Reading aloud

13 Pages·2011·0.39 MB·English

183
C O C O N S T R U C T I N G
M E A N I N G
Interactive Literary Discussions in Kindergarten
Read-Alouds
Jessica L. Hoffman
Classroom read-alouds are a context with great potential for higher level
literacy instruction in early childhood. To reach this potential, students
require teacher support during read-alouds to construct complex meanings
from high-quality children’s literature.
Reading aloud to students has long been Nevertheless, if we compare the kinds of literacy
common practice in early childhood learning that reading aloud has tended to emphasize
classrooms. Not only is being read (i.e., print awareness, vocabulary, and story
to highly engaging for students, but comprehension) with the kinds of literacy practices
research has demonstrated how reading aloud can our changing society demands (i.e., interpretive and
promote language and literacy development through critical reading), even the most effective strategies
interaction among students and such as those listed in the preceding paragraph
teachers about texts. For example, fall short. Although certainly
when teachers and students beneficial, very basic foci such
discuss concepts of print while as print, vocabulary, and story
reading, reading aloud can comprehension are not enough:
enhance print awareness Literacy involves much more than
(Justice, Pullen, & Pence, 2008; features of print, word meanings,
Levy, Gong, Hessels, Evans, and story grammars. Although
& Jared, 2006). When they longitudinal data make clear that
discuss word use, students levels of literacy achievement have
learn new words and develop not changed significantly over
their vocabularies (Blewitt, time (National Center for Education
Rump, Shealy, & Cook, 2009; Statistics, 2009), requirements for full participation
Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000; Justice, 2002; Mol, Bus, & in our society have changed, and demands for new
de Jong, 2009; Silverman, 2007; Wasik & Bond, 2001). literacies necessitate a focus on interpretive, critical
And when they discuss elements of the story, story
comprehension improves (Dennis & Walter, 1995;
Morrow, 1985; Wiseman, 2011; Zucker, Justice, Piasta
& Kaderavek, 2010). Reading aloud clearly has many
Jessica L. Hoffman is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at
benefits when teachers and students interact and Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA; e-mail [email protected].
discuss texts.
The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 pp. 183–194 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01025 © 2011 International Reading Association R T
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118833 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1111 PPMM
184
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
meaning construction (Coiro, Knobel, “Children are entirely capable of
Lankshear, & Leu, 2008).
This article presents how one engaging in higher level literacy practices
researcher and a kindergarten
when their meaning making is facilitated by
teacher worked together to redesign
reading aloud as a classroom practice,
teacher supports and interactive discussion.”
to focus on higher level literacy
practices to meet 21st century literacy
demands. I define higher level literacy In this article, I begin with a brief approach book reading in an “intentional
practices as those focused on actively overview of reading aloud as it is manner” (p. 201). As Teale (2003) stated
constructing meaning through analysis, commonly practiced, followed by a in his account of the history of reading
interpretation, and critical thinking, review of studies that have successfully aloud, “[studies] converge to indicate that
resulting in interpretations of text, rather infused higher level literacy practices the typical read aloud leaves much to be
than comprehension of literal-level in early childhood instruction. Then, I desired” (p. 123).
content explicitly in text. For example, outline our collaborative design process,
recalling character names in a story our resulting instructional design for What Can Classroom
would be considered a low-level literacy reading aloud, and considerations for Read-Alouds Be?
practice, because that information application in other settings.
Research focused on literary
is explicit, leaving little room for
understandings (as opposed to research
interpretation. In contrast, interpreting What Do Early Childhood
on reading aloud as instructional
character motivations would be a higher Classroom Read-Alouds
practice reviewed earlier) have found
level literacy practice, because the reader Typically Look Like? that children are entirely capable of
must analyze the information explicitly
In general, early childhood classroom engaging in higher level literacy practices
in the text and synthesize it with her
read-alouds have been characterized as when their meaning making is facilitated
own knowledge and experience to
common practice, and one highly valued by teacher supports and interactive
construct meaning that is interpretive
by teachers, but also lacking emphasis discussion. Examples include studies
and goes beyond the text itself.
