson, the teacher
prehension to different hypothet- was able to make sense of what
could explain that when the text
ical teachers, it is important to he read, just as someone who
says spiders “existed for mil-
understand that the same teacher wound up with a more standard
lions of years” (McGinty, 2002,
might use this one term, com- (“correct”) understanding would,
p. 7), it means that the species has
prehension, in each of these dif- even if the sense that he made was
existed that long, but that many
ferent ways at different points. different. He was successfully
generations of spiders have lived
Thus, an initial imperative (if we engaged in hypothesizing: weav-
and died during that time span.
want to tease apart these multiple ing together textual evidence with
Alternatively, the teacher might
meanings) is to be explicit about his prior understandings, rejecting
ask a series of directive questions
which meaning is in play when theories that did not fit his read-
aimed at the same result. Or, the
we speak of a particular student’s ing of the evidence, and actively
teacher might ask another student
comprehension, or when we dis- deciding on a meaning that was
whom she felt had better compre-
cuss the teaching of comprehen- (to him) consistent with the evi-
hension of the text to explain the
sion more generally. dence. Rebecca, by contrast, was
53
LA_Sept2008.indd 53 7/28/08 11:04:48 AMconcept to José. Rebecca might read a tarantula book at all; with Even though the idea behind
Research Directions
need a somewhat different mini- such a mini-lesson, he would not teaching comprehension-as-
lesson, but she too would be in have been engaged in any textual procedure is that students will
dire need of having the “real” heavy lifting for himself. eventually use the given reading
meaning explained to achieve I argue that, when instruc- procedures flexibly and indepen-
comprehension-as-outcome. tion is aimed at producing dently, it is not clear that explic-
There are times when explicit comprehension-as-outcome, it is itly taught strategies transfer well
explanation of what a text means the content of the material, and not to new reading situations (RAND
might well be important. For reading itself, that is being taught. Reading Study Group, 2002).
example, if I want a young child At best, the absorbed content Another, larger problem with this
to learn that the illuminated red becomes available prior knowl- view is that it sees the process of
words that say “Don’t Walk” mean edge for the next reading. At worst, comprehending as something that
one needs to wait to cross the José will harbor the expectation all good readers do in fundamen-
street, telling the child what the that he should not independently tally the same way, thereby mak-
sign means may well be the most pursue his own hypothesizing, but ing it teachable through generic
efficient means of getting that mes- should instead wait passively for imitation coupled with the kind
sage across. Similarly, if I know the teacher’s explanation of what of directive step-by-step coach-
José is about to take a high-stakes the text “really” means—some- ing that might help a young child
science test in which he will be thing that Rebecca, who felt so learn to tie her shoe.
quizzed about the tarantula’s life confused, might do. But is reading comprehension
span, I might have good reason to in fact a procedure that can be
make sure that his comprehension- The Comprehension-as- executed with the same relative
as-outcome is the “right” one. Procedure View uniformity as tying one’s shoe?
While some instruction of this At first glance, teaching compre- I argue that reading requires the
sort is defensible and necessary, it hension-as-procedure may appear ability—and freedom—to make
has considerable pedagogical limi- to be a more appealing alternative decisions about a text and to sub-
tations because only the outcome than teaching toward comprehen- sequently evaluate and revise
of reading is emphasized. From sion-as-outcome. Here, after all, the those decisions. There is evidence
this perspective, what students emphasis is on teaching students a that, when given the opportu-
understand, not how students come standard procedure that will enable nity, children have different inter-
to understand, is the main focus, them to generate the “right” under- pretive styles of engaging in the
thus positioning students as pas- standing, rather than focusing on process of comprehending, but
sive recipients of knowledge rather comprehension-as-outcome itself. that these individual styles fre-
than as active readers themselves. Often, comprehension-as-proce- quently become invisible when
dure involves teacher-modeling the emphasis is on lockstep
In this instance, a mini-lesson approaches to learning reading
that explains what the phrase of “good” comprehension strate-
gies (such as summarizing), fol- comprehension (Santori, 2006).
