The common core standards are encouraging teachers to engage students in close reading. Much of the focus of discussions of close reading have emphasized what teachers should not do (in terms of pre-reading, or types of questions). I am being asked with increasing frequency what close reading is.
Close reading requires a
substantial emphasis on readers figuring out a high quality text. This "figuring
out" is accomplished primarily by reading and discussing the text (as opposed to
being told about the text by a teacher or being informed about it through some
textbook commentary). Because challenging texts do not give up their meanings
easily, it is essential that readers re-read such texts (not all texts are
worth close reading). A first reading is about figuring out what a text says.
It is purely an issue of reading comprehension. Thus, if someone is reading a
story, he/should be able to retell the plot; if someone is reading a science
chapter, he/she should be able to answer questions about the key ideas and
details of the text.
However, close reading requires
that one go further than this. A second reading would, thus, focus on figuring
out how this text worked. How did the author organize it? What literary devices
were used and how effective were they? What was the quality of the evidence? If
data were presented, how was that done? Why did the author choose this word or
that word? Was the meaning of a key term consistent or did it change across the
text? This second reading might be a total re-reading or a partial and targeted
re-reading of key portions, but it would not be aimed at just determining what
the text said (that would have already been accomplished by this point).
Finally, with the information
gleaned from the first two readings, a reader is ready to carry out a third
reading—going even deeper. What does this text mean? What was the author’s
point? What does it have to say to me about my life or my world? How do I
evaluate the quality of this work—aesthetically, substantively? How does this
text connect to other texts I know? By waiting until we have a deep
understanding of a text – of what it says and how it works—we are then in the right position intellectually and ethically to critically evaluate (valuing) a text and for connecting its ideas and approach with other texts.
Thus, close reading is an
intensive analysis of a text in order to come to terms with what it says, how
it says it, and what it means. In one sense I agree with those who say that
close reading is about more than comprehension or about something different than
comprehension, since it takes one beyond just figuring out an author’s stated
and implied message. On the other hand, many definitions of reading
comprehension include more than just determining a stated and implied message;
such definitions include the full range of Bloom’s taxonomy in one’s thinking
about and use of a text. If one subscribes to such definitions of
comprehension, then close reading is just a description of a process one uses
to arrive at such comprehension.
I think with this brief description of the essentials of close reading (e.g., intense emphasis on text, figuring out the text by thinking about the words and ideas in the text, minimization of external explanations, multiple and dynamic rereading, multiple purposes that focus on what a text says, how it says it, and what it means or what its value is), teachers can start to think clearly about a number of issues in close reading.
Should I give the students a preview of a text?
No, you probably should not, but it is not unreasonable to have students do their own look over, allowing them to get the lay of the land.
Is it okay to set a purpose for student reading?
Yes, it is very reasonable to give students a purpose for reading (read to find out the differences between lions and tigers, or read to find out how this character deals with hard choices). But these purposes should not reveal a lot of information about the text that the students can find out by reading the text. Of course, if you are reading a text multiple times, each time for a different purpose, you might provide a lot more information on later readings. (This text used a lot of metaphorical language to describe how the characters felt, let's re-read those sections and discuss what the author was accomplishing by doing it that way.)
Does close reading require that every text be re-read?
Yes, it really does, but that doesn't mean that every text should be given a close reading. Some texts should still be read only once; that is all they would be worth.
What if I am unsure whether to discuss prior knowledge before reading a text?
If you think there is key information that students need to know before they read the text (something necessary for making sense of the text that isn't stated in the text), by all means tell it. If there is no pre-information necessary, then don't make such a presentation or discussion. If you are uncertain, then let the kids have a chance to make sense of it. If it goes well, fine. If not, then add the information before the second reading. (I was just looking at an article on forest fires. "It is only partly true that 'only you' can prevent forest fires." That is a cute beginning, but I'm not sure all of the second-graders will recognize that it is referring to a Smokey the Bear line from a once-common public service announcement. I might want to clarify the source of that before students dug in. But if I didn't do that, I would definitely ask a question about this sentence, and would tell that info during the discussion. Sometimes I will anticipate and tell, but whether I do or not, I can always clarify it on discussion.
14 comments:
This article is wonderful and meets my needs perfectly. Thank you for posting a straight forward, easily understood article. I plan to reference it in Professional Development classes in the near future.