on or substance in the discussion of texts of critical literacy (Vasquez, 2010),
(Beck & McKeown, 2001; Dickinson, multiliteracies (Crafton, Brennan, &
2001). In a 1993 The Reading Teacher Silvers, 2007), and literary analysis and
article, Hoffman, Roser, and Battle response (Eeds & Wells, 1989; Pantaleo,
Pause and Ponder
described the “modal,” or average, 2004a, 2004b; Sipe, 2000, 2008).
read-aloud experience from their data These studies of higher level literacy
■ How do your students currently interact
on 537 classroom observations: instruction have two common elements:
with texts, the teacher, and other students
the form of the discourse is interactive
The classroom teacher reads to students
during classroom read-alouds? How might from a trade book for a period between discussion, allowing for freer student
those ways of interacting affect students’ 10 and 20 minutes. The chosen literature talk than is observed in a traditional
constructions of meaning? is not connected to a unit of study in the three-turn teacher initiation, student
classroom. The amount of discussion
response, teacher evaluation (IRE)
■ What is typically the focus of discussion related to the book takes fewer than
5 minutes, including talk before and pattern (Cazden, 2001), and the focus
during narrative read-alouds in your
after the reading. (p. 500) of discussion is on interpretive meaning,
classroom? To what degree do you
rather than literal level comprehension.
currently focus on higher level literacy More recently, Beck and McKeown
instruction? (2001) found that teachers tended not to
Making It Happen
engage children in discussing major story
■ How could you improve the quality of your ideas and that the two most common in a “Typical”
classroom read-aloud discussion through approaches to comprehension supports Kindergarten Classroom
changes to interactions and the focus of were highly ineffective. Dickinson (2001) Although the work of researchers
your instruction? also reported that most teachers did not reviewed earlier is valuable in terms
R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 November 2011
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118844 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1122 PPMM
185
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
of exploring the possibilities of young for children to explore tentative under- and interpret meaning from their unique
children’s interpretative efforts, many of standings (McGee, 1995 [drawing on perspectives. As Rosenblatt (1978)
these studies were limited to descriptions Corcoran, 1987]). In addition, how explained, reading is a transaction in
of students’ responses, without teachers interact with students makes which meaning is negotiated by both
systematic analysis of the teacher talk a difference. Wells (1995) reported that the text and reader. Not all readers do
required to support such responses. In when teachers controlled talk, they tended this naturally, especially inexperienced
addition, many only studied teachers (or to guide meaning toward their own readers, but readers can be apprenticed
researchers) already expert in children’s interpretations, but when they acted as into interpretive approaches to text,
literature and literary discussion participants in discussions with students, which can better prepare them for
(Pantaleo, 2004a, 2004b; Sipe, 2000, meaning tended to be collaboratively higher level literacy demands. This
2008), rather than investigating how such constructed. These and other researchers study focused on interpretive meaning
instruction might be brought about with (e.g., Sipe, 2008) agree that when students as literary understandings, based on
teachers novice in the practice. Therefore, are encouraged to respond freely, the work of Sipe (2000, 2008). Sipe’s
this study explored how a teacher with meaning making profits from insights (2008) theory of literary understanding
no experience in higher level literacy of young children that would never have of young children described five types of
instruction infused such practices into surfaced if they were only permitted to literary responses:
her classroom read-alouds. respond to teacher questions.
1. Analytical—treat the text as
The teacher and I met when I
“an object of analysis and
facilitated professional development Why Interpretive Meaning
interpretation” (p. 264)
(PD) for preschool teachers in her Making?
2. Intertextual—relate the text to
school. During this time, she expressed Comprehension of the literal
other texts
an interest in PD specifically related to information in texts is of course
3. Personal—connect the text to the
early literacy instruction, because she important. However, good readers do
reader’s personal life
felt her schoolwide PD opportunities much more than take in the literal—
failed to support her professional goals they analyze meaning to identify and 4. Transparent—represent intense
as a kindergarten teacher. She was also pull out important pieces of information, involvement with the narrative
dissatisfied with the basic skills focus of synthesize that meaning with their own world of the story (i.e., the student
the school-adopted literacy program. To background knowledge and experience, is lost in the book experience)
address her professional needs and based
on previous research on higher level
literacies in read-alouds, we established
the following PD goals for the teacher’s
instruction and for students’ responses
to literature during read-alouds: (1) to
change the form of teacher and student
talk from mostly IRE to interactive
discussion, and (2) to shift the focus of
discussion from mostly literal-level foci
on what is explicitly in the text to higher
level interpretative meaning.
