Book Commentary - Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Written in a style more conversational and readable than most texts about education, this book explores the most basic, and most crucial, skill that teachers strive to teach – reading. The authors stress that “learning to read depends on two critical factors: the teacher’s thorough understanding of the reading process itself, and his or her determination to understand and respond to each child’s needs as a reader.”

Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop by Ellin Oliver Keene and Susan Zimmerman, 1997.

In each chapter, the author demonstrates the thought process she uses while reading a text. She then identifies the reading strategy that corresponds to the thought process. Finally, she discusses ways to teach the strategy and provides examples of how it has been taught in real classrooms. By presenting her ideas this way, the author demonstrates how to apply them in “real life.”

For years, teachers have used instruction methods that focused on assessments of comprehension rather than on how to comprehend while reading. The authors describe how teachers can focus on how to comprehend through text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world connections. These are some of the strategies that “proficient” readers use to approach text, even if they are not aware that they are using them. The authors provide anecdotal information about students at the early elementary level reading fiction learning and using these strategies. I am curious as to how this works at more advanced levels with different types of text, particularly for struggling readers. Can high school students reading at early elementary grade levels learn these strategies and apply them to grade level texts? Do these students struggle, at least in part, because they haven’t learned and used these strategies? (If anyone has anecdotal information about how these strategies work with older students, please comment!) In addition, since reading Mosaic of Thought, I have learned that students also need to learn to make sure their connections help them understand the text. For example, if I, as a student, am reading a nonfiction text about farm animals, I may suddenly thinks about the cuddly stuffed pig I received from my grandmother (a text-to-self connection). I have to recognize that this connection will only distract me from the text, rather than help me understand it.

I am curious about how to teach all of these strategies, how to determine whether students are using them effectively, and simultaneously teach content. As a high school English teacher, I somehow have to teach literary terms and concepts, genres, grammar, and composition as well as how to read – reading comprehension. (Again, if anyone has any thoughts, please add your comments!)

Mosaic of Thought, Chapter 4

In Chapter 4, the authors demonstrate how to use schema (prior knowledge) in the classroom. I found it interesting for several reasons. First, I hadn’t thought of schema in terms of one’s knowledge about an author. Second, it also hadn’t occurred to me that previewing a text’s format is a way of accessing schema. It also helps determine what the genre of the text is which, in turn, helps access a student’s knowledge about how to approach that type of genre. And finally, I hadn’t realized that the very act of reading is immediately increasing schema which a student then continually accesses while continuing to read. It also affects a re-reading of the text and is part of what increases comprehension through multiple readings. This has enhanced my understanding of both “schema” and “metacognition” – thinking about thinking. I am now mulling over how to apply it both explicitly and implicitly in my classroom.

Another strategy discussed in Mosaic of Thought is asking questions while reading. Those students who freely question what they read are the students who read best. As the author says, “[o]f all qualities, questioning is fundamental to being human.” (p.99) Questions lead our thoughts.

But why do some students question and others don’t? I reflected on this for a bit. Questions can make us feel defensive, especially if we either don’t have the answers or we suspect that our answers are not what the questioner is looking for. Our students may feel the same way when we question them. Thus, even if we are only attempting to demonstrate how to interact with text when we ask them about what they are reading, it may put them on the defensive. If they associate that defensive feeling with reading, it’s no wonder that they hate reading or feel inept about their ability to do it well. It makes sense that we have to demonstrate questioning the text by modeling. Then we are doing two things simultaneously. First, we are questioning the text and not the students. As a result, they may feel safer. Second, we are showing that it’s okay to not understand everything as we read. And that it’s okay to rely on ourselves to try to figure out our questions about text that we don’t understand.

Chapter 5 of Mosaic of Thought highlights the necessity of students distinguishing what is most important in the texts that they are reading. Essentially, what is the main idea and important, supporting details? I don’t particularly like the labels that are applied to texts according to how difficult it is for individual students to understand. Texts that may be difficult for a student are “inconsiderate” for that student. Texts that are easier are “considerate.” I think that these labels personify the texts and create or aggravate negative connotations. I am wary about the long term implications of encouraging students’ negative beliefs about texts and authors. I think they already personalize their relationships to books and reading too much.

To move her relationship with a text from “inconsiderate” to “considerate”, a student must focus on what is important or essential in the text. One way is to keep in mind the purpose for reading. Another suggestion is to look at what is important at the word, sentence, and text levels. Embedded in the discussion on text level (p.94), is what I consider to be the most salient piece of advice: “Final conclusions about the most important themes are typically made after reading the passage, perhaps several times and/or after conversing or writing about the passage.” (Emphasis added.)

