In the Age of Analytic Reading: Understanding Readers' Engagement with Text

Running head: IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 1

Publication information: Pennell, C. (2014) In the age of analytic reading:

Understanding readers’ engagement with text. The Reading Teacher. Vol 68 (4) pp 251-

260.

In the Age of Analytic Reading: Understanding Readers’ Engagement

with Text

by

Colleen Pennell

Colleen Pennell is an Assistant Professor at Marian University in

Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA; email

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 2

This article describes a discussion based reading intervention where students relied

upon dialogic discourse, the fluid nature of the text, and their own experiential

knowledge as mediators for text interpretation.


As the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) unfold throughout

school districts across the country, students in grade three and

above are expected to read text analytically through close

scrutiny of central ideas, text structure, and writing craft.

Commonly referred to as close reading, this practice originated from

New Criticism (Bressler, 2007), which suggests meaning is

discovered by the reader through careful analysis of what is

directly stated in the text and thus is not created by the reader

through personal connections and interactions. From this

perspective, instruction will guide students to engage in

multiple, slow, and careful readings wherein their affective

responses to text are pushed to the periphery. By negating such

factors as emotion or experiential knowledge, it is believed that

students will more readily extract the objective meaning deemed

implicit in the literary work (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012).

Ultimately, the single meaning discovered through close reading

is meant to be uniform and even between readers.

Indeed, the prevailing stance toward the CCSS is that

students’ personal connections to text are not pivotal to

constructing meaning and should be limited (Coleman, 2011;


Coleman & Pimentel, 2012; Shanahan, 2012). However, some scholars

(Beers & Probst, 2013) propose close reading can and should

include a reader’s personal interactions as they are a necessary

building block to comprehension “The most rigorous reading is to

find what those words on that page mean in our own lives” (p.

42). Aligned with Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of reading

(1978; 2004), this epistemology suggests the emotional, or

aesthetic, nature of reading is part and parcel of a fully

realized interpretation.

Rosenblatt (1978; 2004) placed importance on the aesthetic, or

the lived-through, emotional experiences that happen during

reading and placed this orientation toward text on one end of a

continuum. She also described reading as an efferent act, where one

reads to acquire information, and placed this orientation toward

text on the opposite side of the continuum. However, neither

efferent nor aesthetic acts of reading are mutually exclusive;

readers produce both, and most acts of reading lie in the middle.

Rosenblatt distinguished her beliefs from New Criticism by

arguing that textual interpretation is socially situated as

readers transact with the text by relying upon their unique


biographical experiences which mediate the construction of

meaning: “The same text takes on different meanings in

transactions with different readers or even with same reader in

different contexts or times” (2004, p. 1384). However, Rosenblatt

did not state that every reader’s interpretation is logically

justified, yet like the New Critics, she honored the role of the

text as central to meaning construction. Ultimately, she viewed

reading as both an affective and cognitive act in which the lived

experiences of the reader cannot be severed from textual

interpretation.

Despite the various propositions of literary theory and

divergent epistemologies of literacy scholars, there remains a

burgeoning emphasis on teaching students to become close,

analytic readers. However, teachers must remain cognizant that

close reading is one outcome of the CCSS and additional

instructional methods might better cultivate the aesthetic

aspects of literacy. For instance, in the Speaking and Listening

standards, students are expected to establish agreed-upon rules

for group discussion, apply practices of exploratory talk

(Mercer, 2000), and engage in topical discussions pertaining to


their grade level. There are various ways to address these

standards but one alternative that promotes critical thinking,

argumentation skills, and aesthetic awareness is the discipline

of philosophy.

For example, consider the book, Willow’s Whispers (Button and

Howells, 2010), where philosophical issues about language,

identity, and the nature of shyness are ripe for exploring.

Engaging young children in discussion around these issues (e.g.

‘Does Willow choose to be shy or was she born that way?’) not

only facilitates social awareness but can even advance reading

comprehension, especially for readers who struggle (Murphy,

Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009).