Why Interactive Discussion?
Interactive discussion is crucial to
meaning making with texts because
meaning construction is dependent
on social interaction and language
(Vygotsky, 1978). Interactive discussions
provide much-needed “meaning-space”
www.reading.org R T
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118855 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1122 PPMM
186
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
“A broader definition neighboring public schools. All teacher Instructional Materials
and student names are pseudonyms. The teacher read only picture books
of meaning as
because of their prevalence in literature
Professional Development for young children, their ability to
interpretation
The teacher and I met in group PD support the decontextualized language
sessions monthly for 6 months, 1.5 of the text with the visual context of the
rather than only
hours each, each with a different focus illustrations, and their opportunities
(e.g., interpreting literary constructs for complex multimodal meaning
comprehension.”
in text, intentional questioning and making (Sipe, 1998). Consistent with
response). The teacher volunteered her Sipe’s definition of the picture book,
time to participate in the PD; there was throughout this article the word text
no course credit, and she still attended refers to the synergistic meaning
all of her school-sponsored PD sessions. constructed through both the language
5. Performative—manipulate the text As compensation, she received the and the images of the picture book,
(i.e., the reader brings the text into collection of children’s literature used in a literary art form composed and
the real world by acting out some the study as a permanent contribution interpreted as a holistic piece. I worked
aspect of it). to her classroom library. closely with two internationally
The goal of PD was to design recognized experts in children’s
These categories of response exemplify
instructional supports, which are literature to choose books on the basis
a broader definition of meaning as inter-
strategic moves by a teacher (usually of their inclusion of the following:
pretation rather than only comprehension
through discourse) that provide
while also illustrating the higher level ■ A narrative story structure (to
opportunities for students to engage
thinking inherent in the demands of support literary discussion; other
in new practices with high chances for
literary discussion, thus framing our forms of text were read by the
success. PD sessions were broken into
goals for types of literary response to teacher for other purposes)
collaborative learning activities based
support in interactions with students. ■ Complex ideas worthy of discussion
on the cycle of instruction: reflect,
plan, teach, assess. Prior to each PD, ■ Rich, descriptive language
Our Collaborative Design
we read a selection of professional
Process
literature. At the PD session, we first
Context and Participants reviewed and discussed the reading
I collaborated with a kindergarten to build background knowledge to
teacher in a charter school in a large inform our reflection. We then reflected
urban district, Ms. Maddox. Ms. Maddox on our instructional design through
is a young African American woman, collaborative video and transcript
with a bachelor’s degree in education. analysis of teacher instructional
She was in her eighth year of teaching supports to identify those that best
and had 5 years of experience teaching supported students’ attempts at
kindergarten, all at this particular school. interpretative meaning making and
Ms. Maddox had no previous experience those that could be improved through
in higher level literacy instruction. refinements. Finally, we planned revised
Her class of 22 students was instructional supports for the next read-
100% African American and alouds, drawing on reflections to plan
received free or reduced lunch. The future instruction. Ms. Maddox then
students lived in the charter school’s taught the subsequent read-alouds and
surrounding neighborhood, which was assessed student progress informally
predominately low-income, but they during the read-aloud as well as more
tended to have higher percentages of formally through video analysis in the
working parents than students in the next PD.
R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 November 2011
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118866 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1122 PPMM
187
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
■ Artful incorporation of text The Resulting Design: students to talk at will during the read-
and illustrations that support Instructional Supports aloud, but in a quiet voice. Then, if
transmediation, in which the for Interactive Literary the teacher initiated discussion with
meaning from the text and the Discussion a question, the students were to raise
meaning from the illustrations are their hands. But instead, she almost
Across iterations of redesign through six
interconnected in a way that results immediately allowed students to freely
PD sessions, we developed four effective
in a sum greater than its parts answer questions, ask questions, and
instructional supports for interactive
(Sipe, 1998) make responses at any point during
literary discussion related to the two goals
■ A book length that could be read her read-alouds. This simple change
of the study: building interactive discussion
in its entirety in 20 to 30 minutes, to her read-aloud routine provided the
and interpretive meaning making.
including discussion much-needed meaning space (McGee,
1995) for children to offer and explore
Instructional Support 1:
A selection of books was presented
interpretations of texts with their
Encouraging Student Talk
to the teacher, from which she chose
peers, live in the meaning-making
to Build Interaction
the texts to read to her class (see
process.
