Promoting Comprehension and Thinking Through the Strategic Use of the Language of Instruction

1. Promoting Comprehension and Thinking Through the Strategic Use of the Language of Instruction International Reading Association Symposium San Antonio, Texas W. Dorsey Hammond wdhammond@salisbury.edu May 2, 2005

2. Engage Extend Focus Refocus Explore Explore Redirect Inform Reflect hypothesize Instructional Language to:

3. Three dimensions of instructional language • Language type • Language timing • Language tone

4. Assumptions • 1. What students discovery on their own thru reading is more satisfying and lasting. • 2. Primary Focus on meaning construction • 3. Learner conversation promotes construction of meaning • 4. “Story” belongs to the learners.

5. Short History of Guiding Learners Through Text • Betts 1946 Directed Reading Activity • Stauffer- 1962 Directed Reading Thinking Activity • Stauffer-1969 Teaching Reading As A Thinking Process • Anderson, et al ( late 70’s and 1980’s)Center for the Study of Reading( focus on schema, metacognition,) • Reading Recovery/Guided Reading Models(1990’s – present)

6. Initial Engagement with Text • Expository text conversations • Narrative text conversations • Issues of type, timing, tone • Differences for narrative and expository text conversations

7. Journeys Through The Text • Issues of: pauses the nature of conversations “off text” vs. “on text” language

8. Conversations About Text • Multiple responses • Dialogue Invitations vs. assessment Invitations • Questions with no definitive answers

9. Multiple Responses • Interpretive Response • Theme Response • Metacognitive Response • Author’s craft response • Intertextual Response, • Moral or Ethical Issues Response • Personal Connection Response

10. Issues and Concerns • Ritualization and prescription • “Engage in” Vs. “Teach about” • Failure to based on text and reader maturity

11. Promising Practices • Development of Anchor conversations • Teachers as Text Discussants • Longterm collaborative committments