Recently, a small group of third-grade readers who struggled

with text comprehension participated in a study that employed a

discussion based reading intervention rooted in philosophical

inquiry. In the following article, I detail the design of the

intervention and explicate relevant elements that uniquely

contributed to meaning making. In doing so, I hope to convey that

in the age of analytic reading, entryways to text and moreover,


the meanings that students construct are not always so cut and

dried.

Why Philosophy?

Matthew Lipman believed that critical thinking and reasoning

abilities are essential for rational decision making in a

democratic society. For this reason, he and Ann Margaret Sharp

created a K-12 curriculum called Philosophy for Children (P4C)

(Lipman & Sharp, 1984) which engages students in methodical

discussions around philosophical novels connected to the main

branches of philosophy: logic, ethics, and aesthetics. Research

examining the effects of P4C on student learning has been

promising (Banks, 1987; Chamberlin, 1993). A meta-analysis

(Murphy, et al., 2009) exploring discussion-based approaches to

reading, revealed P4C had positive effects on critical thinking,

reasoning, argumentation skills, and reading comprehension and

was particularly advantageous for readers who struggle. P4C

enables reading comprehension as it promotes logical reasoning,

text analysis, and argumentative thinking.

Thomas Wartenberg (2009) has since expanded the

possibilities for using philosophy in the classroom by showing


how to derive philosophical questions from children’s literature.

Wartenberg believes picture books are a natural platform for

philosophical inquiry because they allow children to explore

complex issues that may otherwise go unresolved by the reader if

not discussed. For instance, when students listen to a read-aloud

of Frog and Toad Together: Dragons and Giants (Lobel, 1971) they may

wonder about the nature of bravery: Is it possible that Frog and

Toad were both brave and scared at the same time?

By design, philosophical inquiry necessitates logical,

inferential thinking but also disarms traditional academic labels

(e.g., the ubiquitous reading level) and allows children to

leverage their imagination and experiences in order to reason

critically around complex issues. Since research has suggested

that readers who struggle are infrequently provided access into

critical text discussions (Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, &

Prendergast, 1997) employing interventions like philosophic

inquiry, which are rooted in higher order thinking, can help

ameliorate some of this inequity.

How Does Philosophical Inquiry Promote Comprehension?


When students partake in philosophical inquiry, they develop

reasoning abilities through discourse with others. Through open-

ended discussions, students negotiate ideas with peers,

experience tension in their thinking, and collectively search for

meaning. In this regard, the socially situated nature of

philosophy is steeped in the theories of Vygotsky and Bakhtin.

Both Vygotsky (1986) and Bakhtin (1986) believed an

individual’s cognitive acts are mediated by semiotic tools—

specifically language. Vygotsky stressed the social milieu of

learning by suggesting cognitive processes can be advanced when

children use language to articulate and defend their thoughts.

Thus, children will be more apt to assimilate new or complex

concepts when “required to explain, elaborate, or defend one’s

position to others, as well as to oneself; striving for an

explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate

knowledge in new ways” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 158).

In a philosophical discussion, Vygotskian principles are

illuminated as students are required to ask and answer questions,

challenge and debate inferences, and provide evidence to

substantiate their argument. Philosophical inquiry is premised on


the Vygotskian notion that “children will learn to think for

themselves if they engage in the social practice of thinking

together” (Murris, 2008, p. 670).

