When you are reading for a purpose other than pleasure, what types of thoughts go through your head???
The book, Mini-Lessons for Literature Circles, says smart readers do the following things:
- Visualize
- Connect
- Question
- Infer
- Evaluate
- Analyze
- Recall,
- and Self-Monitor, though I think Adjust is a better word.
What do these strategies mean to you? do you use them? when? What would you call this practice?
When I am reading for school, I generally think, “I wish I was reading My book”, or, “Why is it that I have to read this, what is it that the teacher wants from this”.
ReplyDeleteOther than that I try to analyze what I am reading by asking my self questions like, “what is the author trying to do here?” or, “why that word choice?” However, these are things I do whenever I am reading. When reading for educational purposes I try to use the above stated tactics, though sometimes, if the text is very dry, or very engaging, it is difficult to focus on these things. However when I first had a class at school about this (maybe four years ago?) I thought that the idea was obvious and that of course one would analyze, visualize, connect, etc. So the idea that I would NOT was surprising. Upon learning this I have tried to do more of these “good” things.
Is a good book one that makes it easy for the reader to Visualize, Connect, etc., one that does this for the reader, and/or one that makes this difficult? Which is more fun to read, or a better book, or easer to read? Which would be hardest to write?
Maybe a better word would be effective reader not as Amanda says “good” talking about what “good” readers do. And maybe instead of Active too.
It is so hard not to get caught up in the "buzz word" trap. That includes labeling of all kinds.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that one should differentiate between types of reading? Does pleasure reading need to be Good or Effective? Some would argue that pleasure reading doesn't need any analyzing besides, "I like this". Others would say, "that in order to enjoy, I need to think." Another case where you bring into a setting your own values and pre-conceived ideas!
Personaly, when I read for pleasure, or distraction as is more often the case, I don't want to think, I think enough all ready!!! That's why I want the distraction, BUT, if the story or characters don't engage me (make me think?) then it doesn't distract. Catch 22! Often readers use many of the strategies without thinking about them. I certainly Connect when I read for pleasure, I most certainly Visualize, and I must Infer, I can Recall most often (depends on how fast I read it!) but I don't think I Evaluate much besides "liking", and I don't want to Analyze.
The term "Active", implies doing something besides just take in the words. Do you think it is possible to be Effective by luck or habit without being Active? If you don't conciously know about these strategies, can you read a very difficult (for you) piece effectively? Last but not least, are you Effective if you don't use all of these strategies?
Writen 2/15/08
ReplyDeleteI think that what it means, and what has to be done, to be a good book to be good, depends on what the book is trying to accomplish. If, for example, a math textbook were written in such a way the reader was conducive to visualization, connection, and the others, but did not present the information in a comprehendible manner, the book would be useless. On the other hand, a well-written personal reading book might allow, and add, the reader to do all this things, making for a engaging and entertaining read.
I think that if a book is not engaging, or thought provoking, it is hardly worth the time it takes to read. I also think that the books that are worth reading are multifarious and varied, so even pulp books might be worth reading. These are only my thoughts though.
You know, people are that way too! I've interviewed some PhD's for teaching positions here that couldn't get any of that knowledge across on a tray if you carried it for them. But, then there are folks that don't have all that knowledge who are extremely effective teachers. Has something to do with the communication angle. That's what we're talking about with books too isn't it???
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm, well, for those of us who are environmental scientists/biologists who still happen to be in high school, we think that the Biology book is just fine the way it is. We personally like the way that they present the information (when all of the books say the same thing).
ReplyDeleteConcerning the list of things, I do these things. I do visualize, I see what happens in my head like a movie. I do connect, "Hey!!! She acts like me when I have a problem with something". Question: why did Alanna do that??? Infer: I think this will happen when this character finds out. Evaluate: Stupid book, *beats book* it wasn't supposed to end like that- I loved it! Analyze: *To character* That was an interesting idea, why? Recognize: Hey, I remember when.... Adjust: Whoa, time shift a gate, and Whoooosh, settle down Raistlin.
See, I do these things, but if you MAKE me do those things with a book I'm not entirely interested in, I 1) don't do so well, 2) NO, you can't make me.
If a text (say Chemistry for example) was written in a style conducive to Evaluation and Connection (again examples), would this make it also easer to do all the other "active" things too? It would certainly be much more fun to read.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fun of all studying is connecting it all together, like a puzzle. So if a, perhaps, series of text of, say, all the core classes were built to take information from one another, this would necessitate reading "actively" to some extent, and would not stumble upon the problem of forced anthropomorphism. I think that this would be a way to write a text in an engaging manner. The connection between the topics more than in the the reader and the character would be the intriguing part. This interconnection of the information may not be interesting to others, but I think that this would be great. Also this is not strictly the form of connection that is used in "active" reading, but I thought that this was pertinent none the less.
ReplyDeleteThis has already been done to some extent with the Oak Meadow books and other books I have not used, if others know about some such books I would enjoy reading them at some point.
See the new post, "The Ideal Text" for the continuation of this thought.
ReplyDeleteThe deleted posts were moved to the Ideal Text thread. :-) A
ReplyDeleteSo, back to "Active" Reading...
ReplyDeleteWe're reading Dante's Inferno now, what strategies are you using reading this? The style might make it dry, the wording may be challenging. Are you enjoying the 'story', the study, both, neither? Do you feel you are being "effective"? I know you are all being "active". Are the two terms actually interchangeable? Could we replace "Active" with "Effective"?
I made a connection from the civics theme "responsibility" to one of my warriors books. One of the cats in this book is rebelling against the rules because he thinks that another cat is breaking the rules even more than he is. Does someone have a book that does the smae sort of thing?
ReplyDeleteI know that Josh just finished reading Mossflower. He also made a connection between Civics and the theme of rebellion in his book, just as you have done, TJ. It makes one wonder about the universal themes found in American Civic and how prevalent (common) they are in the books we read.
ReplyDeleteI left class with a question still not answered. What is Kurt Vonnegut’s commentary about free will in Slaughter House Five? While thinking about the main character, Billy Pilgrim, I believe he simply accepted the events of his life as they occurred. After all, he lived a comfortable existence. He had a lucrative profession, loving family (although flawed), and a comfortable home. The Tralfamadorian notion that free-will does not exist, was a philosophical outlook on life Billy embraced and shared with many audiences. These extra terrestrials could see life in four dimensions from the past, present, and future and could visit any part of their life at will. There is no death nor judgment of life, because they are always existing in another time that is accessible at any point in their consciousness. So what is the point of all these bizarre fictional storylines? This is what I think; I believe that when faced with such great atrocity such as surviving as a POW and living through one of the worst massacres in history (bombing of Dresden), one realizes at such times there is very little free will. Billy had to exist in these circumstances as a clown and later in his life he continued to surrender to the fate of his life as it unfolded before him. Vonnegut’s use of dark humor helps the reader digest the pain and absurdity as the characters and reader simultaneously move through the plot. To make sense out of these uncontrollable circumstances found in the book, we are reminded how finite we are as human beings and how limited our time is. In this limited span, we are not always able to control what happens, especially when faced with the overbearing powers of the universe. I believe Slaughter House Five was Kurt Vonnegut’s attempt to find quiet and peace within himself as a survivor, POW, and gifted writer.
ReplyDelete