Teaching Our Students How to Fish

The word expository originates from the word expound, which is defined as “to set forth or state in detail; to explain” (Random House, 2011). Explain is defined as “to make known in detail; to make clear the cause or reason” (Random House, 2011). This essay is an example of expository text. Therefore, expository text presents facts and explains information in detail in the form of lists, time lines or sequences, comparison or contrast, cause and effect, or problem and solution (GCU Lecture Series, n.d.). It has been said that students learn to read early, and then read to learn for the rest of their lives (Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003), but this does not happen automatically. As a matter of fact, this transition seems to be failing as we increasingly spoonfeed information to our students as though education consisted of trying to fill a bucket instead of lighting a fire (Pychyl, T., 2008). An ability to comprehend expository text must be based on calculated instruction on how to use expository text in each content area. More accurately, teaching a student how to read and retain expository texts (in each content area) takes priority over the actual content of the reading: The content is simply an example for the process, and while we want the student to retain the examples, the process is actually the priority. We are not giving fish to students; We are teaching students how to fish, and hope that they are fed by the ones they catch as they learn to fish.

The transition from learning to read to reading to learn begins in late grade school, and continues through high school. Teachers begin to assign homework and in-class reading from textbooks, web sites, and class handouts, gradually increasing expectations that students absorb information from the expository text contained in each. But, according to Red Orbit (2006),

Many upper elementary grade teachers, regrettably, presume that their students have mastered the fundamentals of reading. Assuming that students have basic comprehension skills, the teacher may not provide explicit instruction in strategic practices that provide the foundation to good reading comprehension (para. 4).

By the end of eighth grade, Nevada English Language Arts (ELA) Standards (2008) require students to “read expository and persuasive texts to comprehend, interpret, and evaluate for specific purposes” (Standard 4.0). Amongst the many specific content indicators, students must be able to (Nevada ELA, 2008: Standard 4.0):

• Explain how language clarifies ideas and concepts.

• Describe how an author uses concrete examples to explain abstract ideas.

• Identify the main idea.

• Evaluate the impact of sequential and/or chronological order.

• Evaluate a cause and its effect on events and/or relationships.

• Evaluate a problem and its solution.

• Describe main idea based on evidence.

• Analyze the development of an author’s argument, viewpoint, and/or perspective.

From the listed indicators, it is very clear that the ability to read and understand expository text is of paramount importance by the end of eighth grade, with similar (but expanded indicators) in twelfth grade.

Students that are able to meet these standards enjoy a tremendous advantage over students that cannot. According to Reading Expository Prose (n.d.),

Expository text makes up the bulk of what we read. In school this is no different. Thus students need to know how such texts work, how they should prepare to read them, and what to do once they begin reading such texts (para. 1).

It should be clear that students who can read at middle school level are not necessarily proficient at comprehending expository text. So, what can we do to promote comprehension of expository text? There are several steps that rely on direct instruction, modeling, and practice, but this is not meant to be an inclusive list. For additional suggestions, I recommend the four dimensions of think-alouds discussed by Lapp, Fisher, & Grant (2008) on pages 380 – 382, as well as the suggestions from Reading Expository Prose (n.d.).

First, I disagree with the GCU Lecture Series (n.d.) that expository text “has a low incidence of ideas that activate prior knowledge” (para. 1). Although a construct may require a new branch, an imaginative teacher can always find some tree to anchor that branch. Activating prior knowledge before reading an expository text remains as essential as it is for any other lesson plan, and an inventive mind and directed class discussion can usually find some relation between a new idea and an old schema. Simply relating to an existing schema helps, but we can do more to activate prior knowledge. Students can scan the title, the table of contents, a synopsis, or even section captions to make a prediction about what they are about to read (Lapp et al., 2008). A look ahead at figures and tables (and their captions) within the text can assist, as well.

As described above, there are several types of expository text. Describing and looking for the signal words for that type of text (GCU Lecture Series, n.d.) cues the students about which type they will be working with, which is an essential second step to comprehending text. Understanding the structure of the text can be every bit as important as pre-scanning captions and titles to activate prior knowledge. This exercise can be combined with the creation of a graphic organizer, which serves as a prompt for students that are more spatially oriented learners. For example, if the text describes a sequence or process, a timeline or flowchart can be created. A Venn diagram (such as the one included below) can be used for comparison and contrast, where the student separates ideas from one or more texts that are different while creating a synthesis of ideas that are similar. A flow chart can be constructed for cause and effect, and a table of pros and cons can be constructed for problem/solution text. Teachers should model, and students should explicitly discuss which type of expository text they are starting to read, and begin to craft a graphic as they read. Returning to the idea of process, it is essential that students learn to take notes while reading, and graphic organizers create a scaffold for these notes. The mental act of separating ideas clarifies the text, and the act of writing adds a physical aspect for tactile learners. Even hi-lighting text while reading creates a process where the reader separates essential ideas from examples, clarification, and illustrations.