Russian theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) expanded Vygotsky’s

ideas by expounding upon the role of social language in meaning

construction. Bakhtin explained that when participants engage in

dialogue, the utterances spoken are woven together through the

thoughts and anticipations of other participants. For example, in

philosophical discussions, students discuss ideas and formulate

responses (e.g., agreements, disagreements, or elaborations). By

preparing the response, meaning is being negotiated, particularly

if two or more students engage in opposing viewpoints. As the

discussion becomes populated with multiple viewpoints it mediates

interpretation and constructs understanding. Bakhtin (1986)

referred to this as dialogic, and explained:

The fact is that when the listener perceives and understands

the meaning of speech, he simultaneously takes an active,

responsive attitude toward it. He either agrees or disagrees

with it (completely or partially), augments it, applies it,

prepares for its execution and so on...any understanding is


imbued with response and necessarily elicits it in one form

or another: the listener becomes the speaker. (p. 68)

Instructionally, philosophical inquiry relies upon dialogic

teaching principles (Alexander, 2009) where classrooms are

structured to foster collaborative, strategic, and intellectually

engaging language practices. From a literacy perspective,

dialogic teaching relinquishes the interpretive authority of the

teacher and implements intentional discourse practices that

engage readers in critical comprehension.

Designing a Grass Roots Reading Intervention

In the spring of 2010, I used my knowledge of research-based

practices that promote reading comprehension, and created and

implemented a dialogically organized reading intervention rooted

in philosophical inquiry and undergirded by Vygotskian principles

of language and cognition. The participants, Jacob, Lucas,

Michael, and Sean (all names used are pseudonyms), were in the

third grade and identified as having specific difficulty with

higher-level comprehension (not due to issues of decoding) as

measured by district reading assessments, state standardized

tests, and teacher observations. Jacob and Sean were identical


twins who both received special education services for an

identified language impairment. Lucas was new to the public

school system and had been previously home-schooled and Michael

had been in and out of reading intervention since kindergarten.

From January 2012 through April 2012, we met for

approximately 35 minutes every Monday through Thursday. During

the first two weeks of the intervention, students were provided a

“discourse training” phase where they learned techniques for

dialogic discussions. Since students were new to this type of

talk, they uncovered strategies for stating agreements and

disagreements, posing questions, and providing evidence for

opinions. Students also established “ground rules” of talk

(Figure 1) that would anchor their remaining discussions.

When the two weeks ended, I relied upon Wartenberg’s (2009)

suggestions for teaching philosophy through children’s literature

and infused the key tenets of P4C (Lipman & Sharp 1984; Gregory,

2008) as a framework for discussion. I also embedded additional

methods that would facilitate text comprehension: (1) completing

story maps of read-alouds, (2) using a vocabulary word wall to

build word knowledge, and (3) employing a think-aloud progress


monitoring tool I created in order to track comprehension

progress. Lastly, to avoid behaving as a turn-taking mediator, I

relied upon suggestions from the Accountable Talk Sourcebook

(Michaels, O’Connor, Hall, & Resnick 2010) and posted anchor

charts (Figure 2) as a means of promoting exploratory

discussions. The day-to-day intervention was as follows:

1. I read a picture book aloud.

2. We discussed two or three vocabulary words per book that we

charted on the word wall and reviewed daily.

3. Sharing the pen, we completed a story map on poster paper;

the map also included philosophical questions and issues

that were raised in the text.

4. Students selected a question to discuss and then generated

various hypotheses to answer (Figure 3).

5. Students discussed the merits of each hypothesis until they

were able to agree on one that was plausible.

6. Repeat (cycle usually took three or four days).

A Close Look at the Philosophy Circle: Discourse, Text, and

Experiential Knowledge


In order to understand how students co-constructed meaning

through philosophical inquiry, I highlight three salient elements

within the intervention that guided their reading development:

the dialogic frame of the discourse, the fluidity of the text,

and readers’ experiential knowledge. Although my intent is not

to oversimplify the process of meaning construction, as

additional factors mediated understanding, I do hope to elevate

an awareness of these areas in order to demonstrate how they

worked in concert to advance growing readers higher order

thinking.

Dialogic Discourse.

In philosophical inquiry, the discourse framework is

structurally dialogic and resembles a discourse chain where

student turn taking dominates the flow of a discussion (e.g.

student: student: student: student: teacher: student and so on). From an

ideological perspective, (O’Connor and Michaels, 2007), dialogic

discussions cultivate shared ownership between participants and

position students as both agents and negotiators of meaning-

making. Epistemologically, dialogic discourse is undergirded by


the belief that “discourse is cognition is discourse” (Resnick,

Pontecorvo, Säljö , & Burge,1997, p. 2).