In response to the goal for interactive
Table). All books were read aloud
The classroom climate appeared to
discussion, after beginning PD,
to the class at least twice to allow
already have established a clear goal
Ms. Maddox designed and taught
interpretive meaning making to
for all instruction—to participate and
her students procedures for their
develop over repeated readings of
learn—and therefore the transition
participation during read-alouds,
the text, a well-documented practice
to interactive discussion was not a
assuming that the transition from
(Dennis & Walter, 1995; Martinez &
difficult one for Ms. Maddox and her
requiring students to raise hands to
Roser, 1985; McGee & Schickedanz,
class. There were of course times when
encouraging free participation would
2007).
many students responded at once to
be a chaotic one. She decided to allow
particularly exciting points in the text
or in divisive discussions. For example,
while reading Zinnia and Dot (Ernst,
Table Children’s Literature Selected for This Study 1992), a story of two hens trying to hatch
Bang, M. (1999). When Sophie gets angry, really, really angry. New York: Blue Sky. one egg, several students repeatedly
Bond, F. (1985). Poinsettia and her family. New York: HarperCollins. spoke over each other to explain an
Bryan, A. (2003). Beautiful blackbird. New York: Atheneum. event in the story.
Burton, V.L. (1969). The little house. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Dion: Ms., Ms. Maddox they
Cauley, L.B. (1990). Town mouse and country mouse. New York: Putnam.
fussin’ and fightin’....
Daly, N. (1999). Jamela’s dress. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
dePaola, T. (1979). Strega Nona. New York: Aladdin. Gregory: They rivals!...
Ernst, L.C. (1992). Zinnia and Dot. New York: Viking Juvenile. Student: They arguin’. [all talking
Graham, B. (2001). “Let’s get a pup!” said Kate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Candlewick. at same time]
Hale, C. (1998). Elizabeti’s doll. New York: Lee & Low.
Jennifer: Ms., Ms. Maddox that’s
Havill, J. (1993). Jamaica and Brianna. New York: Houghton Mifflin Books for Children.
what rivals mean!
Henkes, K. (2004). Kitten’s first full moon. New York: HarperCollins.
Dion: They’re fussin’ and
Hesse, K. (1999). Come on rain! New York: Scholastic.
fightin’.
Hills, T. (2006). Duck and goose. New York: Schwartz & Wade.
Danny: I don’t agree.
Kasza, K. (1988). The pig’s picnic. New York: Putnam Juvenile.
Lionni, L. (1970). Fish is fish. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Books for Young Readers. Ms. Maddox: Well, one at a time....
Pilkey, D. (1996). The paperboy. New York: Scholastic. So you don’t agree with
Pinkney, B. (1994). Max found two sticks. New York: Simon & Schuster. Jennifer, Danny? [many
Wyeth, S.D. (1998). Something beautiful. New York: Doubleday Books for Young Readers. students talking at once]...
Young, E. (1992). Seven blind mice. New York: Philomel. OK, so let’s…Jennifer,
what did you say?
www.reading.org R T
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118877 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM
188
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
Jennifer: That what rivals mean, (Young, 1992), a story about blind mice Ms. Maddox: It was a snake? We’ll
like when they want who each feel separate parts of a gray see. Jazmyn, what do
their eggs to be like the elephant and imagine what they feel you remember about,
prettiest.... I have friends to be different, but similarly shaped something different from
like that. objects (e.g., one imagines the trunk what Dion said?...