I agree with commenter #1, your article on close reading is really very clear and succinct. One of the questions that I would pose is "How do the elements of close reading move students to a new place in their thinking?" You have answered this question in many ways, but I would add that close reading allows students to question the text, to become, in an informed way, skeptical of the authority of the author. As Paul Connollly once observed, reading should be a "contact sport," and close reading helps us get there. Thanks again for boiling all of this down.
Ray Peterson
It does separate the author from the text... something that I'm not entirely in sympathy with and, yet, I, too, can see its value (there is real power inherent in being able to make sense of a text through reading). My own research on children's conception of author are what led me to study New Criticism and close reading. Later, post-structuralist readings also aimed to undermine the author (in many ways), but in a more disconcerting way--paying less attention to the author's words than is common in close reading. Maybe I'll make an entry on that up the road.
I think it's important to point out that close reading also involves looking at the language of the text--both the linguistic structure and the syntactic forms that are used. Most written texts use a much more "formal" discourse than spoken language, and it's useful to help children deconstruct this discourse. Also, children can often get a deeper meaning when we use art or drama to scaffold meaning. For instance, I recently developed a series of close reading lessons on The Rough Face Girl, and when the students drew the items that were on the wigwam of the Invisible Being and the dress of the rough face girl, they were able to get a much deeper meaning, which helped them to answer the focus question. Developing close reading lessons takes much thought and several readings of the text in order to gain insights for developing higher-level questions and a comprehensive (central) focus question.
That kind of a lesson might help students to better understand the text, but it also goes around the text rather than through it. That is not what is meant by close reading.
On the issue of previewing a text - how can we not want kids to preview a text independently? We want to give them tools and strategies to get meaning from text - and a first step is for them to set their own purpose by previewing. How can this not be right?
I don't disagree with you... and, yet, the previews that I see in classrooms almost always go far beyond the amount that I preview as a reader. I don't read many illustrated books, except for an occasional graphic novel, but I can't imagine looking at every picture before I read. I also don't read all the subheadings in a chapter before I read it. I'm not saying there is no place for that, but we tend to overdo such things--a little common sense with the common core would be a really good idea.
I can see covering the skill,predicting outcomes, in the second and third stage of close reading by breaking the whole into sections:rereading for clues, predicting the outcomes,and verifying them in the next passage, but what if you are using predicting outcomes in the beginning of a reading selection to increase student motivation and focus while reading. Where does predicting outcomes and connecting with prior knowledge fit in when using them to increase interest in the piece? Are these methods okay to use or do they conflict with the intentions of close reading?
Anonymous--
There are lots of different conceptions of close reading. One of the things that they all agree on is that the major emphasis of discussion needs to be on the text. Someone like David Coleman would reject predicting as a reasonable close reading activity because it is too focused on student background and guessing and not focused enough on making sense of the text. I don't have a problem with it, but let's face it,predicting can be highly focused on the text and the use of text evidence or it can drift a bit; be careful. Predicting can be an acceptable first reading approach to me.
Thanks, that's a good way to remember the strengths of predicting and it's pitfalls in discussions. I'll remember to keep it focused on the text and its clues. I'll use prediction, initially, for motivation.
Do you believe KWL works with close reading or inhibits it?
If the grade level is low enough, it can be helpful, but it is not much good as text gets more abstract and outside of kids' personal experiences.
I think it is also important to remember that close reading doesn't replace interactive read- aloud, shared reading, or strategy groups (or guided reading). People misinterpret close reading and its place in the literacy block. Skills such as predicting can be addressed in those other areas of reading instruction.
Something that i've stressed over and over in this space is that close reading is an outcome, not an instructional technique. You certainly can guide kids into doing a close read, but there are lots of ways of doing that. we need to be more strategic as teachers, rather than just meekly following some scheme without any consideration for what we are trying to accomplish. Means and ends, means and ends.
Let's not forget that close reading of "text" can also apply to education in the arts. However, it is important to note that "text" must be broadly interpreted to include works of visual art and literature in terms of music. We are struggling with a literal interpretation of the term "text" as it applies to common core and implementation in other subject areas. Including, physical education, visual arts, music, technology, etc. The literal interpretation of "text" is not necessarily applicable to all areas.
Post a Comment