September 2008
“existed for millions of years” Teaching comprehension-as-
means in this context may help lowed by guided practice where
teachers do everything possible procedure runs counter to readers’
José understand that spiders do need for intellectual wiggle room.
not live for a million years. (This to ensure that students get the tar-
outcome itself is far from cer- get strategy—and the meaning of Most major theoretical per-
Vol. 86 ● No. 1 ●
tain.) But even “getting” that, the text—“right” (e.g., Palincsar & spectives on textual meaning
he may have learned little that Brown, 1984). Comprehension-as- making paint a complicated pic-
will serve him well when he procedure can also be foregrounded ture of what texts are and how we
reads the next book. After all, during guided reading or literature build meanings from them—they
in that mini-lesson, José was discussions when the teacher gives do not lend support to privileg-
led to the standard understand- the students specific steps to follow ing comprehension-as-procedure.
or tells them the best way to “fix” Consider schema theory, which
Language Arts ●
ing by the teacher, rather than
through choices that he himself a nonstandard understanding or to proposes that the mind that
made about how to read. He may resolve confusion (e.g., Fiene & encounters text is never a blank
as well have listened to a lec- McMahon, 2007). slate. We are always looking for
ture about tarantulas and never a “mental ‘home’” (Anderson &
54
LA_Sept2008.indd 54 7/28/08 11:04:48 AMPearson, 1984, p. 255) for textual depend on social context, the do as we read in order to accom-
Research Directions
ideas by reading them through, decisions they make about what plish particular social purposes.
with, and against what we already texts mean depend on context as It is important to note that, while
know about the world (our exist- well. Teaching students that com- these social purposes are fre-
ing schema). Thus, texts do not prehension is a procedure that can quently interpersonal ones that
have uniform meanings across be learned by imitation and can involve others directly, they can
readers; because we do not draw be practiced by applying a fixed also be intrapersonal ones—ones
upon the same prior experiences, set of strategies minimizes this that play out within the self but
it is inevitable that the connec- context-dependent social respon- are inevitably shaped by relation-
tions that we generate as we read siveness that is at the heart of tex- ships with others (as, for exam-
will look somewhat different— tual meaning making. ple, when we read alone).
even when we are reading nonfic- To think of the practical ped- This perspective, which I
tion text, as José was. Put simply, agogical implications of a view have termed comprehension-as-
I can never read just like you read that makes comprehension-as- sense-making, does not depend
(even if I admire how you read procedure central, consider the on whether the reader reaches a
and think) because I am never message we communicate to a particular “right” understanding
starting from the same place in student like José when we say, of the text at hand: José’s scien-
the mind. For this reason, com- “You didn’t comprehend. Here’s tifically incorrect understanding,
prehension-as-procedure—like how you should do it so that you paradoxically, represents suc-
comprehension-as-outcome—does can.” At best, we fail to acknowl- cessful comprehension-as-sense-
not sit well with schema theory. edge the purposeful social and making because he engaged in
Teaching comprehension-as- intellectual work he is already textual decision making in order
procedure is arguably even less doing, and the context of mean- to reach it. Rumelhart (1981),
compatible with a sociocultural ing making as understood from one of the early architects of
view of learning than is teach- his perspective. This is already schema theory, might describe
ing comprehension as outcome. a bit of a deficit view. At worst, José’s reading as a case where
Socioculturally oriented educa- we communicate that this pur- “the reader will ‘understand’ the
tors note that, in addition to con- poseful work is the wrong thing text, but will misunderstand the
structing meaning on the basis to be doing when he encounters author” (p. 22). In other words,
of prior experiences, readers a text, a profoundly disrespect- the process José undertook was
work with texts to accomplish ful view that is likely to confound fully comprehension work, even
their own social purposes as well young readers trying to figure out if the product did not represent a
as to respond to the social pur- what they should be doing when standard understanding.
