Is Close Reading Enough?

I recently received an e-mail from a literacy coach colleague expressing concern and seeking advice regarding balancing literacy strategies.  It seems teachers are only implementing close reading strategies because the perception is the PARRC Assessment focuses on close reading.  I assured her she wasn’t alone. This problem is twofold: (1) Close reading is the latest fad and (2) Many believe they are teaching to the test when implementing close reading strategies.  

We've always had close reading as a part of a comprehensive literacy program, but "close reading" became a buzzword at the onset of Common Core; so it's been treated as a new phenomenon.  In too many scenarios it's just taking “seek and find” to a new level.  That may be a bit dramatic. Ha!  I might make the distinction at this point to what I call “seek and find” and close reading.  Most of us think of "seek and find" as read to find the only correct response, or read and answer the questions at the end of the chapter.  Unlike the former, close reading does ask for supporting evidence in a text to justify a reader's response.  

Bottom line, the real problem is many teachers don't understand how to incorporate reading, writing, speaking and listening as processes that should be varied and connected for the purpose of thinking and applying learning in a broader context.

I choose to use three highly regarded authors, researchers and experts to help reinforce my point:

Inquiry is an important aspect of curriculum. Inquiry-based learning focuses on the student as learner, developing skillful, open-ended questioning skills. Being able to recognize different levels of questions is beneficial for all students in many areas of learning. Understanding Art Costa’s Three Levels of Inquiry is critical for student success.

Close reading may take students to level two where they infer answers from what the text implicitly states, finding answers in several places within the text; however, students will move to level three in Costa's hierarchy only when as readers they think beyond what the text states.  Responses are based on
 the reader’s prior knowledge and experience; thus, will vary. Words found in these questions include: evaluating, 
judging, applying a principle, speculating, imagining, predicting and hypothesizing.

“How do we create the context for them to discuss, ponder, argue, restate, reflect, persuade, relate, write about or otherwise work with the information we consider critical for them to recall?  To push beyond the literal text, to make it personal and three dimensional, to weave it into our own stories—that is, to extend, refine and use the knowledge meaningfully?”  Robert Marzano…Dimensions of Learning

Finally, I was engaged in a conversation with friend and Arkansas colleague, Dr. Judi Jenkins around this issue, particularly the integration of literacy processes.  She sent me a quote from Mike Schmoker, which addresses both questioning and my former post, which I want to share:

"I want to be as emphatic as possible: the impact of the actual, taught curriculum on school quality, on student learning, is indescribably important.  Yet, we still are not practicing the simple rule of inspecting what we are expecting. We can stack "Common Core" units to the ceiling in every classroom in our school and still not teach anything with rigor or relevance to college or career readiness. The artifacts of effective teaching cannot just consist of lesson plans or curriculum units.  We must have leaders that care enough to make observation of teaching and learning a top priority. We must have instructional leaders who intentionally improve teaching and learning on a daily basis. We cannot "buy programs" or simply find resources, which are labeled "Common Core" and sell out to them.  For example, if we implement CLOSE reading strategy, we should not present the strategy as the only way to read. Maybe it is effectively implemented, but what I am seeing is that it is creating what I call "dictionary dependent" learners who stop and look up the definition of every word they do not already know. This makes them less than fluent readers, and the whole point is for students to grapple with the meaning within the context--not just get a dictionary definition for academic vocabulary. Last time I checked, college and career ready people were not carrying around dictionaries. They were fluent readers who could comprehend the text by using clues. Teachers and students must be challenged in order for the learning to have meaning and for it to ever have application to new learning. “

Using knowledge meaningfully and application to new learning… should be the outcome, right?