Throughout our discussions, I strived to position myself as

the facilitator of the talk and often began the inquiry by

attending to procedural norms (e.g. “Let’s begin by discussing

the first hypothesis we created yesterday. Who wants to start?).

Together, the students and I sat in an aptly named “philosophy

circle”, where hands-free turn-taking was controlled by the

students and eye contact was afforded to everyone, not just me,

the teacher. My instructional duties were to pose questions,

prompt for elaboration, and help students establish relationships

between ideas. The following vignette characterizes these

interactions as students considered the philosophical elements of

pride and friendship from the text Frog and Toad Together: The

Dream (Lobel, 1970). In this discussion, they worked to

understand why Frog would be getting smaller and smaller in the

presence of Frog’s hubristic performance.

TEACHEROkay, the next one. So Toad was amazing, and Frog was shocked. So talk more about that.

JACOB


Because he was shocked that he was melting. And he was getting tinier and tinier because he was shocked.

MICHAELDid it say he was shocked? I don't think it said he was shocked.

SEANIt looks like he got tinier and tinier.

TEACHERLet's look at the book, does it look like he’s shocked?

SEANYeah, you see his eyes wide open?

MICHAELHe doesn't look shocked.

TEACHERWell, let's read it. Toad walked on the high wire. Frog cried “Toad can you do tricks like this?” “No” peeped Frog, who looked very, very small.

So how would being shocked get you smaller?

JACOBI think that because he looked shocked on that page.

LUCASCan I see?

MICHAELHe's just sitting there like this with a frowny face (motions with hands).

SEANNo, he's like this (shows with arms). You can tell that he’sshocked because if you put your arms up your shocked.


MICHAELNo, he's not putting his arms up. He's putting his hands on the arm rest.

Within this dialogic exchange is the indicator of high level

talk known as exploratory talk (Mercer, 2000). Suggested to

advance critical thinking, exploratory talk is defined as:

…that in which partners engage critically but

constructively with each other’s ideas. Relevant information

is offered for joint consideration. Proposals may be

challenged and counter-challenged, but if so reasons are

given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is sought as a

basis for joint progress. (p. 98).

Note how the boys began to construct an argument regarding Frog’s

behavior by building off one another’s ideas. They analyzed

suppositions as observed when Michael and Sean disputed the

picture’s meaning; they also provided evidence to support their

inferences. Most importantly, students worked towards jointly

understanding the behavior of the character Frog. My role as

the teacher was limited, but necessary, as I prompted students to

consider evidence in the text.


Additionally, it’s important to note that although students

engaged in exploratory talk, they were still developing the

ability to provide elaborated explanations (Soter, Wilkinson, Murphy

and Reninger, 2007). Also reflective of higher order thinking,

elaborated explanations are defined by an individual making a

claim and then providing at least two or more reasons of support.

For instance, note how Jacob stated “I think that because he

looked shocked on that page” but doesn’t elaborate with why.

When students began the intervention, these sorts of responses

were not uncommon. In fact, students with language impairments,

like Sean and Jacob, often have concomitant reading difficulties

(Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). Therefore, scaffolding the

academic language of inquiry through discourse training, ground

rules of talk, and anchor charts were critical to facilitating

these dialogic exchanges. Although the trajectory of student talk

increased over the course of the intervention, ultimately

students needed sustained dialogic environments, both in and out

of the intervention, in order to foster elaboration.

Finally, you will note throughout the vignettes provided in

this article, that students generally didn’t receive praise (e.g.


good job) regarding their ideas. When the teacher focusses on the

process of problem solving instead of praising correctness, it

demonstrates that thinking through ideas is what matters, not

merely finding the “answer” (Johnston, 2012). Instructionally,

our habit might be to interject and explain plausible

interpretations of the text, but as Vygotsky (1986) noted, social

language is an essential mediator for children’s intellectual

growth. Indeed, the dialogic nature of students’ engagement in

philosophical discussions underscored the Vygotskian (1986)

notion that children’s cognitive development can be advanced

through social interaction and collaborative problem solving.

