READING TO LEARN 3.1 Introduction
3.3 The Reading to Learn Classroom Cycle
The fundamental principle for the design of an intervention like RtL is that ordinarily nearly all subject content to be studied at school is not merged with the skills that are required (‘Discourse’ of the school) to enable learning of curriculum material. These skills are twofold (Acevedo, 2010:18). The first enables students to independently learn from reading and the
19 By academic rigour, I am referring to the need to be thorough, conscientious in thought and argument,
44 second involves actual classroom skills necessary to help students’ become independent scholars. These include the ways of doing-saying-valuing and believing appropriate to the formal educational domain. In an effort to remedy the separation of these skills in current pedagogic practices, RtL is allegedly designed to combine the teaching of curriculum content together with the skills students might need to learn from reading and interacting with other students and educators (Acevedo, 2010). This is accomplished by scaffolding students reading and writing skills on three different levels. Figure 3.3 offers a graphic representation of these three levels. Depending on the needs of the students (determined by a needs analysis), the number of strategies employed in the classroom interaction vary. For example, more advanced learners might only require the three strategies on the outermost layer of the sphere. However, students in need of more intensive scaffolding might benefit from the three strategies on the outermost layer as well as the strategies in the middle layer. The three innermost strategies (sentence making, spelling, sentence writing) tend to be used more frequently for younger, foundation phase learners.
Figure 3.3: Three Layers of Reading to Learn
Source: Acevedo (2010:19)
The first of the three (outer) layers prepare students for classroom reading, and the subsequent comprehension of texts, together with the reconstruction of chosen text types (Acevedo, 2010:19). Carefully chosen texts, for lesson purposes, then become models for guiding and supporting individual rewriting activities at a later stage. This requires careful
45 selection of classroom material for lessons because if they are to serve as a model for correct text construction, they need to be well crafted. However, I found this problematic as very few curriculum-based textbooks within the South African curriculum offer well-crafted texts that might fit neatly into different ‘genre’ types, thus modeling language patterns specific to ‘genre’ types. This may well be due to poorly designed curriculum materials or the fact that texts in reality, do not always fit into the neat ‘genre’ based mould.
The second (middle) level of the cycle is employed to expand students’ comprehension of the text, and to help students make use of the text’s information, together with embedded language patterns, in the reconstruction of their own text (Acevedo, 2010:19). The intensive scaffolding supports even the weaker students in reproducing similarly challenging texts. The intensive support comes from both teachers and peer facilitation if weaker students are paired with stronger performing students. These strategies would be used for students with poorer language proficiency, or for students who have had limited orientation to the ‘discourse’ of formal education.
The third (inner) layer of the cycle provides a high level of scaffolding to equip students with the skills needed to manipulate language patterns encountered within the sentences of the text. Students are also assisted with the spelling of words foreign to them (Acevedo, 2010:19). These strategies essentially help students understand sentence construction and spelling but can also be used to help build a bigger vocabulary for students with limited vocabulary development.
The three different levels give rise to a separate, more updated six stage teaching cycle (See Figure 3.4), which demonstrates the top-down make-up of RtL. This means support is offered from the top (commonsense meaning of the text), down to the sentence and word level. This is in contrast to normal classroom instruction, which uses more of a bottom-up approach to ‘literacy’ development. Obviously, the level of scaffolding offered during classroom instruction is dependent on the demographics of the classroom population.
46 Figure 3.4: Six Stage Pedagogic Cycle of Reading to Learn
Source: Acevedo & Rose (2007:3); Rose (2006:13b)
The following paragraphs offer a basic description of classroom interaction that may take place during different stages of the RtL cycle illustrated above. Multiple sources were consulted for this description and include Rose, Lui-Chivizhe, McKnight & Smith (2004); Acevedo & Rose (2007) and Martin & Rose (2007). For the purposes of this study, ‘preparing for reading’, ‘detailed reading’, ‘individual reconstruction’ and ‘independent writing’ strategies were mostly used.
