What, if anything, cannot be expressed or learned in a "text-free or text-lite" source? (Blog Post # 4)
I found Buehl’s description of the elements that increase text complexity really important. While I know these blog posts are not intended to summarize the readings, I wish to create a chart that briefly describes and draws connections between these text elements and the comprehension strategies required to make sense of them. This is largely in service of expanding and monitoring my own comprehension of Buehl’s text (let’s get meta, baby!), but also to provide context before I pose some questions and wonderings that surfaced for me as I read Chapter 2.
The above chart reveals the depth of comprehension work required to make sense of texts as they grow in complexity. If the goal for many middle and high school disciplinary teachers is largely connected to absorbing specific content, then it is easy to see why teachers would eschew traditional texts and engage in what Buehl terms “reading avoidance” (2017, p. 41) – instead, seeking out sources that require fewer comprehension demands. First, teaching these comprehension strategies requires ample time, which most teachers feel hard-pressed to find in today’s educational ecosystem. Second, it requires a conscious understanding of the discrete processes needed to make sense of disciplinary texts, a metacognitive awareness, if you will, that often goes unnoticed by “insider experts.” At one juncture in the chapter, Buehl quotes a research review completed by the drafters of the CCSS:
“If students cannot read complex expository text to gain information, they will likely turn to text-free or text-lite sources, such as video, podcasts, and tweets. These sources, while not without value, cannot capture the nuance, subtlety, depth, or breadth of ideas developed through complex text” (2017, p. 41)
This was striking to me, especially in lieu of the way that UIC’s education department has asked us to expand our definitions of literacy; question the hegemonic authority of traditional, long-form text; and reimagine various media artifacts as complex texts. I feel a twinge of self-consciousness admitting that I agree with the above idea expressed by the creators of the CCSS, wary as I am of sounding like a narrow-minded dinosaur defending the canon of yore. And yet, I also find myself hard-pressed to name the precise "nuance, subtlety, depth, breadth of ideas” that text-free or text-light sources cannot capture. In other words, what kind of learning is achieved uniquely through reading long-form complex text, especially as those kinds of sources become more and more obsolete?
Also (somewhat tangentially) is anyone else taking away from this reading that if we really want our students to engage with complex texts, we need to be more discerning about the volume of text we ask students to read? How are we supposed to expect students to do deep comprehension work if we assign enormous volumes of text, especially in the age of AI, when, in the interest of time they can just ask chat GPT to summarize for them?
The above chart reveals the depth of comprehension work required to make sense of texts as they grow in complexity. If the goal for many middle and high school disciplinary teachers is largely connected to absorbing specific content, then it is easy to see why teachers would eschew traditional texts and engage in what Buehl terms “reading avoidance” (2017, p. 41) – instead, seeking out sources that require fewer comprehension demands. First, teaching these comprehension strategies requires ample time, which most teachers feel hard-pressed to find in today’s educational ecosystem. Second, it requires a conscious understanding of the discrete processes needed to make sense of disciplinary texts, a metacognitive awareness, if you will, that often goes unnoticed by “insider experts.” At one juncture in the chapter, Buehl quotes a research review completed by the drafters of the CCSS:
“If students cannot read complex expository text to gain information, they will likely turn to text-free or text-lite sources, such as video, podcasts, and tweets. These sources, while not without value, cannot capture the nuance, subtlety, depth, or breadth of ideas developed through complex text” (2017, p. 41)
This was striking to me, especially in lieu of the way that UIC’s education department has asked us to expand our definitions of literacy; question the hegemonic authority of traditional, long-form text; and reimagine various media artifacts as complex texts. I feel a twinge of self-consciousness admitting that I agree with the above idea expressed by the creators of the CCSS, wary as I am of sounding like a narrow-minded dinosaur defending the canon of yore. And yet, I also find myself hard-pressed to name the precise "nuance, subtlety, depth, breadth of ideas” that text-free or text-light sources cannot capture. In other words, what kind of learning is achieved uniquely through reading long-form complex text, especially as those kinds of sources become more and more obsolete?
Also (somewhat tangentially) is anyone else taking away from this reading that if we really want our students to engage with complex texts, we need to be more discerning about the volume of text we ask students to read? How are we supposed to expect students to do deep comprehension work if we assign enormous volumes of text, especially in the age of AI, when, in the interest of time they can just ask chat GPT to summarize for them?
I really liked your question about what cannot be expressed or learned through a “text-free or text-lite” source. I also agree that videos, podcasts, and other forms of media can communicate ideas in ways that traditional texts sometimes cannot. For example, a video can show an event, demonstrate a process, or let us hear someone explain an idea in their own voice. However, I think complex long-form texts give us more opportunities to slow down, revisit an idea, make connections between points, and examine the details of an argument.
ReplyDeleteI also found your point about the amount of text we assign students interesting. Sometimes assigning a large amount of reading does not necessarily mean students are learning more. If students rush through pages to finish an assignment, they may not have enough time to comprehend, question, or connect with what they are reading. I think it may be more meaningful to give students a smaller amount of complex text and enough time and strategies to understand it deeply.
Your connection to AI also stood out to me because students can now get a summary of a long reading in seconds. This makes it even more important for teachers to help students understand how to read and think through complex texts instead of simply asking them to finish a certain number of pages.
This made me wonder: If technology continues to create faster and easier ways for us to access information, should the goal of literacy change from learning how to consume large amounts of information to learning how to slow down, question, and deeply understand the information we choose to engage with?
I really liked your question about what complex texts can offer that videos, podcasts, or other media cannot. I think different forms of media have their own strengths, but long-form reading gives students more time to slow down, revisit ideas, and examine an argument carefully. I also agree with your point about the amount of reading teachers assign. More reading does not always mean more learning, especially when students feel pressured to finish quickly. Instead, giving students fewer texts with enough time to think, question, and discuss them may lead to deeper understanding. AI makes developing these reading skills even more important.
ReplyDeleteYour question about expecting deep comprehension reading in the AI era is truly intriguing, Maddy. I personally believe that reading for deep comprehension is one way we can help students to exercise their reading stamina while also honing their working memory and critical analysis. Our students need to know that without reading stamina, holding complex arguments and authors' intents is painful for our brains. The AI may seem like an instant way out, but honing our working memory is also crucial to being fully connected to what we read. AI gives us an easy way to get the information, but reading gives us the understanding, enabling us to evaluate, synthesize, and experience the reading process as a genuine triumph of human thought.
ReplyDelete