Fluidity of the Text

A second element that was central to the intervention was

the positioning of the text. Unlike the method of close reading

where meaning is discovered by the reader within the four corners

of the text, our process of philosophical inquiry assumed no

intrinsic meaning to the text. In this regard, the text was

considered fluid, not fixed, due to the various lenses and

socially informed practices that readers used to transact with

it. Contrast this with the CCSS, where the text is context free


and positioned in a fixed state with the intent to facilitate the

acquisition of knowledge (Coleman and Pimentel, 2011). However,

in philosophical inquiry the text is socially situated and

positioned dialogically (Bakhtin, 1986) with the intent to

facilitate the co-construction of meaning. Thus, the text’s

importance lay in its ability to serve as a conduit for

philosophical interpretation.

For example, consider the book Little Blue and Little Yellow (Lionni,

1959), where two best friends (illustrated simply as circular

splotches of yellow and blue paint) temporarily merge to become a

new color, green. A CCSS text-based question might ask “How did

Little Blue and Little Yellow become green?” But in a

philosophical discussion the inquiry shifts as readers consider

the deeper notion of what it means to be. If Little Blue and

Little Yellow have now merged, have their essential qualities of

being also changed? In the following vignette, students began to

grapple with this question:

TEACHERSo, is Little Yellow still Little Yellow or is he someone new now?


JACOBStill Little Yellow.

LUCASUm, someone new.

SEANSomeone new because he’s different colors.

TEACHERTalk into it. You’re seeing things differently. You’re saying he’s someone new, you’re saying he’s still the same.

MICHAELCuz he has the same name.

SEANAnd he does the same stuff. He’s the same but the color, he just looks different. He’s the same still.

So here students began to explore the deeper meaning of self

by considering what essential elements define someone (their

name, their physical color, their actions). The answer didn’t

lie fixed within the text but rather the text was base camp for

interpretation; the launch for philosophical exploration of

characters’ actions, traits, and sense of being:

TEACHERThey’re the same but a different color?

JACOBYeah. Everything that is… yes. It’s the same but different color.


MICHAELThe same doesn’t mean you change color.

SEANSame means what you do on actions.

So, as the discussion evolved, Sean described the essential

quality of action as a defining characteristic of being.

Interestingly, as the discussion continues below, students turned

to reflect on the “sameness” of identical twins Jacob and Sean

which propelled an examination of their being as brothers:

MICHAELYeah, you’re twins.

LUCASBut you have different opinions. You have different stuff that you like.

MICHAELLike you like Luigi and you like Mario.

SEANYeah, but we’re different people. Like I’m more quieter thanJacob.

JACOBWe’re separate people.

TEACHERSo, does same have to do with how you look?

SEANNo, it means how your actions and things, how you act.


MICHAELNot always.

TEACHERWhy not?

GRADYNot always because you can, you can look the same, and you can kind of act, but you don’t think the same.

So in this example, students relied on knowledge both in and

outside of the text and began to build a nuanced understanding of

how the characters, Little Blue and Little Yellow, manifested.

Initially students defined the characters only by their color.

However, the fluidity of the text allowed students to move in and

out of its pages and reflect upon the individuality of Jacob and

Sean. In effect, this allowed them to recognize how one’s actions

could further define the characters. Through a staircase of

dialogue, Michael concluded that the way an individual thinks is

the essential quality that defines someone.

Exchanges like this demonstrate how the text’s positioning

was critical to meaning making. For students who struggle with

comprehension, the fluid nature of the text provided alternate

routes of interpretation and further allowed students to imbue


the stories with relevance. In sum, these transactions rendered

a rich, meaningful, and thoughtful analysis.

