Moving ......from learning to read to reading to learn
Because
the discipline of science is seen as a foundational discipline for every
student to study, teachers of science must
agree to integrate this “reading–to–learn” mandate as a basic part of their
job. For many years, there has been an
assumption in the profession that it is someone else who should be working on this part of education (Dillon, O'Brien, Sato, & Kelly, 2011). But it is really the science teachers’ work
strictly because it is the science teacher who understands how to read for
information in this discipline. Science
text reads differently than English texts, History texts, and Mathematics
texts. Indeed, science texts to a very
large degree absorb many of the text structures that they use in the other
texts, but very often in a very complex manner.
Because of the complexity of the textual arrangement, the factual intent
of the authors meaning, the barrage of vocabulary that is necessary to
“describe” science, and the constant translation between text, symbols,
equations, and graphics, readers must intensively work to retrieve meaning from
this type of reading.
Where have you been and where should you be going?
Reading education thus far in your teacher education pursuits, has for the most part resided in the lower sections of the pyramid as seen in Figure 1. The students that we teach, begin at the bottom in elementary school with word recognition, fluency, and simple comprehension of the text. This learning is monumental and takes much practice and concentration to obtain a high level of comprehension. The mental work that is comprised to undertake such tasks also sets us apart as human. However, cognitive psychologists also point out that “our brains are not designed for thought but for the avoidance of thought” (Willingham, 2009). This is a dreadful concept from an educators’ standpoint! But the examination of this statement provokes one to slow down in their teaching and pay attention to how we as teachers accommodate students in the way they facilitate the science information presented to them. Willinghams' point is that much of our brain is designed to allow for physical movement and visual acuity which has allowed our species to exist so long. In comparison to the ability to translate visual information or our ability to move, thinking is slow and full of effort. Think about in your own circumstance how most of you don’t even consider the task of walking to our cars after class, stepping up and over things and down curbs, visually analyzing traffic patterns, all while thinking about what we want for supper. Contrast that scenario with the mental work of contemplating a physics problem or contemplating the complexities of the carbon cycle and you will get what I mean.
My point is that mental work is very time consuming and difficult. We see that as we move students toward the top of the literacy pyramid in Figure 1. Intermediate literacy means that we spend time on generic comprehension strategies and common word meanings. In many peoples opinion, this is where we leave many students and assume that they will automatically take up the specialized skills that occupy the top portion of the pyramid appropriately
entitled “Disciplinary Literacy”. This
designation is appropriate because it is here that teachers can apply those
specialized skills that are necessary to unravel information recorded in
science text. According to the National
Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officials,
“Teachers in the social and natural
sciences, the humanities, and mathematics need to use their content-area
expertise to help students’ acquire the discipline the discipline specific
skills necessary to comprehend challenging texts and develop deep knowledge in
those fields” (2009).
Note that the writers were concerned about deep knowledge. How can our students attain deep knowledge without being able to fully integrate into difficult science text? Willingham (2009) asserts that the “very processes that teachers care most about – critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving – are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in the long-term memory” (p. 28). This factual knowledge is the cornerstone to reading in science, and yet, science is written in such a manner that these facts and ideas are strung together in long, complex sentences that require - nay, expect that the reader will coherently put the information together. And this is where it all falls apart if the science teacher does not teach the student how to work through processes to augment the comprehension of such passages. When working with passages that are difficult for the student to understand, the student is juggling too many ideas or facts in their head, and they get lost trying to connect them together. We have known since the 1950’s through the work of Miller (1957) that we can keep generally no more than seven things in our short term memory and so we need to “chunk” information in order to digest it.
Note that the writers were concerned about deep knowledge. How can our students attain deep knowledge without being able to fully integrate into difficult science text? Willingham (2009) asserts that the “very processes that teachers care most about – critical thinking processes such as reasoning and problem solving – are intimately intertwined with factual knowledge that is stored in the long-term memory” (p. 28). This factual knowledge is the cornerstone to reading in science, and yet, science is written in such a manner that these facts and ideas are strung together in long, complex sentences that require - nay, expect that the reader will coherently put the information together. And this is where it all falls apart if the science teacher does not teach the student how to work through processes to augment the comprehension of such passages. When working with passages that are difficult for the student to understand, the student is juggling too many ideas or facts in their head, and they get lost trying to connect them together. We have known since the 1950’s through the work of Miller (1957) that we can keep generally no more than seven things in our short term memory and so we need to “chunk” information in order to digest it.