poses of others (Aukerman, 2007; they read. In this scenario, José Even Rebecca, who struggled
Dyson, 1999). For example, José is taught, implicitly, that com- with the sensation of not under-
explained his understanding of prehension is something done by standing, may have been engaged
The Tarantula (McGinty, 2002) rote imitation—by doing it like in some textual hypothesizing—
not simply to express a mean- others are doing it—rather than if only to be able to reject pos-
ing he found in the text, but also by working from his own exist- sible alternatives for what the
to present himself as a certain ing understandings and purposes text could mean. But she was
kind of person (one knowledge- (which he was already doing ultimately stymied in her deci-
able about spiders and scien- quite successfully). sion making. Being stymied in
tists), to respond to things he had our thinking about text proba-
heard others say, and to secure The Comprehension-as- bly happens at some point to just
responses from others. Sense-Making View about everyone, and being sty-
We are social actors when- I argue that we would do well to mied does not necessarily mean
ever we read. Even when we read look at comprehension as textual we stop trying to figure out the
alone, our meaning making is hypothesizing for social purposes. text ourselves. But if Rebecca’s
responsive to the ideas that others What I mean by hypothesiz- main solution to being stymied is
have brought to the table, or may ing, specifically, is decision to ask the teacher to do the deci-
bring to the table in the future. making about possible textual sion making about textual mean-
And, because readers’ purposes meaning(s), something that we all ing for her (e.g., “Ms. Jones, can
55
LA_Sept2008.indd 55 7/28/08 11:04:48 AMyou explain this? I don’t get it!”), poses, several things are worth Teacher: The book says
Research Directions
she may be doing far less textual bearing in mind. First, while that tarantulas are part of what
hypothesizing herself. Arguably, comprehension is not learned pri- family?
then, a student such as José, who marily by imitation, it is learned Student: The Hairy Mygalo-
actively comes up with a possible from (and with) others. For morphs.
(but “wrong”) meaning for a text, example, we are studying each
is more deeply engaged in com- other’s purposes, and ways of Teacher: Right! The Hairy
prehension-as-sense-making than meeting those purposes, around Mygalomorphs.
a student who passively waits reading and discussing text; we These kinds of questions
for the “right” explanation to be are figuring out how to respond can work well for documenting
given and accepts it just because to the social purposes that others whether students have arrived at
the teacher said so. bring to the table; we are decid- the “correct” comprehension-as-
But, of course, José still got ing which of our understandings outcome, but are not as helpful
it wrong when he thought a spi- accomplish which kinds of social for facilitating comprehension-as-
der could live for a million years, purposes. If we want to impress sense-making. To understand why
and this raises an important ques- someone, to persuade others, and not, consider how the teacher’s
tion: Do we really want a peda- so forth, some ways of textual question is different from one that
gogy that simply lets a kid think hypothesizing will serve us bet- happens in ordinary talk:
the text means whatever s/he thinks ter than others, depending on the Tourist: Do black widow
it might mean, unquestioned? Not circumstances. spiders live around here?
at all. We live in a world in which Teaching comprehension- Texan: Well, you do have
some meanings get recognized as as-sense-making does not mean to watch out. I killed two in my
“right” and others as “wrong,” and valorizing every textual hypoth- garage last year with my bare
students do need to learn about this. esis without question. Rather, it hands.
Comprehension is not only sense involves offering opportunities
making—it is socially purpose- for reading in which developing Tourist: You did? Wow! I’d
ful sense making. If José wants readers not only engage in textual better keep an eye out then. What
to convince those around him to hypothesizing, but also can make do they look like?
agree with him, some understand- discoveries about the relationship In the tarantula exchange, the
ings of the text (and some ways of between ways of textual hypoth- teacher already knew the answer
presenting textual evidence related esizing and the accomplishment that she wanted. Although the stu-
to those understandings) are more of social purposes. This brings dent did need to make a prelim-
likely to meet his goals. up a further question: if we want inary decision about the text’s
For this reason, educators can- students to participate in textual meaning within the tight param-
not afford to pay attention to only discussions that stimulate such eters set by the teacher, the
the textual hypothesizing itself; discoveries, how might we want decision that actually counted
we must also attend to social pur- to reconceptualize the teacher’s had already been made—by
September 2008
poses that come into play as pos- role in classroom dialogue? the teacher. The student’s tex-
sible meanings are constructed. tual hypothesizing was part of a
I propose that every textual How Evaluation Can largely predetermined script in
hypothesis is bound up in social Inhibit Comprehension- which the teacher’s textual deci-
as-Sense-Making sion making and limited range
Vol. 86 ● No. 1 ●
purposes. Yet, in conversations
about reading comprehension, Currently, the most common form of social purposes dominated.
one seldom hears about them. of dialogue between teachers and In addition, when a student par-
Too often, social purposes are students involves the teacher initi- ticipates in such an exchange,
either ignored completely or seen ating with a question, the student(s) classmates rarely get to think for
as something that plays out on a responding with an answer, and themselves about whether they
separate, parallel track. the teacher then evaluating that agree with the student’s idea; only
Language Arts ●
response as right or wrong (Mehan, the teacher’s evaluation matters.