Readers’ Experiential Knowledge

Philosophical inquiry not only positions the text as fluid,

but inherently allows readers to leverage experiential knowledge

for meaning construction. Rosenblatt (2004) argued that the text

is necessary for interpretation but insufficient on its own “…the

teaching of reading and writing at any developmental level should

have as its first concern the creation of environments and

activities in which students are motivated and encouraged to draw

on their own resources to make “live meanings”” (p.1389).

Throughout the intervention, students frequently culled memories

and outside sources of knowledge that complemented the text’s

philosophical themes. Consider the following vignette where Sean

provided a personal anecdote to support his argument that the

characters, Frog and Toad, were brave to go up a dangerous

mountain even though they experienced fear while doing so:

SEAN…Ms. Wilson. She's a grown-up and she said her daughter got earrings in third grade, and she said her daughter was


scared on the chair, but Ms. Wilson said she was brave to doit, so you can be brave when you run away.

Likewise, Michael elaborated on this line of thought by citing an

experience with his family:

MICHAELWell, I held a dead raccoon. I was driving a dead raccoon into the - that my dad shot its head off with a shotgun and so we were driving it to the junkyard.

JACOBThat’s brave. Using a weapon.

MICHAELYeah. But me and my mom were so scared my mom was so scared that she just threw it in there.

This exchange typified how students leveraged their

experiences as a means to substantiate arguments and analyze

character traits. Moreover, the discussion underscores the

socially situated nature of interpretation as evidenced when

Jacob defined a key characteristic of bravery as using a weapon.

This propelled the group to consider if any fallacies were

present in his original line of thinking where he argued that

Frog and Toad were scared and not brave, because from Jacob’s

viewpoint, bravery and fear could not co-exist. Therefore, the

question was posed “Can you be scared and use a weapon?”


Students didn’t cite text evidence to advance their argument but

rather relied on experiential knowledge just as Sean did below.

SEANJacob’s wrong because I saw a Ninja Turtles movie. And therewas a guy, and he was scared. And he was shaking and he had a gun and he was trying to shoot him, but he was brave.

Interestingly, a few minutes later Jacob began to shift in his

thinking as he drew from his own life experience when asked

whether he had ever been brave and scared at the same time.

JACOBLike when I got a shot. I was scared. But then when I got a shot it really didn't hurt at all in my arm.

MICHAELSo you were scared and brave.

These episodes, though seemingly digressing from the text,

actually served to strengthen their growing interpretation of how

Frog and Toad behaved as illustrated below:

JACOBYeah, but they [Frog and Toad] were brave anyways because they went there.

MICHAELAnd they ran past the avalanche and they ran past the snake.They ran past the Hawk and stuff.


SEANSo that's brave. When you run all the way like that.

Consistently, students relied upon relevant experiential

knowledge in order to construct arguments and synthesize their

thinking. By design, philosophical inquiry embraces knowledge

outside of the text as a legitimate form of academic currency.

Although the text is an important mediator for understanding, it

is not the sole authority. Scholars (Moll, Amanti, Neff &

Gutierrez, 1992) have long suggested that learning environments

capitalize on the familial and cultural “funds of knowledge”

(p.133) students possess as these can bridge understandings.

In this study, the boys relied upon a shared knowledge of

video games and television shows as well as their familial and

social experiences. Notably, these were cited to build arguments

and complement interpretations. By and large, students’ academic

and experiential knowledge intersected and flowed beyond the four

corners of the text to provide transformative interpretations.

Closing Thoughts


Throughout this process, I have attempted to show how

readers who experience difficulty are capable of higher level

thinking but need instructional environments that are

dialogically organized, provide multiple access points to text,

and sanction experiential knowledge. My interest in this study

concerned not only discovering this intervention’s impact on

reading comprehension but how other elements such as student

epistemology and socially situated language practices influence

learning. To that extent, I share the following findings.

