In trying to find a solution, I have to examine WHY the instructional approach isn't working. After attending an amazing session with Gayla Wiggins from Lead4Ward, I think I've made a connection. And inference about why that approach isn't working so well. See if you can trace my thinking and arrive at the same conclusion:
There are three kinds of curriculum standards in the world: skills, content, and process.
Skills have these characteristics:
- there is always a right or a wrong
- the outcome is the same each time
- repetition brings proficiency
In Language Arts and Reading, we have very few skills. Phonics, Phonemic Awareness, Sight Words, Grammar, Mechanics, Word Parts/Derivations. And there are a lot of resources to teach these. The sight word /the/ is always the same. It's never something else. And we learn it through repetition.
Content has these characteristics:
- it's about information
- you either learn it or discover it
- it's relatively stable and unchanging
In Language Arts and Reading, we have ZERO content. There is no single text or list of information about our domain. Zero. And if you want to argue, then we have to admit that our content is everything that has been written and everything that will be written. That's not going to fit in the instructional calendar either.
Other subjects have content: The Civil War always began in 1861. Two times two is always four. Photosynthesis is a set of information. There might be new discoveries and new information, but for the most part, there are distinct things to know, content, in other disciplines.
Process has these characteristics:
- there are multiple steps
- you can follow a set of steps exactly the same way each time and
- get a different result or
- get it wrong
In English Language Arts and Reading, our field is dominated by processes where even if we follow an algorithm like PMDAS in long division, we aren't guaranteed success. (Which is exactly what I think the HOOEY statements we have been making are: algorithms that don't help.)
Perhaps the problem with teaching inference can be revealed by answering these questions:
- Are we teaching inference as if it is a skill? One right answer? The same each time for each text? As a repeated exercise?
- Are we teaching inference as if it is a set of content? As if the inference is something to know about life? As if it is stable and unchanging for each text? (I think this one is the approach we are using. "You take what the text says (content) and add it to your schema (background information/content) and knowledge of vocabulary (content) and abracadabra, you have an inference." We are teaching a process as if it were something to know - as CONTENT!)
- Are we teaching inference as a process? A cognitive complexity with many steps and pathways to multiple answers and interpretations?
Now we have a direction for seeking a solution.
- If it is true that we are teaching inference as a set of content, then what are the solutions for addressing the content of each text? The reality remains that there are things that people need to know in text. Each text carries its own content.
- If it is true that we need to be teaching inference as a process, then what is involved in the process of making an inference?
I've never thought of an inference as a 1-2-3 and your there, and little about the how the inference is made is stable and unchanging because each text is different and each reader is different. The process by which we come to an inference can be as different as each reader. Your question about “A cognitive complexity with many steps and pathways to multiple answers and interpretations?” I agree and say Yes, but what are the many steps? As I see it the basic steps include the in-head actions of connecting what the text is saying with my understanding of the world (schema) and creating a new understanding. Is that not an inference? I’m curious about what other steps might be included in this process.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you have could have an inference with new understanding...just depends. I'm not sure we will ever know the concrete steps or pathways - they are unique to the reader. As I was thinking about your comment, I realized that even the questions come from someone's inference. The test writer had an inference first. Then he wrote a question to see if someone else could trace his thinking and come up with the same inference. Kind of artificial and backward, but that's really what tests are asking people to do - make inferences that other people have already made. Fortunately, sound reasoning and faithful use of the text enable people to render inferences that are common in the thinking processes of others. I just don't think that we will ever be able to replicate a set of steps that readers can use. It's not like PEMDAS or My Dear Aunt Sally. :)
ReplyDelete