Preparing before reading: Asking students (both high school and tertiary level) to critically engage with advanced texts is becoming increasingly more difficult given the low levels of ‘literacy’ skills development in South Africa (Unesco, 2011; Howie et al, 2012). Further, because fewer students engage in academic texts on a daily basis (See section 5.2.6), when subjected to academic forms of reading, the subject matter is most likely going to be unfamiliar to students. This tends to make it more difficult to access subject content. Because students may find the subject matter unfamiliar, criticality becomes challenging. Given that few students at both the FET phase of schooling, and tertiary level engage in advanced academic reading, the ability to access patterns of language dissimilar to patterns of everyday spoken language becomes a barrier to accessing subject content20. For this reason, preparing
47 students for advanced academic reading is crucial. The RtL approach supposedly does this on two separate levels: students are oriented to the ‘field’21 of the text pre-reading, and students are scaffolded through the interpretation of wording expressed in each sentence/paragraph of the selected text. Again, the level of scaffolding at this level varies according to the needs of students.
To orient students to the ‘field’ of the text, teachers prepare students by paraphrasing what the text is about as well as highlighting the sequence of the text that will unfold during reading of the text. Students’ focus is drawn to the schematic stages of the text’s ‘genre’. For example, with a narrative, while paraphrasing the story, the teacher will draw attention to the shift from the orientation to the complication, resolution and finally the coda. This needs to be done without over loading students with the meta-language. At this point in time, teachers may engage students in a whole-class discussion about the text topic to elicit students’ frames of reference, thereby making the text more meaningful. However, it is noted that text selection becomes a crucial element in the success of the scaffolded approach to reading. Teachers need to ensure texts are age appropriate and culturally relevant for non-native speakers of English. Freire (1970) stresses the need for ‘literacy’ teaching to be loaded with words and phrases that are significant to students. For example, a text on aquatic animals may be problematic for deep rural, inland students if they have never experienced time at the sea, or an aquarium.
Given that time constraints may exist in curriculum content coverage in South African classrooms, teachers may elect to choose sections of the text to go through, instead of the whole text. Even if the whole text is not covered with the RtL approach, what is more important is that a new methodology to tackling more advanced academic reading is being modelled, thereby giving students access to a new way of tackling reading. If successfully implemented, the preparing for reading subdivision of the cycle may enable students to access context (‘genre’), or ‘discourse semantics’, a feat often deemed insurmountable for weaker readers on their own.
48 Detailed reading: After preparing students for the reading of the text, the next step is to assist students in working through one or two selected pages of the text. This entails an identification of key elements of the text, which assist in the extraction of meaning. This is a crucial element of scaffolding advanced reading skills as students are taught to understand how certain language tools assist to create meaning in a text. This stage of the RtL cycle encompasses three further stages: preparing; identifying and elaborating.
Throughout the preparatory phase, access to detailed meaning of individual sentences, (or in the case of tertiary level students, access to individual paragraphs) is given to make certain enough support is given to enable the recognition of the meaning of wording in the text. This is accomplished by paraphrasing the sentence in a commonsensical manner to ensure students are able to understand the text being read. Ample links are made to following sentences to ensure students are able to recognise and grasp the function of rhetorical devices such as conjunctives commonly used in texts. The educator then offers positional cues and requests students to locate words that might be associated with the cues. Three types of positional cues are given to students. First, cues are given to assist students in understanding the context of the text, which includes the meaning of the whole sentence. Second, students are given cues concerning the positioning of the wording in the sequence of words in the sentence. Third, students are given cues to understand what the wording means in commonsense terms. These three cues form part of the cognitive processes needed to comprehend texts – interpreting the wording of a text in the context of the whole sentence and understanding what preceded each word; understanding the sequence of meaning in a sentence, and recognizing the meaning of each individual word. A discussion of the theoretical component of this process can be found in section 3.4.1. Again, the above scenario assumes all teachers in South African classrooms are sufficiently proficient in the language of teaching and learning to enable the scaffolding of the above preparatory phase. Research into teacher competency does not provide evidence to say that this might not be a problem (Balfour, 1999; De Wet, 2002; Nel & Muller, 2010, Fakeye, 2014; Krugel & Fourie, 2014).