But if we accept that
comprehension-as-sense-making 1982). These sequences, known as In the black widow exam-
is always shaped by social pur- I-R-E exchanges, look something ple, though, the tourist posing
like this: the question genuinely wanted to
56
LA_Sept2008.indd 56 7/28/08 11:04:48 AMknow the answer, and the informa- respectful, curious stance toward also involve returning to ideas
Research Directions
tion shared by the Texan was new students’ textual hypothesiz- previously raised by students
information that shaped what the ing and their social purposes. I later in the discussion. How-
tourist did next. (One could only think of it like this: the teach- ever it takes place, neither the
imagine the Texan’s puzzlement er’s genuine need to understand teacher nor the students will
and irritation if the tourist had how students are construct- know in advance the shape the
responded, “Right! Black widows ing their meanings from text conversation will take.
do live in this area! Very good!”) reflects a social purpose. As stu- 2. Make textual decision mak-
What the Texan said helped dents observe the teacher’s need ing visible. The teacher asks
establish her as a particular kind to know, the textual work they students to explain how they
of person (one who kills venom- do will often respond directly to arrived at their thinking—
ous spiders with her bare hands!). that—that is, the teacher’s curi- how textual evidence and
It was uttered in response to osity may foster social purposes their understandings about
someone else’s authentic pur- among students for sharing tex- the world give them reason to
poses for asking a question and tual ideas that they would not decide what they think the text
shaped the subsequent purposes share otherwise. means.
of that other person (the sudden In this section, I will briefly 3. Highlight puzzlement, ambigu-
need to be able to identify black explain several ways I have seen ity, and differences of opinion.
widows). Providing a response to teachers act upon their curios- The teacher points out places
the tourist’s question had varied ity about student thinking during where the text might appear
potential consequences that the conversations about text. Such ambiguous, and may adopt a
Texan had to consider as she for- teaching may facilitate compre- stance of puzzlement about the
mulated that response: the deci- hension-as-sense-making, though text’s meaning. The teacher
sion making about what to say these ways are not to be taken may draw students’ attention
mattered socially. as a formula—teaching compre- to differences of opinion about
I argue that textual decision hension-as-sense-making can- textual meaning that exist in
making should matter socially, not be reduced to a procedure. I the group, or to different under-
too—ideally in ways that extend have called the orientation toward standings that others outside
far beyond whether or not the teaching I describe here shared their peer circle might have
teacher approves of an answer. evaluation pedagogy (Aukerman, reached about the same text.
If we want students to make rea- 2006), or SHEP, because it is not
simply the teacher who decides 4. Open up spaces. The teacher
soned decisions about textual opens up spaces for students to
meaning, ones that are atten- what a text means and evalu-
ates claims made about the text: share their thinking by inviting
tive to their own purposes and to students into the conversation,
the purposes of others, then they the students work together with
each other and with the teacher to particularly the quieter ones.
need opportunities to have their The teacher may also ask stu-
hypothesizing matter. We need to share in that deciding and evalu-
ating. These are six acts of teach- dents to respond to an idea that
work toward conversations where has been voiced by a peer.
students see themselves and their ing that characterize SHEP:
peers as contributors of new ideas 5. Hold back. SHEP is charac-
1. Follow student ideas. If stu- terized by stretches of talk
that shape the subsequent course dents’ social purposes for shar-
of discussion—and each other’s where the teacher is nearly
ing hypotheses are to matter, silent while the students talk
views about the text’s meaning. the flow of the conversation with each other; when the
must be meaningfully contin- teacher does speak, s/he often
Teaching toward gent on the things students say
Comprehension-as-Sense- does so to draw attention to (or
rather than aimed at a teach- seek clarification about) ideas
Making er’s highly specific predeter- already raised by students. The
I propose that one of the most mined agenda. SHEP involves teacher does not consistently
important things a teacher can asking students to elaborate on respond after each student turn,
do to cultivate comprehension- their thinking, what Nystrand and instead waits to see how
as-sense-making is to adopt a (1997) calls uptake. It may students respond to each other.
