In
my last post I began a discussion of Part 1 of Disruptive Thinking with a
contest.
Christie, you won a copy
of the book!
Also in my previous post I also talked about the
struggle reading poses to students and teachers, but how that process is sort
of the point, as opposed to rote answers.
Part 2 of Disrupting Thinking gets into the meat of the instruction:
How do you talk to your students about
the thought disrupting process of reading?
How do you get them to think about and also respond to what they are
reading in a deeper way?
Disrupting
Thinking: Book, Head, Heart
The
"hook" the authors describe in this book is the "Book, Head, Heart Framework"
(BHH). They focus most on the heart in
this section; the reason being is that many other texts, including ones they've
written in the past, cover the "In the Book" part, aka, text
dependent, one right answer kind of questions.
The "head" questions are more inferential and more
metacognitive. Students think about the
confirmation and/or changes in their expectations and assumptions. Readers with different background will have
different ideas here, and this is where comprehension can really start to break
down or evolve. Personally this was not
a new concept for me, but these are the types of questions that I'm always
trying to include more of in my teaching because they go deeper and it's how
instruction is differentiated.
Really,
the "In Your Heart" questions are the deepest of questions: these are
the questions that are a call to action.
They get into the real reason for reading beyond taking a test:
How does this book resonate with or change
who you are?
Not every book will do
that, but one of my takeaways is that it's part of my job to pick books that
provide opportunities for creating positive changes in my students'
mindsets.
Again,
the authors ask us to practice what they preach, and give us a poem to reflect
on with the framework to practice on.
But I feel a greater need to share how I used the framework on this book.
For the "In my head" response, I
couldn't help thinking of a framework of questions I used about 15 years ago,
back when I taught 3rd grade.
I kept
thinking "In My Head, In the Text, In the World."
A quick Google search brought me here:
http://schochsite.pbworks.com/f/au_hirata_raphael_article.pdf to an article on Question Answer Relationship
(QAR).
Using this method, I helped
students analyze the types of questions that were on practice MCAS
questions.
When there weren't enough
deep questions, I made my own.
So
I've reached out to the authors on Twitter to ask what they see as the main
differences between the two theories. I'm
still waiting back to see what they say (maybe it's in Part 3 and I'm spoiling
the ending. I see Raphael is in the
references section). But so far, I see 2
differences:
Book, Head,
Heart Vs. Question Answer Relationship
Difference
1:
QAR
is more about analyzing prepared questions.
The key word is questions, as opposed to text or the reader.
BHH
is more about student generated questions about a text. There are sentence starters to help students
formulate questions (great for ELLs and other students who need the
scaffold). But the students lead the
generation of questions. The focus is
actually more on the reader than on the questions. And the reader and text matter in equal
proportion in BHH, I would say. There
are questions, only as a vehicle for eliciting a response.
Difference
2:
QAR's
third question type is "In the World."
BHH's
third question type is "In my Heart."
I
believe that the two are in practicality the same, but philosophically
different. Again, I hope the authors
weigh in here. But to me, QAR is more
about observing how the book relates
to the real world. Connections
are made to current events. BHH is also
about making a connection to the real world, but it's more of a call to action
than an observation. It's taking something to heart. It's about changing or reaffirming the
reader's feelings and attitudes and reshaping them so that when they go out
into the world, they will act more
responsibly.
Facilitating
Book, Head, Heart Discussions
So
when I first read Part 2, I thought "I need to make some Head and Heart
Questions for specific books."
But
the more I thought about it, the more I thought, "Is this sort of
defeating the point?
The questions need
to be student generated."
The
anchor charts are right there:
"In
the book, what's it about, who's telling the story, what does the author want
me to know?"
"In your head,
what surprised you, what changed?"
"In your heart, what did you take to heart?
What did you learn about yourself?
"What do you need to help
change?"
If we get more specific
than that, are we leading students to "right answers?"
For
example, I read BFG by Roald Dahl with my students. [Spoiler Alert] One of the "In My Heart" reactions
I had, when I read the book, was that Sophie learns that just because the giant
doesn't speak "properly," he is very intelligent and has other gifts
to share. This not only makes Sophie
more compassionate and connected to the world outside her orphanage, but it
awakens Sophie's confidence in herself.
I
wonder, when using BHH in my classroom, should I ask students:
1. Read chapter 5. What does the author want you
to know? What surprised you? What did you learn about you?
Or
2. Read paragraph 5 on page 100. What does the author want you to know about
Sophie? What did you learn about you? What surprised you about the BFG over the
course of the book so far?
Or
3. Read paragraph 5 on page 100. What does the
author want you to know about Sophie's attitude toward the BFG? How did her assumptions about the BFG's
intelligence change? If you meet someone
who speaks differently from you, what should/shouldn't you assume about
them?"
I
suppose the answer is, #1 is the goal.
We want students to make their own connections. If they are not there yet, provide as much
scaffolding as necessary with the goal of removing scaffolds as they mature as
readers. Let's face it, in #3, we're
wading (/plunging?) right into "One right answer territory." And that alone will not produce truly
responsive readers. We need students to
integrate new material into their own schema and sense of self, be open to
growth and change, and ask their own questions.
I'm
eager to see if Part 3 addresses any of my questions.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts on
the BHH framework for responses?
Was
your first thought to go write text specific questions or start copying one of
their anchor charts?
Can you think of
different instances where each approach would apply?