Reading is the First R

You may remember my academic crushes on Lucy Calkins, Rick Wormeli, and Carol Tomlinson. Well, I’ve got another to add to my list. Don’t tell my husband, but I’m currently academically crushing on Mr. Kelly Gallagher. Gallagher writes a lot of books to his intended audience of secondary ELA teachers, but I think a lot of what he says applies to us all. After all, don’t most of us teach subject areas that require some reading from our students? And wouldn’t most of our students, regardless of content area, perform better in our classes if we were able to help them improve their reading? Don't forget that reading is the first R in the age-old reading, writing, 'rithmetic equation.

I’ve been reading Gallagher’s (2004) Deeper Reading: Comprehending Challenging Texts, 4 – 12. I find myself stopping every few pages or so and thinking, how could this apply to content areas other than ELA? What would this look like in a science classroom, for example? And so, now that I’m over halfway through the text, my brain is teeming with thoughts and ideas for all of us to help our students grow as readers across the content areas. I’ll be dedicating a bunch of upcoming posts to this topic, but, for today, let’s get started with a baseball metaphor, adapted from Mr. Gallagher himself (he writes a great baseball metaphor about experiencing the game with his daughters; for the purposes of this post, I’ll extend this metaphor to myself – and to my own inexperience with the game).

This summer, I went to a Red Sox game with a friend of mine who really knows baseball. FYI, I really don’t know baseball. We were the Odd Couple of Fenway that day.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’ve got the basics down. I know the batter is going to try to hit a pitch. If he does, he’ll run like crazy to as many bases as he can. The other guys will try to catch the ball and throw it to get this guy out. If he makes it all the way around the bases, his team scores a point. Three outs per team per inning, nine innings. Whoever scores the most, wins.

As Gallagher (p. 2) points out, “it could be said that at a certain level [I] ‘understood’ the game. But did [I]?” My friend sitting next to me saw things going on that I was totally oblivious to. He could watch the interaction between the catcher and the pitcher and he could spot the center fielder realizing what kind of pitch the catcher was setting up for and getting ready for it. My friend could see base runners looking to base coaches for permission to try to steal a base. And so many other intricacies!

To paraphrase Gallagher (p. 3), I watched and “understood” the game on a surface level while my friend watched and understood the game on a much deeper level; “we watched, and yet did not watch, the same game.”

Our students are sometimes reading complicated text the same way I was “reading” that baseball game. They stay on the surface, missing a lot of the more complex meaning of the text. “They can read and ‘comprehend,’ but they do so almost exclusively on a surface level. They miss much of the deeper beauty of the game” (p. 3).

If I wanted to get better at watching baseball, I would never be able to do it alone. My friend would definitely need to teach me how to watch the game more expertly. It’s the same with our students and reading. Simply assigning reading is not going to result in our students improving as readers. We need to teach them how to the read the texts of our content areas in more expert ways so that they get as much understanding and knowledge as they can from them.

How do we teach this? I’m glad you asked! Be on the lookout for upcoming posts with specific strategies and ideas for teaching reading across the content areas!