57
LA_Sept2008.indd 57 7/28/08 11:04:49 AM6. Share evaluation. The teacher To me, I think there’s two ways ambiguity—to explain it to Ms.
Research Directions
resists evaluating a student’s to think about that and I’m not Haven, to explain it to each other,
textual hypothesis as right or sure which one they mean. When to explain it to themselves—
wrong—even when a student it says—if you follow with your emerged as a purpose for thinking
expresses a nonstandard under- eyes—“They have existed for mil- about what the text was saying by
standing. Instead, the teacher lions of years, yet have changed “existed for millions of years.”
abdicates the exclusive author- very little,” does that mean that After the second time Ms. Haven
ity to decide what the text the same exact spider has been asked the question, José offered
means; students are encour- alive for a million years, or does a response indicating that he was
aged to elaborate, contest, and that mean that this type of spider beginning to explore an alterna-
extend their peers’ ideas. has existed for that long? Like, tive to his initial hypothesis, but
not one spider, but it had babies was hedging his bets:
Enacting Shared and generations and generations.
Evaluation Pedagogy Which one is it? “I think it’s kind of both,
To provide an example of what Jorge: The second one. because the kind of spider can
SHEP can look like, I turn back live for a million years and make,
Teacher: How do you know? produce, produce other spiders so
to José and his group’s discus-
sion of The Tarantula (McGinty, Jorge: It said, like, they live they can live for a long time.”
2002). Once a week, Ms. Haven for a million years. So, like you
said, the generations have been And when Ms. Haven followed
facilitated this nonfiction litera-
going on and on, so they live up on this comment from José
ture discussion group; it included
for millions of years. I think the by asking, pointblank, if spiders
three fourth-grade boys, all of
second one is better. could live for a million years,
whom had been designated as
Teacher: So, it’s not the same both José and Ned indicated alle-
“low readers” by their regu-
spider that lives for a million giance to José’s initial “incorrect”
lar classroom teacher (not Ms.
years? I don’t know. hypothesis rather than to Jorge’s
Haven). José and Jorge were
“correct” one:
Latino; Ned was European Amer- When Ms. Haven highlighted
ican, as was Ms. Haven. the ambiguity in wording and Ned: Yes.
When José voiced his hypoth- asked what it meant, this still José: I think so, yes.
esis about spiders living for could easily have been the begin- Ned: They can.
millions of years, many teach- ning of an I-R-E exchange, where
she solicited an answer she found From the perspective of
ers would have stepped right in
acceptable, evaluated it, and then comprehension-as-outcome, this
to correct him. Ms. Haven held
moved on. But her response to exchange would seem to call
back, watching carefully to see
Jorge’s answer (“How do you for finding an immediate way to
if other students would verbally
know?”) did not function in this correct the flawed understand-
take issue with José’s idea. None
case to evaluate his response ing; some teachers might even
did for awhile. A few minutes
September 2008
as correct. (It was, I believe, an call it a teachable moment. And
further into the discussion, Ms.
attempt to make his decision mak- yet, after a few more ideas were
Haven returned to José’s hypoth-
ing visible.) Her expressed uncer- raised, Ms. Haven simply asked
esis and highlighted textual ambi-
tainty, both in her initial question Ned to continue reading. The
guity. Although she herself held
nonstandard understanding was
Vol. 86 ● No. 1 ●
a standard understanding of the and in her repetition of the ques-
tion after Jorge’s explanation, left uncorrected; this would con-
text, she did not explain that
kept the students’ decision mak- stitute questionable teaching,
meaning. Instead, she noted two
ing about textual meaning cen- from a strictly comprehension-as-
alternatives for what the text
tral: she was sharing evaluation outcome perspective.
might mean and posed a ques-
tion. Here is an excerpt from that with the students. Seen from the perspective of
transcript: teaching toward comprehension-
Language Arts ●
Because she did not endorse
Jorge’s response, the students as-sense-making, however, this
Teacher: That’s what I’m
could not count on Ms. Haven to move was quite sensible. José
really confused about by this
resolve the ambiguity for them. and Ned appeared satisfied with
line, and I need you guys’ help.