is a green snake). Several students
Ms. Maddox: Uh-huh. In this transcript, Dion’s and Scott’s
expressed misconceptions about the
Jennifer: They [my friends] think contributions represented complete
literal-level meaning of the book,
their pets is like cuter, misinterpretations, and their sharing
which still persisted after the first
but they [Zinnia and Dot] of them without any reconstructive
reading of this book, but Ms. Maddox
think their eggs are like effort from the teacher only
only acknowledged their responses
the most precious... perpetuated the misunderstanding
and moved on to other students; she
for the class across two readings of
Ms. Maddox: Oh, OK.
searched for a “correct” answer from
this text. Although encouragement
Danny: They’re supposed to sit the next student, without working
of student ideas is important to
on them. [disagreeing with students to reconstruct their
creating an interactive climate, relying
with the interpretation of misunderstandings.
inappropriately on encouragement
the event]
Ms. Maddox: Who can tell me what can and did lead to unaddressed
they remember about the misinterpretations.
When students’ simultaneous
book? Dion. In PD, Ms. Maddox and I explored
sharing interrupted meaning making,
Dion: They [mice] turn the issue of students’ misconceptions,
Ms. Maddox focused on getting back
everything different concluding that although there is much
to the significance of the ongoing
colors and they now room in literary discussion for different
discussion, saying, as in the example
found out what it was. but equally valid interpretations,
above, “Jennifer, what did you say?”
that does not mean that any and all
or, at other times, the quick and Ms. Maddox: So Dion said that they
interpretations are equally valid. So
effective, “Let’s get ourselves together.” turn everything different
when a student’s response is clearly
These simple management moves colors. Does anyone else
misinterpreting central meaning
communicated to students that the have a different answer?
that is more literal and explicit, it is
purpose of free participation was What they remember
detrimental to their experience of the
collaboration in meaning making, so about the book? Scott.
book to not reconstruct that meaning
when too many speakers shared at once, Scott: They was going to check
with them. After this PD session early in
she focused on the need to hear others’ out what was in the
intervention, Ms. Maddox demonstrated
contributions, rather than on controlling elephant.
intentional efforts to reconstruct
students’ ways of communicating with
Ms. Maddox: What was in the students’ responses. For example, in
strict procedures for participation (e.g.,
elephant? And one her second reading of Poinsettia and Her
raising hands).
more. Family (Bond, 1985), Ms. Maddox asked
Scott: It was in a snake. It was a a question aimed at identifying the
Instructional Support 2:
snake. motivation for Poinsettia’s action (which
Strategic Use of Reconstruction
of Meaning
In her initial efforts to foster interactive
discussion, Ms. Maddox tended to “When too many speakers shared at once,
overly rely on encouraging student
responses by repeating and affirming she focused on the need to hear others’
contributions, but was hesitant to build
contributions, rather than on controlling
from students’ (mis)interpretations. The
following excerpt is from Ms. Maddox’s
students’ ways of communicating.”
second reading of Seven Blind Mice
R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 November 2011
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118888 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM
189
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
that connection. So, she Gregory: He was trying to help.
pinched her brother, He was trying to help!
because her brother was Ms. Maddox: I don’t think Taxi was
sitting in her favorite place trying to help. I think
to read. with all the excitement—
Student: He was trying to pull it!
Here we see that Ms. Maddox did
not “fish” for a correct response from Student: He was trying to eat it.
another student, but instead prompted Gregory: I think he [Taxi] was
Dylan with a refined question to support trying to help because
him in reconstructing his understanding. the boy ran over the
This is an example of Ms. Maddox’s material.
strategic use of reconstructive talk
Ms. Maddox: Oh, that’s a good
to intentionally scaffold students’
observation!
construction of meaning in the text that
Kia: I think he [Taxi] was
was more definite and less negotiable.
trying to take it away
Instructional Support 3: from him [the boy on the
Strategic Use of Coconstruction bike].
of Meaning Ms. Maddox: Gregory said, maybe
To achieve our goal of truly interpretive Taxi was probably trying
meaning making, Ms. Maddox had to help Jamela save
had been presented fairly explicitly in
to move beyond reconstruction of the dress because Taxi
the story), to which a student replied
literal meanings with students toward probably noticed that the
with only a description of Poinsettia’s
coconstruction, in which meaning was boy was on there so he
behavior. Instead of searching for another
constructed through the discussion itself. probably was trying to
response, Ms. Maddox worked with the
The difference between the two forms pull it.