The importance of background knowledge
Perhaps this is a good place to insert a word about background knowledge. All teachers of science understand that background knowledge is super important in the teaching of science. Cognitive scientists also talk about the importance of background knowledge in terms of reading comprehension (Willingham, 2009; Mayer, 2011). Background knowledge allows you to use vocabulary, chunk material as you read, fill in the logical gaps that the writers leave as they write, and helps the reader translate an ambiguous sentence (Willingham, p. 36, 2009). Mayer (2011) identifies this as “active processing” (p. 30). All of this together makes you a better reader and a better logical and critical thinker.
Jammed! Science reading is dense!
Let’s go back to our pyramid one more time, to emphasize the point about reading difficulty as we move up the grades. As students move from the elementary grade levels into the secondary levels, instruction in regards to reading generally ceases. Teachers generally assume that their students can read and that now students can employ their reading skills for learning. As the student moves up in grades, the reading that he/she encounter becomes more and more difficult in vocabulary and sentence structure. Research shows that these types of text exhibit more and more complexity in terms of sentence length and concepts, intensity of discipline vocabulary, and a stepped -up intensity as far as a reliance on graphical interpretation (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010). In terms of this, many readers begin to struggle and need help in learning how to navigate the difficult passages. Science writing naturally tends to be “dense” and impersonal, with as much information jammed into as few sentences as possible. Vocabulary alone can be a monumental impasse because of the amount of it – everything in science from the parts of a butterfly to the action of a capillary in the human body, has a word attached and students of each discipline must learn them in order to communicate ideas clearly. And so it goes – the difficulty increasing each year. Without guidance, many students do not figure out how to navigate the difficult passages and simply give up. They sit in the classroom listening and doing labs if they are offered, but do not engage with the text because is difficult and “boring”. Such is the state of science text and it would not matter, if it was an unimportant thing. But research shows that our students’ future will be full of informational text in our increasingly technological world. So putting the books on the shelves and not taking the time to help our students learn how to read them is not doing them any favors.
Also note that each discipline in science draws on different skills because of the technical variety that the discipline brings. What I mean is that the study of biology is steeped in the organization of structure and function. Of course there is the basics of chemistry and physics in it – but at its’ core, it strives to name and categorize things and their parts. Therefore, the study of biology is necessarily full of vocabulary and the accompanying memorization of that vocabulary its’ accompanying concepts. In contrast, the study of physical science demands the inclusion of mathematical computations and graphical representations. This forces the student to also be able to work in the abstract. The earth sciences draw on the skills of both these areas, asking the student to do a fair amount of memorization and working in the abstract. This diversity of skills and thinking ability makes the learning and teaching of science challenging. In terms of this, paying attention to additional skills in the domain of reading and adding them into the students’ “learning arsenal” can only move students towards successful in science learning and their future lives.
Also note that each discipline in science draws on different skills because of the technical variety that the discipline brings. What I mean is that the study of biology is steeped in the organization of structure and function. Of course there is the basics of chemistry and physics in it – but at its’ core, it strives to name and categorize things and their parts. Therefore, the study of biology is necessarily full of vocabulary and the accompanying memorization of that vocabulary its’ accompanying concepts. In contrast, the study of physical science demands the inclusion of mathematical computations and graphical representations. This forces the student to also be able to work in the abstract. The earth sciences draw on the skills of both these areas, asking the student to do a fair amount of memorization and working in the abstract. This diversity of skills and thinking ability makes the learning and teaching of science challenging. In terms of this, paying attention to additional skills in the domain of reading and adding them into the students’ “learning arsenal” can only move students towards successful in science learning and their future lives.
OK....so what will this look like?
We will start then by looking closely at what kind of what this science text looks like and how we can teach our students engage with it (Module 1). Additionally in Module 1, a look at the intricacies of the grammar of that text in regards to information extraction will help us understand what must be done to help our students engage in the difficult passages. In Module 2, the various text genres that are commonly found in science text will be explored. Thereafter, we will work on the text structures found in a typical science text and look at some strategies to help students extract information from those (Module 3). Module 4 will deal with the big issue of vocabulary in science teaching. Dealing with the translation issues in science reading – that is, moving back and forth between graphics, charts, graphs, symbols, and equations will be the subject of Module 5. And finally, Module 6 will talk about the cognitive importance of partnering science reading with science writing.
Activity: Sit back and think about being in school yourself. Think about a time that a teacher or Professor was reading through a section of a book or article. You were following along, but you could not cognitively digest the material as fast as the instructor was going. Describe what you felt like inside. What insight should you take from that reflection in terms of your teaching?
This module was written by Carmen Woodhall, Ph.D., East Carolina University, 2014.