Working through the textual their understandings of the text
This one: “They have existed.”
58
LA_Sept2008.indd 58 7/28/08 11:04:49 AM(as was Jorge, though of course Ned: Ooh, ooh, I learned that revised their understandings for
Research Directions
his view was different)—they did tarantulas do not live a thousand purposes that mattered to them.
not, at the moment, have a pur- years ‘cause I read, “Did you
pose for making a different deci- know?” But What if Students
sion about textual meaning. And, Ned went on to read aloud the Don’t Change Their
since the words could be inter- “Did you know?” sidebar that Minds?
preted either way, there was no said, “In the United States, male José and Ned changed their non-
reading work that José and Ned tarantulas almost always begin standard understandings to ones
could actively undertake at that their search for female tarantu- that were more standard, in light
moment with that text, collabora- las in the fall. The male taran- of textual evidence. This is a
tively or individually, that would tulas usually die after mating” happy ending, in the sense that
be likely to cause them to change (McGinty, 2002, p. 16). comprehension-as-sense-making
their hypothesis. Of course, the took place and comprehension-
teacher could have told them, Teacher: So this was evidence
that what? as-outcome was the fortunate
explained why Jorge’s read- result. Shared evaluation peda-
ing was “right”—but then she Ned: The tarantulas can’t live gogy, then, can result in students
would be doing the reading work, for a thousand years. deciding on more standard under-
the comprehension-as-sense- Teacher: Good way to use the standings for themselves (cf.
making, not them. So she left clues from the book to solve your Aukerman, 2007).
it alone, with the disagreement mystery. Yes, José.
unresolved. But, of course, it is not always
José: I know why it dies, the case that students solve
The students went on to read ‘cause it just said. I was reading their “mysteries”—or that their
and discuss other parts of the text; and it said the female is almost solutions at the end of a given
among other things, this included blind. So it doesn’t know, so it, so discussion reflect standard under-
a longer exchange in which, after it defends herself and it kills the standings. What if José and Ned
initially hypothesizing that silk male. had left the classroom that day
glands were where the spider still believing that a single spi-
“gets its food” (Ned), the students A full 20 minutes after the
uncertainty was left on the table, der can live for a million years? I
eventually used textual evidence argue that this would not negate
to decide that “maybe instead of the boys were still engaged in a
process of textual decision mak- the purposeful textual hypoth-
storing food, they store their, like, esizing the students did during
silk” in the silk glands (Ned). The ing about it. Not only that—Ned
was actively searching the text this lesson as they used the text
issue of how long tarantulas live to respond to each other’s under-
did not reappear until about 20 for evidence that would confirm
or disconfirm his early hypoth- standings, to explain their own
minutes later, shortly before the reasoning, to consider multiple
end of the session. esis. Even though the text did
not directly talk about life span possibilities, and to present them-
Because there was little time of spiders, he used the available selves as certain kinds of people.
left, Ms. Haven gave the boys information about the male taran- Comprehension-as-sense-making
the option of silently reading one tulas dying to extrapolate that would still have taken place, even
of several pages they had not yet they were unlikely to live for a if students had never reached a
read; each boy chose to read the very long time. Both he and José standard understanding.
same page, which described the now understood that tarantulas I do not mean to suggest
tarantula’s mating practices. After (at least the males!) did not live that there is no time or place
they had done so, the teacher a million years. Just as impor- for explicit explanation. Some-
began opening spaces with an tant, they were able to use the times communicating content
open-ended question: textual evidence to present them- will be more important than fos-
Teacher: Think about what selves socially as certain kinds of tering comprehension-as-sense-
you want to tell me. So, who people—knowledgeable ones (“I making. And, in conversations
wants to say something about know why it dies”) and textually where comprehension-as-sense-
what this page means? I didn’t thorough (“‘cause I read ‘Did you making is the norm, a teacher
get a chance to read it. know?’”). They had tested and may well be able to explain some
59
LA_Sept2008.indd 59 7/28/08 11:04:49 AMimportant aspect of the text with- comprehension-as-sense-making, Aukerman, M. (2007). When reading it
Research Directions
wrong is getting it right: Shared evalu-
out undermining the dynamic so he frequently asks himself this ation pedagogy among struggling fifth-
that keeps student decision mak- question: Is today the last time grade readers. Research in the Teaching
ing about textual meaning central my students will ever think or of English, 42, 56–103.