student through additional prompting to
of discourse is perhaps best illustrated Students: So she... To get it out.
reconstruct his response (in bold).
by contrasting the preceding example
Ms. Maddox: To get it away from under
Text: She pinched a brother, of reconstruction with the example that the bike. That’s a good
stepped on a sister... follows. In this excerpt, Ms. Maddox read observation, Gregory. I
Jamela’s Dress (Daly, 1999), a story of a girl
Ms. Maddox: Why is she doing all this? didn’t think of that.
who unwittingly destroys her mother’s
... Why do you think she
brand new fabric, focusing on a page
pinched her brother? In this excerpt, Ms. Maddox and the
depicting Jamela in the streets of her town,
students were discussing interpretations
Dylan: ’Cause she was mean to
wrapped in the material she has fashioned
of the illustration showing Taxi the dog
them.
like a dress, while Jamela’s dog (Taxi) is
pulling on Jamela’s material, initially
Ms. Maddox: ...Yeah, she is mean for pulling on the material with his teeth,
interpreted as Taxi contributing to the
pinching, but why, what with a myriad of mischief surrounding her.
destruction of the material. However,
is the reason that you Notice the negotiation of meaning in bold.
Gregory then initiated the idea that Taxi
think she pinched him?
was trying to help Jamela by pulling
James: Taxi ate it.
Dylan: ’Cause he was sitting in the material away from another source
Ms. Maddox: Taxi, well I think it was
his favorite sister’s chair. of trouble, an interpretation that was
torn because Taxi was
Ms. Maddox: Good job Dylan,... ’Cause first rejected by both the teacher and
what?
I can remember in the other students, but then ultimately
book when he was curled Dion: Pullin’ it! taken up by multiple participants, jointly
up in her favorite seat, Ms. Maddox: He was pulling it with authored by Gregory, Kia, Ms. Maddox,
and Dylan just made his teeth. and other students contributing to the
www.reading.org R T
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 118899 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM
190
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
discussion. Even though Ms. Maddox’s she paused to discuss two characters’ some simple encouragement of student
first inclination was to try to reconstruct emotions during an argument occurring contributions. In the end, Ms. Maddox’s
Gregory’s meaning to match her own in the story (questioning in bold): questioning created an interactive
interpretation, she changed her mind, discussion that scaffolded students’
Ms. Maddox: We said yesterday that
acquiesced that control, and achieved a interpretive efforts and coconstructed
their faces looked like
truly coconstructed interpretation of text the meaning of the text and illustration
they were kind of what?
and image with her students. portraying the characters’ emotions
Students: Mad. through the discussion of them, instead
How Did She Do That? In our Dion: But the yellow one [Duck] of communicating that the meaning
analysis we identified two necessary was mad and the black resides in the book or the teacher.
components for coconstruction: one [Goose] wasn’t.
capitalizing on student-initiated Because, because the Instructional Support 4:
responses and the use of follow-up black one was yelling and Shifting Focus From Literal
questioning to guide the meaning- the other one was not. to Interpretive
making process across multiple The second goal for our instructional
Ms. Maddox: So, we said that the duck
participants’ contributions. Simply by design was to shift the focus of talk
appears to be mad, but
allowing and encouraging students to in read-aloud discussions from literal
what does Goose’s face
freely respond during the read-aloud, meaning of the text toward interpretive
look like it appears to be?
Ms. Maddox achieved an increase in meaning. To do so, Ms. Maddox and
Gregory: He look like he’s bored.
student-initiated responses (student I preread, analyzed, and planned
talk other than responses to a teacher James: He look like he’s trying to discussion points for the children’s
question, such as bringing up a new be sad. literature read-aloud to prepare to engage
idea, or responding to another’s Jennifer: He looks like, he’s saying students in higher level meaning making.
comment without prompting). like “sorry,” but he has a When she read aloud, Ms. Maddox
However, only encouraging free sad face. emphasized a few literary elements
response was not enough to support central to each text during the read-
Ms. Maddox: So he looks...kind of like
coconstruction. Read-aloud discussions aloud, but she did not focus exclusively
you put your head down
with free student participation in on those preidentified elements and
[demonstrating] and
another teacher’s class in the larger instead drew on the children’s multiple
say, “Sorry,” you know.
study demonstrated how young responses to the text as an authentic
Oh, that’s a good one.
students offered a series of unrelated part of the meaning-making process.