Once students accurately point out words linked to positional cues, they are then encouraged to underline the word (identifying stage) and jot down the technical terms associated with the underlined word/phrase/clause (for example noun phrase). The educator is supposed to
49 then elaborate on the use of the word or phrase, thus completing the elaboration phase. This is merely offering more information about the word, function and form. This cycle is formed on the concept of Vygotsky’s notion of scaffolding. Students are prepared by careful questioning techniques about the text, with differing degrees of difficulty, according to students’ Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (This is discussed in detail at a later stage in this Chapter). This is modelled by a carefully designed interaction cycle called the Initiate- Response-Cycle (IRF) illustrated in Figure 3.5. In practical terms, the teacher supposedly initiates the reading process by preparing students for the text and by offering positional cues; students respond accordingly and the teacher affirms their response. This is then followed by extensive feedback or elaboration. If students are unable to follow the questioning, feedback is given to further guide students. If students comprehend the text successfully, affirmation is given.
Figure 3.5: Scaffolding via the IRF cycle
Source: Rose & Acevedo (2006a: 26); Rose (2006a: 5)
Preparing for writing stage: Students are requested to use words or phrases underlined during the detailed reading stage. This forms the basis for joint rewriting activities. The words highlighted are essential constituents of correct sentence structure and include content words needed for conveying vital information from the text. These form the guide for students to replicate. Educators, at this stage, focus on issues of graphology. Students brainstorm new ideas (synonyms) to substitute terminology used in the modelled text for the joint rewrite activity. At this point students are being scaffolded through paraphrasing
50 techniques. A strategy that could enhance this process is semantic mapping to assist with vocabulary development (Antonacci & O’Callaghan, 2011).
Joint reconstruction: The IRF cycle (Figure 3.5) is again utilised to train students in the processes used for the creation of new texts. Students collaborate by sharing ideas for the new text whilst having their ideas affirmed. The educator may also elaborate on the suitability of new ideas, words or phrases. This stage can be used to highlight again, the precise function of rhetorical devices such as conjunctives in the creation of cohesive and coherent texts. Students could jot down new ideas on a chalk or white board, depending on availability of resources, offering another opportunity for scaffolding students writing choices. This provides an avenue for negotiated reconstructions of the modelled text. The educator might comment further on aspects relating to word choice chosen for the rewritten text. Students should be encouraged to consider whether the original construction of the ‘field of discourse’ has been altered in their newly constructed texts (See discussion in section 3.4.3) by the use of new words/phrases.
Individual reconstruction and independent writing: Through a careful re-negotiation of the construction of new texts, educators effectively equip students with the skills to develop academic autonomy. Both a process-based approach22 to academic writing as well as a product-based approach23 are utilized as students brainstorm, draft and re-draft new versions of the text studied. Ample feedback is then offered to support students. Students use the feedback to independently construct their own text, which can then be used for formal assessment purposes.
From the above description, it is clear that the practical implementation of RtL in the classroom is comprehensive and allows for the development of both reading and writing skills. However, the comprehensive nature of the intervention also lends one to question whether teachers will not be overburdened by the work load? With an already jam packed curriculum, teachers often find little time to engage in intensive feedback with students’
22 A process-based approach to writing development comprises a brainstorming session, group re-writes and
individual re-write activities. Students will generally write multiple drafts before handing in a final version.
23 This is considered a more traditional approach to writing development. Students are offered a text model and
51 writing. Nevertheless, this intervention has supposedly been developed through extensive consultation with theoretical propositions of reading and writing theory making it a valid contribution to the reading and writing component of the curriculum. The next sections to follow will offer a brief discussion of the theoretical basis on which RtL was founded. Aspects of the discussions to follow may seem repetitive in that some information has already been conveyed in a discussion of RtL, but the purpose is to demonstrate that practical considerations of RtL already discussed, are closely related to the theoretical components.
3.4 Theoretical Foundations of Reading to Learn