To begin, each student demonstrated gains on the QRI-V

(Leslie & Caldwell, 2011). Their instructional reading levels on

narrative passages advanced from levels 2-3 for Jacob, Lucas, and

Sean, and from level 3-4 for Michael. Pre assessments revealed

that all students had few oral reading miscues but showed

difficulty with elaborated retellings as well as explicit and

implicit comprehension. Students’ comprehension errors on the

post-assessment illustrated implicit comprehension, although

improved, needed continued remediation. Retellings remained

brief and demonstrated general text understanding. Pre-assessment

data revealed that Sean incorrectly identified the setting of the


passage but was able to successfully accomplish this task on the

post-assessment. I attribute this growth to the story-mapping

that occurred after each read aloud. These results are not

generalizable due to the small sample size of participants and

unaccounted for variables within this qualitative research study.

Additional observations noted over the course of the

intervention revealed students engaged in lengthier and more

frequent patterns of exploratory talk. Collectively, their use

of reasoning words (Mercer, 2000) such as “because”, “but”, “I

think”, and “so” increased which suggests greater engagement in

cognitive reasoning. Moreover, towards the end of the

intervention, I observed students appropriating a philosophic

stance towards text by independently asking questions rooted in

philosophical wonderings. Lastly, from an epistemic standpoint

(Johnston, Woodside-Jiron & Day, 2000) my pre and post interviews

with students suggested a shifting epistemology underpinning

discourse as they began to view discussions as a tool to

construct knowledge as opposed as a means to merely receive it.

Although this study employed small groups of students,

philosophical inquiry can be accomplished with larger class sizes


(see appendix for resources). I suggest teachers approach

interactive read alouds through a philosophical lens and pose

thought provoking questions regarding issues observed within the

text. In order to foster meaningful language practices, provide

small group lessons for students with language impairments or

English Language Learners. Philosophy is a naturally inclusive

discipline and flourishes with diverse cultural and social

perspectives.

Moreover, when considering the prominent role of writing in

the CCSS, philosophical inquiry is an excellent way to advance

students’ argumentative writing. Using this approach as

rehearsal for the writing process promotes students ability to

reason through ideas, consider opposing viewpoints, and defend

propositions with evidence. Collectively, these comprise a solid

skill set for composing a written argument.

In closing, philosophical inquiry holds an important place

in the classroom, academically and socially. Although the CCSS

emphasize engagement in close, analytic reading, we must remember

a broader yet equally important mission for literacy which is

grounded in a human-centered approach to learning. As Wells


(1990) noted, “To be fully literate is to have the disposition to

engage appropriately with texts of different types in order to

empower action, feeling, and thinking in the context of

purposeful social activity” (p. 14). Ultimately, educators must

adapt to the instructional shifts that are called upon by the

CCSS yet continually remember that effective literacy instruction

embraces the complex social, emotional, and linguistic practices

that children interact with both in and outside of the school

day.

Take Action!

1. Even without a background in philosophy, you can bring this

practice into the classroom. Start by analyzing a picture

book through the lens of a philosopher and consider

questions that are raised. Now consider how to adapt your

questions so they are connected to the text. For example,

after reading the text Willow’s Whispers (Button & Howells,

2010), you could create the following questions (see table

1):


2. Establish a philosophy circle:

Start by co-constructing the ground rules of talk

and establishing turn taking norms and strategies

for expressing ideas respectfully.

To support the academic language of philosophy, post

anchor charts with sentence starters as a resource.

Praise the process of thinking and not the

interpretations

3. Reflect on the Discussion

Philosophical discussions may end without consensus

which can frustrate students. (Wartenberg, 2009).

Engage in meta-level reflection by providing markers,

or highlighting the thinking that has occurred. This

illustrates the many avenues students have considered

and can improve the quality of future discussions.

Pause and Ponder

1. Examine the CCSS. What standards did this intervention

address?

2. What philosophical questions could you pose after a read

aloud?


3. Why is “discourse training” a critical component of

philosophical discussions?

