Common Core State Standards & Pre-reading Strategies

In the following video, David Coleman (writer of the Common Core State Standards), encourages teachers to do away with pre-reading strategies: "We lavish so much attention on these strategies in the place of reading. I would urge us to instead read." Because we live in a state that is currently transitioning to the CCSS and because our class utilizes pre-reading strategies, I think this debate is relevant, interesting, and important. Here is the timeline for CT, indicating that we will have fully-adopted the CCSS by the 2013-2014 school year.

For more information on why David Coleman's claims about pre-reading strategies are controversial and potentially problematic, see this debate. [The video is a little long. I would encourage you to watch minutes 3:27-6:00.]

As a teacher-in-training, new to the theories and practices of reading strategies, I cannot yet say where I stand on this issue. My inclination, however, is to say that it depends. Arguing for or against reading strategies depends on who your students are, what texts you are reading, and what your goal is. For example, an AP English classroom of advanced, independent readers might feel underestimated by or bored with reading strategies. On the other hand, some reading strategies (i.e. dense questions, RAFT) are fruitful for students at many levels. Even our classroom of graduate students had a vibrant discussion in response to a RAFT prompt on The Hunger Games. Other strategies (i.e. story mapping) may be more appropriate for a classroom of dependent, struggling readers. To address Coleman's concern that time is wasted, particularly during pre-reading strategies, I must inquire who his students are. Many of the students I've worked with in the past months will not or cannot dive straight into a text, as Coleman urges. When faced with the risk of losing students' attention to a text altogether, I'd be willing to spend the time engaging them prior, during, and after reading.

Teachers must also make thoughtful decisions about how to teach strategies and skills that make sense with the text(s) our classes are reading. If plot isn't central to the literature we're reading, story frames would be an ineffective choice. If the characters lack complexity or richness, character maps would be unnecessary. No matter how independent our students are, if the text's language is particularly difficult or unfamiliar, some pre-reading strategies that activate prior knowledge can help students overcome some of these challenges. With other texts, the words themselves may seize students' attention and interest. In this case, I agree with Coleman: "I would urge us to instead read."

Lastly, teachers must discern and articulate their goals and objectives behind the strategies. These are inextricably linked to students' backgrounds. If students have yet to master an important skill, then a reading strategy may be a method to assist students in this process. For example, if the goal is to help students visualize as they read, graphic organizers can be an invaluable tool for students at many reading levels.

There is not one answer to teaching ELA. There is not one method that will cause students to engage in meaningful reading and meaningful learning. Instead, teachers must carefully observe and assess their students, texts, and goals in order to identify creative and effective instructional strategies. In certain times and places, for certain students and purposes, Coleman's advice is shrewd. In other times and places, for other students and purposes, reading strategies are effective tools to deepen comprehension.