| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
By Doug Buehl
“Built to feed exclusively on corals like this spindly gorgonian, a translucent 1.7-inch-long Phyllodesmium iriomotense houses its branching digestive gland within tentacle-like cerata—outgrowths the animal can shed if under attack. This species is one of the few colorless nudibranchs.”(p. 95)
What can you make of this passage, which appeared in a recent National Geographic magazine? What does a reader need to know, for this segment to make sense? First, you perhaps take stock of what the author actually tells you, in this case that what is being described is an animal known as a nudibranch, and that this animal is quite small, under two inches long. The accompanying photograph, and the introduction on this previous page that characterizes this animal as a sea-going slug, helps you place this animal in its natural environment, the ocean. The author also tells you that this creature is sometimes attacked, and that most nudibranches are apparently quite colorful. Finally, the author introduces some technical scientific labels: in addition to nudibranch, you are provided with a specific name (Phyllodesmium iriomotense), a type of coral (gorgonian), and a body part (cerata).
But what does the author not tell you? What does the author rely on you the reader to contribute toward a comprehension of this passage? An initial look confirms that this author expects a familiarity with some sophisticated general vocabulary. Your ability to conceptualize this animal is continent on language such as exclusively, spindly, translucent, houses, branching, and outgrowths. The author also expects you to draw upon some biological terminology: corals (which signals that this animal lives in the ocean, but in shallower areas like coral reefs), digestive, gland, tentacle, and species. And the author leaves it to you to infer why this nudibranch would be attacked—your knowledge of the dynamics of ocean life leads you to assume that another animal may try to eat this creature.
In previous columns, what an author assumes a readers will already know is referred to as ‘hidden knowledge,” knowledge cued by an author but not directly stated. How much of the hidden knowledge can a reader not know before comprehension breaks down? For many readers, the opening example, rife with its complex terminology, would appear too forbidding. As readers, we do an automatic ‘cost-benefit’ analysis, and may determine that we don’t know enough to satisfactorily comprehend this article. Instead, we may indulge in a quick and cursory look at the photographs in the adjoining pages, and then we move on to friendlier territory.
Much of our focus in comprehension instruction has centered on student application of cognitive strategies like self-questioning, creating visual and sensory images, predicting, inferring, determining importance, summarizing, and synthesizing. However, the baseline for comprehension remains the ‘match’ (see October, 2007 Reading Room) between an author’s assumptions of previous knowledge and the actual knowledge a reader brings to the page.
As teachers, we realize that if our students lack background knowledge assumed by an author, we must be proactive in our planning to address this knowledge gap in our lessons. Our students must also develop as a habit of mind this proactive strategy when their comprehension falters. Moore (2008) recommends amending our list of comprehension strategies to include ‘inform yourself.’ When as a reader, you have engaged in all the appropriate strategies and your comprehension is still incomplete, you then need to ‘inform yourself’ by reaching out beyond the text to seek the missing links in your knowledge.
Step 1: Start by acknowledging with students that at times effective reading strategies may not be sufficient for adequate comprehension. Occasionally students tell us: “I didn’t try because nothing I could do would work anyway.” While it is frustrating to teachers when students ‘throw in the towel’ without putting any effort into attempting a challenging text, from a student perspective this can be regarded as reasonable behavior. Students might argue that giving up is a justifiable response when they encounter mismatches with an author’s demands: “Why keep digging at a reading when what I ultimately need is not on the page?”
Observe that even proficient readers sometimes make decisions that a text is “too hard” because they lack sufficient assumed knowledge. However, proficient readers also have developed a repertoire of routines that can diminish their knowledge gaps. For proficient readers, ‘giving up’ translates into being denied access—access to necessary or useful information, access to others’ ideas or perspectives, access to learning opportunities that can open future doors.
Step 2: Introduce the following “Comprehension Check-Down” for guiding readers when they experience knowledge mismatches:
The Comprehension Check-Down provides students with a protocol for isolating knowledge gaps with a text and for systematically working through what they are able to understand and where they are stymied by lack of knowledge.
The initial check-point is of critical importance. Because readers are strongly tempted to forego tackling texts that present a mismatch, students need to begin with an asset rather than deficit mind-set. Instead of a preoccupation with what they are not getting, this step encourages students to verbalize what they do understand.
The second check-point is a fundamental comprehension strategy: inventorying personal knowledge that may have relevance to what the author is saying. Previous Reading Room columns have highlighted text-to-self connections (“this reminds me of something that has happened to me”); text-to-text connections (“I remember reading about this before”); and text-to-world connections (“this is how I understand things to be”).
The third check-point prompts students to examine the author’s message for ‘hidden knowledge.’ Some of the hidden knowledge will appear obvious because a reader is able to connect personal knowledge to the author’s words. But when the author assumes reader knowledge that an individual does not possess, comprehension grinds to a halt. Again, students are asked to verbalize exactly what it is that they do not know that is implicit in a passage.
The fourth check-point cues readers to evaluate the risk of continuing with knowledge gaps. Some passages will generally make sense, even if readers miss some of the author’s references. But in other spots, it will be evident that comprehension will be greatly compromised if the knowledge gaps are not addressed. Readers need to take notice of these spots, even if they decide it is best to move on and look for clarification in the rest of the passage. Some spots will warrant a return sweep for further deliberations.
The fifth check-point asks students whether they ‘recognize’ the unknown information. Is the missing knowledge something they have seen before? Two possible courses of action might present themselves. First, student may recognize that the author has previously covered this information, perhaps in an earlier chapter. A quick look-back to review can rectify this knowledge gap. Secondly, a reader may have forgotten learning from a past course. In this case, a reader will need to determine an accessible source for a revisit of this material.
The sixth and seventh check-points encourage inferential thinking. Inferences are possible when readers combine their prior knowledge with textual information to develop hypotheses about what an author might be saying. Clearly, understandings of these portions of a text may be imperfect, but inferential thinking represents readers doing the best they can, with the knowledge they possess, to figure out possible meanings. Some of their inferences may prove consistent with what an author subsequently tells them, and some may unfold as improbable as they encounter more of the text.
Step 3: The final check-point takes readers outside the text, as they realize they have exhausted all their text-based problem-solving strategies. This is the ‘Inform Yourself’ phase, when readers decide where to turn to enhance their knowledge base. Another check-down can guide them in their searching:
Advantages
The ‘Inform Yourself’ phase of comprehension construction alerts students to those times when they need to set a text aside and deepen their knowledge base in order to achieve a more acceptable understanding.
Further Resources:
Holland, J. (2008) Living Color. National Geographic. (June) 213: 6, 92-104.
Moore, D. (2008) Advances in Adolescent Literacy Instruction. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Convention, Atlanta (May 6).
Doug Buehl, WEAC member, Madison
Wisconsin State Reading Association.
drbuehl@sbcglobal.net
Posted June 3, 2008