Anybody agree with
questions and comments at a break Therefore, they analyzed characters
Jennifer?
in the reading of the text, which and personalized, made intertextual
James: Yes, and I do that to my
resulted in more student-initiated talk, connections and interpreted symbolism,
daddy sometimes. I be
but not coconstruction. To achieve resulting in complex interpretations of
like [making expression]...
coconstructive discussion, young texts, rather than engaging in a “lesson”
Ms. Maddox: Why do you agree with
students need to learn how to pursue on interpreting symbolism, for example.
Jennifer that he looks
one topic in more extended discussion, Once Ms. Maddox shifted toward
like he’s trying to put
as in the talk in Ms. Maddox’s class. interpretation of texts, the class’s
his head down and say
To turn student-initiated responses discussions began to include higher level
that he’s sorry?
into coconstructive meaning making, foci as a necessary part of interpreting
the teacher must guide students to build Steven: He didn’t mean to do it. quality literature. For example, when
on responses, and Ms. Maddox did Ms. Maddox: He didn’t mean to do it. the class read Beautiful Blackbird (Bryan,
just that through her use of follow-up 2003), a highly symbolic text addressing
questioning. This excerpt of a second Here, Ms. Maddox used a responsive issues of race, culture, and society,
reading of Duck and Goose (Hills, blend of questioning and prompting Ms. Maddox intentionally prompted
2006) illustrates Ms. Maddox’s use of for students to respond to each other, students’ thinking about the symbolic
follow-up questioning; see next how reconstruction of student ideas, and meanings to fully appreciate the text.
R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 November 2011
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 119900 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM
191
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
Arguably very few kindergartners are Ms. Maddox: So when birds flew from theme or symbolism. Therefore, at
capable of independently interpreting all over, if Blackbird is times when the interpretive effort Ms.
abstract literary symbolism, as from Africa, and they flew Maddox desired seemed beyond her
evidenced after the first reading of this in from all over... all these students’ reach, rather than abandon
text, when this class summarized it as, different birds represent it as too complex for kindergarteners,
“[The birds] were all different colors people that are what? Ms. Maddox more heavily scaffolded
at the first part, and then they want to [extended discussion in students’ meaning making. This excerpt
be black,” and “The blackbird painted which children state the exemplifies Ms. Maddox’s efforts to
the gray bird black.” However, the birds may come from lead her students through a process of
kindergartners in Ms. Maddox’s class different homes (e.g., thinking about symbolism, supporting
were very capable of participating in grass, trees), different them step by step to accumulate and
scaffolded discussions of symbolism, as states (of the United piece together clues from the text, the
in this excerpt from the second reading, States)] images, and background knowledge to
in which they discussed the meaning of Ms. Maddox: Or different what? What actively construct the meaning.
the blackbird: do you see? ...
Text: A long time ago, the birds Steven: Colors! Putting It All Together:
of Africa were all colors Ms. Maddox: Oh, Steven, good job! A Visual Model
of the rainbow...clean, These birds might of Coconstruction
clear colors from head to represent people that and Interpretative
tail. Oh so pretty, pretty, are different what, Meaning Making
pretty! Steven?
First of all, it is important to reiterate
Ms. Maddox: Remember that we said Steven: Colors. that multiple forms of teacher discourse
Africa was a continent. Ms. Maddox: People that are different are necessary to achieve interactive
Do you remember that? colors. read-aloud discussions like Ms.
