"The cognitive actions that readers employ while processing print are essentially the same across levels. Readers are simply applying them to successively more demanding levels of text."
Someone gave me this quote and I find it very interesting to think about. Please take some time to think this over and react to this statement. Do you agree? Disagree? And if so why? State your case clearly and let's see where we end up. There has been a great deal of discussion about our younger primary readers...what do you honestly think and believe in terms of this statement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I agree with this quote. Decoding, processing and thinking are done and expected at any age, although some have difficulty puting it all together at the same time. I believe that even pre-readers have these skills even though they are just learning how fluency sounds and how letters and words work to make sense. (Isn't that thinking to create meaning?) I also agree that our expectations increase as students grow and develop. I know that in my class I can read aloud from a book with more difficult vocab. and with a challenging plot and my students can have an adequate (I can't believe I used that word as I really dislike it!!) understanding. However I would never expect them, or at least most of them, to choose the same book to read independently and have the same understanding because we are asking for them to do several things at the same time. Once they become familiar with words and content, then the thinking can take place. Just as we wouldn't build a house without a strong foundation, we want to make sure our students have the strong foundation they need to be succesful readers. So while I believe that we do all of these things at all ages, we do need to be cognizant of abilities and frustraton levels.
I do believe in this statement. All readers employ systems of strategic actions that help them sustain and understand text. We see at the emergent and early levels of reading that students need to be taught to sustain the reading (solve words on the run, maintain fluency, search for and use different sources of information, etc)through explicit teaching, but they are always taught to be reading for meaning and employing the expanding meaning systems (monitoring, building background knowledge, summarizing/synthesizing, questioning, inferring/visualizing, and determining importance)on increasingly more difficult texts. As students become more adept at employing systems independently, shifting as needed between actions, we find that the sustaining processing systems become automatic (children hold control of HFW, structural patterns of language, knowledge of story structure/elements, etc.) which some perceive to be finished "learning to read" and now children can "read to learn." I do NOT believe that it is a first-then relationship, for at all times students are making meaning from each text they read, making connections,thinking of quesitons, and/or inferring how a character felt. Even at the lowest levels, you see children connecting to the characters, humor, and situations of a text. Their understandings deepen as they mature and are able to draw upon their knowledge of texts and of the world. Readers do apply the same systems of strategic actions across more increasingly difficult texts, as we do as adults.
As Liz previously stated, children are able to employ many different strategic actions dependning on the context. If children are still working on sustaining processing systems, you can teach the comprehension strategies through and Interactive Read Aloud. Thinking about the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model not only across our lessons, but also across instructional contexts (Interactive Read Aloud, Shared Readings, Guided Reading, Independent Reading) provides students with the scaffolds and opporunties to be employing all cognitive actions daily.
The "cognitive actions" that readers employ while processing print are not the same across levels. The brain functions of word decoding and word/meaning retrieval take place in different parts of the brain. Therefore the "cognitive actions" are not identical. There are three neural pathways for reading. Two are used mainly by beginning readers because they are slow and analytical. Once a child has analyzed and correctly read a word several times, a neural model of that specific word is made which reflects the word's spelling, pronunciation, and its meaning. This is stored in a different region of the brain, and this information can be retrieved automatically without conscious effort. So it would make sense that young beginning readers are going to be using different specific "cognitive actions" than older readers. Younger children will be using analytical pathways more frequently than their automatic pathway. As children learn words and they become stored in the word form area of the brain, they will access that area more and rely on the word analysis area when encountering an unknown word. Actually, pretty fascinating! However, as far as comprehension, I don't feel there is any reason why a child can't be encouraged and taught to use strategies during reading to help them think about their reading and increase their comprehension regardless of their decoding ability. If their decoding ability would not permit them to be able to comprehend the text, then the text would be read to them for the purposes of practicing comprehension strategies. Since reading (processing print) is made up of decoding and comprehension, maybe the cognitive actions for comprehension would be the same, but not for decoding.