Unfamiliar vocabulary constitutes one of the greatest difficulties in reading expository text. A teacher can prepare a vocabulary list from the text that the students are likely to be unfamiliar with, and instruct the students to be on the watch for these words. Not only will the list serve to activate prior knowledge and hint about the subject to come, but it will also serve as a standard or bar which tells the students when they have succeeded in understanding the text. Teachers can stop and discuss vocabulary regularly, using Socratic discussion based on context, root words, and affixes to prompt students into developing their own paraphrased definitions (Gifford and Gore, 2010; Lapp et al., 2008).

One of the biggest faults in student reading is the failure of metacognition. Essentially, the student only thinks they understand the text after they have finished reading. Working under the assumption that a student does not know the idea if they cannot express the idea, summary think-alouds (Lapp et al., 2008) provide informal assessment of class understanding and class progress towards comprehension. Small chunks of expository text can be read aloud by the teacher or by a student, with frequent stops to discuss each chunk. Modeling paraphrasing, followed by class discussion to paraphrase a section, scaffolds the process of metacognition within Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. While teacher modeling is essential, peer rephrasing offers a far higher return (Gifford and Gore, 2010). Involving the class in Socratic dialogue to extract meaning from the writing creates interest, first by soliciting opinions, and then by adopting a class consensus that shows those opinions are valued.

Key to comprehending expository writing is the ability to select the most important sentence or phrase of a particular paragraph. Again, using the think-aloud system described by Lapp et al. (2008), teachers can model reading the paragraph and, instead of summarizing, pick the most important feature from that paragraph. This exercise is more related to hi-lighting than summarizing. Although we must discourage students from hi-lighting (and annotating) school textbooks, hi-lighting essential text and annotation of text are critical self-study reading skills that should be explicitly taught using handouts that students are permitted to mark.

This list of methods to enhance the understanding of expository text is by no means complete, and I do not even argue that these are the best methods for any class or any expository text. Many articles have been written, and a couple have been cited in this text which expand on (and add to) the ideas presented in this discussion. Nevertheless, I consider these ideas most useful for my style of teaching within math or science content. First, we must activate prior knowledge. Next, we must identify the text structure, creating the bones of a graphic which we will flesh out as we read. Vocabulary is essential as both a goal and a means, and student rephrased vocabulary is more important than a dictionary definition. A student does not have cognition unless they have metacognition, and student consensus of meaning enhances student understanding. Finally, students must be explicitly taught how to mark up text and create notes as they read.

References


GCU Lecture Series (n.d.). Literary elements of expository texts. GCU Lecture Series 4.1;
SED-435. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://angel03.gcu.edu/section/default.asp?id=549975

Gifford, M. & Gore, S. (2010). The effects of focused academic vocabulary instruction on
underperforming math students. Retrieved 3/31/2011 from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/Building%20Academic%20Vocabulary/academic_vocabulary_math_white_paper_web.pdf

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Grant, M. (2008). “You can read this text – I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51:5. Retrieved April 10, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d7f5eb56-a938-49ee-9878-50058ff53be9%40sessionmgr115&vid=2&hid=106

Leach, J., Scarborough, H. & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of educational psychology, 95, 211-224. Retrieved 3/6/2011 from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu-952211.pdf

Nevada English Language Arts (2008). Achievement indicators for reading: Grade 8: Content standard 4.0. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Standards/EngLang/Eighth_Grade_Achievement_Indicators.pdf

Pychyl, T. (2008). Don’t delay; Understanding procrastination and how to achieve our goals. Psychology Today. Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/200805/education-is-not-the-filling-pail-the-lighting-fire

Random House (2011). Explain. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explain

Random House (2011). Expound. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expound

Reading Expository Prose. (n.d.) Retrieved April 10, 2011 from
http://www.englishcompanion.com/room82/readexpository.html

Red Orbit (2006). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for expository text comprehension. Retrieved April 13, 2011 from http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/424135/selfregulated_strategy_development_instruction_for_expository_text_comprehension/