Do you know what the Maddox’s. Teachers will need to simply
people look like who live This excerpt demonstrates how Ms. encourage student responses at times,
in Africa? Maddox engaged her kindergartners and responses more related to literal
Jennifer: They’re black like us, and in a level of interpretation of this meaning will require reconstructive
they wear this stuff on story that they would almost certainly efforts by the teacher. But although
their, they wear this hat miss without her guidance. Although several forms of talk may be present
on their hair... most of the interpretive content was during interactive discussions, an
modeled by Ms. Maddox, and thus this overall emphasis on coconstruction
Ms. Maddox: Now, remember we said
excerpt is less coconstructive than the appeared specifically supportive of
that Blackbird was in
previous example, Ms. Maddox clearly interpretive meaning making and, vice
Africa and Jennifer said
made efforts to engage children in versa, coconstructing meaning required
that people in Africa
the meaning-making process. Here,
look like we do, so what
she assumed the role of orchestrator,
do you think Blackbird “Overall emphasis on
rather than facilitator, in response to
represents?
her students’ needs. Although the coconstruction
Students: Africa. Blackbird.
kindergartners in Ms. Maddox’s class
Jennifer: Us.
were capable of more independently appeared specifically
Ms. Maddox: Yeah, he might look like interpreting more concrete ideas,
us. He might represent like the interpretation of character supportive of
who we are, OK? motivation seen in the previous excerpt,
interpretive meaning
Text: Birds flew in from all over. they often struggled to contribute as
With a flip-flop-flapping independently in discussions of more
making.”
of their wings. abstract literary elements, such as
www.reading.org R T
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 119911 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM
192
COCONSTRUCTING MEANING: INTERACTIVE LITERARY DISCUSSIONS IN KINDERGARTEN READ-ALOUDS
About the Texts You Read
Figure Models of Discourse Patterns of Read-Aloud Discussions
When we consider reading aloud an
Co-constructionDiscoursePattern
instructional strategy to support higher
level literacy development, the text
matters. To have the opportunity for
TeacherQuestion NNoo Teacherfollow-up complex meaning making, we must read
orResponse question
Student Fullydeveloped a text that warrants and demands deep
OR Response(s) response?
levels of processing. Generally speaking,
Teacher
SIdteuadent-initiated YYeess encouragement if the text comprises mostly literal,
orsummaryof
predictable content readily understood
co-construction
by students with little room for multiple
IRE(Initiation-Response-Evaluation)DiscoursePattern
interpretations, it will not be strong
enough to drive meaningful interpretive
discussion. When choosing narrative
TeacherQuestion Student Teacher literature such as that used in this study,
Response Evaluation
teachers should look for texts with
complex ideas worthy of discussion, well
developed characters, rich and complex
language use, and artful integration
of visuals, as described previously (see
points to discuss that were open to of contributions in Ms. Maddox’s Table).
multiple interpretations. read-alouds. The cycle ended when
Analyses of discourse patterns either the meaning constructed was Extending the Read-Aloud
highlighted the ways Ms. Maddox clear and complete enough that the and Discussion
guided coconstruction to support teacher acknowledged or praised the As Ms. Maddox infused interactive
student interpretive meaning making. work, or the meaning was constructed discussion and interpretive meaning
As depicted in the Figure, this over so many contributions that she making in her read-alouds, we observed
instructional approach is distinct from felt compelled to summarize the two related changes. First, her read-
an IRE model of discourse (Cazden, coconstructed product for students. aloud sessions grew longer, from
2001) because either the student or the Obviously live discourse interactions approximately 23 to 30 minutes. Second,
teacher can initiate discussion, and are more complex than the simplified lengths of discussions within the
multiple participants may respond at model illustrated here; however, this read-aloud also expanded (increased
once and to each other. Also, in this model proved effective for Ms. Maddox 45%). It appeared that coconstructing
approach the teacher does not end the in guiding her overall approach interpretive meaning may simply take
turns with an evaluation, but rather to responses to students during more time than supporting literal
builds from student responses to interactive discussion to create a more understandings of the text, requiring
construct more refined meanings. In coconstructive environment. longer discussions of each response to
coconstruction, the teacher analyzed
the student response(s) for clarity,
completeness, and/or depth and, “Coconstructing interpretive meaning
if more refined meaning could be
constructed, prompted the students may simply take more time than supporting
with a question or comment. Thus
she contributed to the process, but literal understandings of the text, requiring
supported students to coconstruct more
longer discussions of each response to fully
developed interpretations. This cycle
could occur over and over, as observed
construct meaning.”
in long discussions comprising dozens
R T The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 3 November 2011
TTRRTTRR__11002255..iinndddd 119922 1111//77//22001111 11::3344::1133 PPMM