I agree with the quote. The readers in my class are decoding, processing and thinking at their own level. Students use strategies that help them read for meaning that work best for them. If they are pre-readers they are using decoding to help them read words and hopfully discover some meaning even if it's literal meaning. As readers become more fluent they use decoding less and use thinking strategies to help with meaning. Decoding is always being employed. Fluent readers need it as vocab becomes more difficult. My expectation for my readers increase depending on the text they are reading. When reading a book that is "just right" my expectation is that they can read with understanding beyond the literal. If they are reading a little above then I would expect more literal but encourage them to look deeper by using connections, questions, visualization, schema and other strategies that help them to discover the deeper meaning. We never stop learning to read we just become better readers by using strategies that work best for us.
Okay, I guess it is time for me to weigh in. I have read this post a couple of times and I am having a tough time agreeing AND disagreeing with it.
My major issue with the quote is the words "processing print." Because to me primary readers spend so much of their early days as readers, just in figuring out what a word is. They can often lose a text's meaning in their efforts to simply get the words out. I don't think that independent readers need to "process print" at this level. In many cases, they know the words with more automaticity, and though they may need to occasionaly decipher a more difficult word (especially with a non-fiction selection), I think they are more apt to be focusing their "cognitive actions" on what it means, not what it says.
However, I do believe even the earliest, beginning reader will employ the same cognitive action as a much older and more independent reader if the element of decoding the text is removed and a developmentally appropriate book is instead being read TO them. At this point there would not be the added pressure of figuring our "what it says" and the students will become engages in figuring out "what it means." This is part of the reason that I believe think-alouds are such wonderful tool in teaching reading comprehension, especially for the primary teacher. This type of lesson removes the need for studnets to do the "text" part of real-reading and get right down to the "thinking" part.
Okay, I guess it is time for me to weigh in. I have read this post a couple of times and I am having a tough time agreeing AND disagreeing with it.
My major issue with the quote is the words "processing print." Because to me primary readers spend so much of their early days as readers, just in figuring out what a word is. They can often lose a text's meaning in their efforts to simply get the words out. I don't think that independent readers need to "process print" at this level. In many cases, they know the words with more automaticity, and though they may need to occasionaly decipher a more difficult word (especially with a non-fiction selection), I think they are more apt to be focusing their "cognitive actions" on what it means, not what it says.
However, I do believe even the earliest, beginning reader will employ the same cognitive action as a much older and more independent reader if the element of decoding the text is removed and a developmentally appropriate book is instead being read TO them. At this point there would not be the added pressure of figuring our "what it says" and the students will become engages in figuring out "what it means." This is part of the reason that I believe think-alouds are such wonderful tool in teaching reading comprehension, especially for the primary teacher. This type of lesson removes the need for studnets to do the "text" part of real-reading and get right down to the "thinking" part.
I agree with this quote for the most part. I do think that all readers employ the same cognitive actions while processing print but may use some more than others depending on their proficiency level. I read some where that readers learn to read much the same way they learned to talk...by being immersed with the use of language. I think that is why it is so purposeful and powerful when we take sufficient time to model decoding strategies, comprehension strategies, and fluency to our students. I also think when a reader has mastery of decoding skills it allows the reader to begin the process of comprehension---the real goal of reading. Beginning readers can learn the comprehension strategies through shared reading experiences and lots of modeling/guidance and more proficient readers can use the strategies with independence so they can derive meaning more on their own. Okay..I'm not sure that all made sense and that I'm stating myself clearly....but I found what others had to say very interesting!
I agree with this quote. I feel that when we work with our students on the foundation of reading...the decoding of the words, and the processing of the meaning that is attached, we are setting them up with strategies to attack more demanding text. Readers use the strategies at the varying levels that applies to them. As the reader becomes more adept at applying strategies, they will be better able to handle more difficult material.
I agree with this quote. I think all children can think about what they are reading and come up with questions, preditions, and connections. As children get older they have had more experience practicing these skills and have seen more modeling, so they are able to do this more naturally when they are reading on their own.
Our expectations of the depth of students thinking and reasoning also changes as they get older and have more opportunities to practice the skills we have taught them.
According to Wikipedia: The term cognition refers to a faculty for the processing of information, applying knowledge, and changing preferences. Cognition, or cognitive processes, can be natural or artificial, conscious or unconscious.