Chapter 8 provided more food for thought. It focused on inferences and explained how the process of drawing inferences is personal between reader and text. Each reader’s schema affects the inferences drawn by that reader. As teachers, we have to recognize when schema is distorting comprehension. Drawing inferences can lead to illogical or unreasonable conclusions. Someone can follow the correct process for inferring but if his or her schema is flawed or limited, then his or her inferences are likely to be illogical or unreasonable. Rather than arguing with or criticizing the inferences drawn, we may need to broaden the schema.

Chapter 9 discusses synthesizing, one of the most sophisticated reading strategies. “Synthesis is the process of ordering, recalling, retelling, and recreating into a coherent whole the information with which our minds are bombarded every day. … It is the ability to collect a disparate array of facts and connect them to a central theme or idea. It is the process by which we forsake much of what we learn in order to make sense of that which we determine is most pivotal for us.” (p.169)

I was really struck by this idea. Synthesizing is crucial to thinking. And thinking is what makes us individuals. (“I think, therefore I am.”)

What we synthesize and what the resulting idea or belief is can often change over time, particularly as we accrue more information. So what we believe about God, the purpose of life, a favorite novel, or the best car for the price may change over time. But unless we are rigorously and constantly practicing “metacognition”, we are not aware of this nonstop, fluid, and amorphous “synthesis” that is simultaneously process and end result.

We have confidence, however, in ourselves to critically “forsake much of what we learn” for several reasons. First, we have confidence in ourselves to think critically. Second, we have confidence in ourselves to discriminate information in a logical or reasonable manner. And finally, we have confidence in ourselves to wisely determine what “is most pivotal for us.” We probably even have some degree of confidence in each other with regard to synthesizing.

But do we have such confidence in our students? I admit that I often doubt it. However, I remind myself that part of the purpose of education is “broadening horizons.” Sometimes, we have to jam a lot of information in our heads and then let it sit, stew, and distill before any of it makes sense. That’s why, while I support “text to self” connections, I also believe that we should discard our temerity to tell students that, sometimes – just as you do what your parents tell you – you do something because we tell you to.

I remember that I had been excited to take philosophy in college. While it wasn’t my major, the classes were required. I was excited to move beyond high school social studies. I didn’t know what “philosophy” was, but it sounded intellectual, sophisticated, and exotic. However, I fell asleep in every class. No matter what I did, no matter how much coffee I drank. I just didn’t get it. Any of it.

And then one summer, when I was leaving the working world and returning to grad school, I pulled out a thin Nietzche book. I don’t remember which one. But I remember lying in a lounge chair in the backyard and reading the book. I read a few pages, mulled over what I had read, napped, and then read some more. And something began to slowly take shape. I’d like to say that the light bulb went on or that the fog cleared and everything came into focus, crystal clear. No such luck. But I did have an inkling, a sense of what it was all about, why it was important, and how that vague understanding would forever change and influence how I saw and thought about things.

So I absolutely and unequivocally believe in the importance of synthesis. I just think we have to give the process longer to take effect before we assess whether the students are doing it.

The final chapter of Mosaic of Thought, Chapter 10, goes over the various ways that proficient readers grapple with difficult text. It then suggests teaching these methods to struggling readers. In this way, struggling readers can begin to solve their own reading problems. These methods are referred to as “cueing systems” and range from phonological skills to connecting the text to the reader’s knowledge and purpose. Proficient readers are often unaware that they use these skills automatically. But these skills are what enable a new medical student to grapple with complicated medical terms or an astronomer to study theories about the creation of the universe.

Struggling readers do not automatically use these methods but can be systematically taught to use them. I’m trying to figure out how to do it with struggling high school and college readers. Bit by bit, over a month or two? Implicit or explicit instruction? What works at a very low reading level? Does age matter? 14 years old? 17 years old? 37 years old?

I’m thinking about making large, two-sided bookmarks. One side would have the technical terms (eg., grapho-phonic system, pragmatic system) and the other would have the “student friendly” explanation (eg., sound out the word, identify what you need to learn from the text). I could use the bookmarks for instruction and then give out extras that they can use for materials in other classes and even for pleasure reading.

Overall, I found Mosaic of Thought to be a new and thoughtful approach to the old issue of how to teach students how to read and to enjoy reading.

Commentary by D.J. Morris

Tags: "Ellin Oliver Keene", "Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader', "Susan Zimmerman", book commentary