Bibliography

Alexander, R. (2009). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk

(4th ed.). Thirsk: Dialogos.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (Y. McGee,

Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Banks, J. C. R. (1987). A study of the effects of the critical thinking skills

program, philosophy for children, on a standardized achievement test.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois

University, Edwardsville.

Beers, K. & Probst, R. (2012). Notice and Note: Strategies for Close

Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.

Bressler, C. (2007). Literacy criticism: An introduction to theory and practice.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Catts, H., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A

longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children

with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing

Research, 45, 1142-1157.


Chamberlain, M. A. (1993). Philosophy for children program and the

development of critical thinking of gifted elementary students. (Doctoral

dissertation). University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Coleman, D. (2011, April 28). Bringing the Common Core to life.

Presentation made in Albany, NY. Retrieved from New York

State Education Department website:

http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/bringingthecommoncoretolife/

part6transcript.pdf

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers' criteria for the

Common Core State Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–

12. Retrieved from the Common Core Standards Initiative

website:

www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-

12.pdf

Dawes, L. (2008). The essential speaking and listening. Talk for learning at key

stage 2. New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnston, P. (2012). Opening minds: Using language to change lives.

Portland, ME: Stenhouse.


Johnston, P. H., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2000). Teaching

and learning literate epistemologies. Albany, NY: National Research

Center on English Learning & Achievement, State University

of New York at Albany.

Goodnough, A. (2010, April 16). The examined life, age 8. New

York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18philoso

phy-t.html?_r=1&ref=mountholyokecollege

Gregory, M. (2008). Philosophy for children: Practitioner handbook.

Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy

for Children, Montclair State University.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory 5. New

York: Pearson Education.

Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1984). Looking for meaning: Instructional

manual to accompany Pixie. New York, NY: University Press of

America.

Lipman, M. (1998). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some

findings from the Philosophy for Children program. The Clearing

House, 71(5), 277–280.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18philosophy-t.html?_r=1&ref=mountholyokecollege

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18philosophy-t.html?_r=1&ref=mountholyokecollege


Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together.

New York: Routledge Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M.

W., & Resnick, L. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom

conversation that works (version 3.1). Pittsburgh, PA: University

of Pittsburgh.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of

knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to

connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2), 132-141.

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M.

N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of

classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension

of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3),

740–764.

Murris, K. S. (2008). Philosophy with children, the stingray and

the educative value of disequilibrium. Journal of Philosophy

Education, 42(3–4), 667–685.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997).

Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the

English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.


O’Connor, C. & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue

‘dialogic’?. Human Development. 50, 275-285.

Resnick, L., Pontecorvo, C., Säljö, R., & Burge, B. (1997)

‘Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning’. In L. Resnick, R. Säljö,

C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds). Discourse, tools, and reasoning:

Essays on situated cognition. Berlin: Springer.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory

of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and

writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical

models and processes of reading (pp. 1363-1398). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Soter, A., Wilkinson, I., Murphy, K., Rudge, L., & Reninger, K.

(2006). Analyzing the discourse of discussion: Coding manual. The Ohio

State University and Pennsylvania State University.

Shanahan, T. (2012, July 12). Planning for close reading [blog

post]. Retrieved from


http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/07/planning-for-

close-reading.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky:

Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.

Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big ideas for little kids: Teaching philosophy through

children’s literature. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wells, G. (1990). Creating the conditions to encourage literate

thinking. Educational Leadership, 47(6), 13–17.

Literature Cited

Button, L., & Howells, T. (2010). Willow's whispers. Toronto: Kids

Can Press.

Lionni, L. (1959). Little Blue and Little Yellow. New York, NY: McDowell,

Oblensky.

Lobel. A. (1970). Frog and Toad are friends. New York, NY: Harper Row.

Lobel, A. (1971). Frog and Toad together. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

In the Age of Analytic Reading: Understanding Readers' Engagement with Text

Documents

Transcript of In the Age of Analytic Reading: Understanding Readers' Engagement with Text