overall. But I believe that sub- read about this particular mate- Dyson, A. (1999). Transforming transfer:
Unruly children, contrary text, and the
stantial letting go of the need for rial, or encounter these textual persistence of the pedagogical order.
students to always arrive at the conventions? If it is, then perhaps In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Review of research in education: Vol. 24
“correct” understanding is prereq- the details I’m sweating here are (pp. 141–171). Washington, D.C.: AERA.
uisite to a pedagogy that fosters not so important. If it is not, there Fiene, J., & McMahon, S. (2007). Assess-
comprehension-as-sense-making. may well be another opportunity ing comprehension: A classroom-based
The textual hypothesizing that on another day for students to process. The Reading Teacher, 60,
406–417.
took place with José, Ned, and hypothesize actively, to work with
McGinty, A. B. (2002). The tarantula.
Jorge would likely not have taken related texts and each other’s New York: Rosen Publishing Group.
place if the teacher had stepped ideas about those texts—for them Mehan, H. (1982). The structure of class-
in, again and again, to make sure to move toward understandings room events and their consequences for
they were getting it “right.” Fig- closer to my own, if that is impor- student performance. In P. Gilmore &
A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and
uring things out often involves tant (M. Vélez, personal commu- out of school (59–87). Washington, D.C.:
a number of missteps and blind nication, May 2007). There will Center for Applied Linguistics.
alleys: these are not irrelevant be another day, that is, if students Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dia-
and unproductive detours, but continue to encounter classroom logue: Understanding the dynamics of
language and learning in the English
rather an integral part of the deci- opportunities to actively decide classroom. New York: Teachers College
sion making that constitutes what texts mean—for themselves Press.
comprehension-as-sense-making. and with each other. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. (1984).
Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
I acknowledge that it is enor- fostering and comprehension-monitor-
mously difficult to hold one’s Author’s Note: I thank Monica Bel- ing activities. Cognition and Instruction,
1, 117–175.
tongue when students reveal non- fatti for her wise feedback and her
generosity in sharing data used in RAND Reading Study Group. (2002).
standard understandings, espe- Reading for understanding: Toward a
cially when just a few words this article; Diane Santori for her research and development program in
provocative ideas on the relationship reading comprehension. Arlington, VA:
would seemingly clear things up. RAND.
between agency and comprehension;
I recently asked a teacher I know and Paige Ware and Jessica Zacher Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata:
to explain how he is able to think for helping me see new possibilities The building blocks of cognition. In J.
past the intuitive tendency to cor- and purposes as I revised. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and
teaching: Research reviews (pp. 3–26).
rect every nonstandard under- Newark, DE: International Reading
standing when he structures Association.
classroom conversations around References Santori, D. (2006, December). Children’s
shared evaluation pedagogy. individual response styles across partici-
Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). pation structures. Paper presented at
It is hard, he says, not to get A schema-theoretic view of basic
September 2008
the National Reading Conference, Los
processes in reading comprehension. Angeles, CA.
caught up in an emphasis on In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, &
“right” answers, particularly P. Mosenthal (Eds.), The handbook of
reading research: Vol. 1 (pp. 255–291).
in a standards-driven envi- New York: Longman.
ronment that privileges teach- Aukerman, M. (2006). Who’s afraid of
Maren Aukerman is assistant pro-
Vol. 86 ● No. 1 ●
ing comprehension-as-outcome. fessor at Stanford University, Palo
the big ‘bad answer’? Educational Lead-
Alto, California.
But he believes in the value of ership, 64(2), 37–41.
Language Arts ●
60
LA_Sept2008.indd 60 7/28/08 11:04:50 AMYou can also read