Because of this I agree with the quote. Readers are subconsciously cognitive at all levels to somehow 'process print'. However, at the earlier levels they are cognitive in a different way. They are not yet ready to 'process print' in the way that we imagine comprehension taking place. They are processing it to know what individual words are, rather than to comprehend what a paragraph is about.
The cognitive actions I applied to text as a beginning reader have stayed with me all my life. I still sound out words that are unfamiliar to me. When I am reading and cannot figure out the meaning of a word, I do look at all the other words in the sentence to figure it out. When I have read a paragraph and I do not remember what I have read or have difficulty understanding it (like this blog) I have to reread and try to find the important idea on which to focus. It is what I know and what has been branded in my brain.
I think readers of every level use the strategies/ cognitive actions that have proven to be successful year after year. Perhaps we use them a bit differently as we mature as readers. So, yes, I do agree with this quote.
I do not agree with this quote. The term cognitive actions is not explained, but I take it to mean all the thinking that is going in the various parts of the brain.
I agree with Nancy that decoding and comprehending take place in different parts of the brain, and that young readers are using more of their cognitive action to accomplish the task of decoding.
I think another major difference is in comprehension. Although students can do many of the same things when they read: make connections, ask questions, predict, infer, etc., they do it at differing cognitive levels similar to the levels of development in Bloom's taxonomy. A child at a concrete level of cognitive development will not be able to make analytical judgements. A young child may make connections to self, but not to the world. A beginning reader may not be able to infer from the text if he is not able to infer in life situations.
I think for begining readers who are still working on decoding the text and making sense of the story, the level of comprehension may simply result in the enjoyment of the story at a concrete level.
However, I use the term "young" loosely. I have some 5th graders who are still at a concrete level of comprehension, whereas there are 1st and 2nd graders who comprehend at more advanced levels.
As an adult I interact with what I read and comprehend differently than I did when I was in elementary school. Given the same grade 5 novel, I will get far more (quantity and quality) from a story than most of my students will.
I have a hard time agreeing with this quote. As we have fully established I am the one in the group who is not a reader and has struggled all my life with it. when I was younger I wanted no part of reading because it was so hard for me. I was a Title I lifer and was presented with so many different ways to help me catch on. These "cognitive actions" that I was supposedly employing were just not working for me. I was overwhelmed. I followed the motions but reading really never became easy for me. I know I was not processing what I was reading the way other students were.
Although the hope may be that all students use the same skills or "actions," to process print-whatever level they are at, I believe that some kids are not actually "using" these cognitive actions. They are not there yet. That is the area that I am trying to focus on with my students. Just going through the motions, as I did, is not enough...
Four or five years ago I would have adamantly disagreed with the posted statement. I did not believe that beginning readers could employ the same cognitive actions as my students in 4th grade. However, the more I studied about reading and reading comprehension, the more my thinking changed. I have had the opportunity to visit several primary classrooms where the cognitive actions that are being applied are exactly the same as the ones I see in my 4th grade classroom. The only difference is the complexity of the text. Are there different levels of understanding? Absolutely. However it is not uncommon to see a first or second grade student who has a better (or deeper) understanding than my 4th grade students.
I agree with this statement. A young reader will sprend more time and effort on decoding words, but even with the simplest text, understanding and making connections are happening at the same time. As readers develop, these cognitive actions become more automatic, but a reader will go back to those earlier skills when presented with a word he does not know.
It is an interesting thought. I believe there is a difference for our younger primary readers in learning to decode the print in order to process its meaning. My thought is that processing the print is more meaning based than recognizing letter symbols and combinations/sequences of letters. Students with visual difficulties are able to process the meaning of a story auditorily. Nonreaders are also able to do the same. When we read to our students they are able to comprehend more difficult text than when reading independently. Once students have mastered the ability to decode the print, I do believe that they use the same cognitive actions to process and understand the meaning of the text. That being said, I also believe that student's cognitive abilities continue to develop with continued practice/teaching to allow for application to and comprehension of more demanding levels of text.
Post a Comment