Book Club Reflection

I think book clubs have the potential to greatly enhance student learning because they touch on so many different aspects of the learning process. They can encourage community-building, metacognitive thinking, and also convince students that reading is a worthwhile activity to pursue outside of school. The most obvious effect is that book clubs can help students decipher difficult text because as Schoenbach mentions, when students are “unfamiliar with the particular language structures and features of a text, their language-processing ability breaks down.” In many ways, book clubs can “demystify” reading because they can help “make the invisible visible.” I would argue that by publicly questioning and discussing the text, students can experience the reading process for themselves rather than listening to their instructor tell them that it is so. I also like to think that by accepting such questioning and confusion as the academic norm, students will become more comfortable asking questions and participating in future class discussions.

This was my first time participating in a book club assignment. While I had some issues with the collaboration process, I think the text itself was an excellent read.

I would do a couple of things differently with the collaboration process. Part of this was my fault; I was unable to attend the first meeting. While I did stay in contact with my group and exchanged ideas, I still felt like I had missed something. Exchanging information without the context is a lot like highlighted a few lines in a chapter without reading the rest. It’ll supply the main ideas and give you the overall gist of the text, but those highlights don’t explain how the conversation arrived at those ideas. In retrospect, I probably should have suggested to meet for an additional day outside of class. This is especially true given that my group spent so much time discussing how we were going to put our presentation together during the second meeting. It was an important meeting but I think we could have done that outside of class. I also learned something new regarding the social element of book clubs. Despite the fact that I knew most of my group (not personally but I knew two of the members from previous classes), I don't think it was an ideal environment. This may have stemmed from my exasperation with the said group members. We were constantly butting heads over what we considered to be the important ideas. It was exactly like Mary Louise Pratt's contact zones Kaufman & Torda mentioned: "students with different amounts of power and different kinds of stakes in the classroom and materials "meet, clash, and grapple with each other." I think half of my group saw Wilhelm’s book as a collection of unrelated chapters because they never seemed to realize the pursuit of engagement as the main idea that connected the chapters. I could very well be wrong but this was an observation purely based on our discussions. Kaufman & Torda also state that "book clubs call attention to the active processes of both reading and writing. Through overt sociality, independent reading journals, and collaborative writing projects…" but I can’t say that this book club assignment did the same for me. I think one of the reasons our assignment did none of the above (for me at least) was because there was little collaboration with the writing portion. I agreed to put the presentation together while another said she would organize our handout. When I put our group's presentation together, I fully expected some of my group members to adjust or add more information onto the parts that they saw fit. Then the discussion regarding what was important or what else to add could have taken place. Unfortunately, there was none of that.

The one thing I learned was that there is no guarantee that students will form beneficial relationships with their group members just because they know each other or they are put in the same group. I hate to admit it but I don't think I gave the same amount of respect they deserved. I tried my best to be collaborative, but I struggled to incorporate their input into my own analysis. They were hyper focusing on one activity or one idea that Wilhelm outlined. I spent much of time arguing that they were missing the overarching idea that gave way to those activities. Based on my previous experiences with them, and the fact that they seemed to have missed the main point of the book, I ended up ignoring much of what they had to say. I still don’t know whether they truly had missed the point or I was blinded by arrogance and assumed that I was right. If this happens in a graduate class, it will undoubtedly happen in an undergraduate class. I think students' preconceived notions towards their fellow students should not be underestimated. I would probably implement a simple community-building activity in an attempt to bring in some kind of mutual understanding and cooperation.

The material itself, however, was extremely useful. Wilhelm's ideas were essentially a how-to list of approaches teachers can take to help their students become engaged with the text. His views on expanded reader response and engagement were great. Wilhelm did not just supply a list of activities. He also provided an explanation of how his recommended activities were going to foster engagement. They resonated with many of the ideas found in Schoenbach's Reading Apprenticeship Framework. One of the most useful things about the book is that Appendix A outlines his entire Ten Dimensions of Reader Response. Each dimension is categorized as Evocative, Connective, or Reflective. Not only does he outline his definitions and provide a basic idea of what readers should be doing in each dimension, he supplies a series of questions and activities that teachers can use in their classrooms. I think this was one of the most useful features of his book. He argues for what many teacher-scholars are also pushing for today; he believes that teachers should be learning with their students. Teachers should be collaborators and mentors rather than lecturers.

If I were to teach a reading course, I would definitely incorporate a book club into the semester, but I was also mindful of the potential issues I might face. My first concern with reading assignments like book clubs is that I might select the wrong text. Given my lack of teaching experience, I don't think I have developed the necessary skills to properly gauge students’ reading levels. I could address this issue by having students select their own texts from a few that I have preselected, much like we did in class ourselves. Based on my experiences, I would add some type of journal assignment as well. I am also concerned that students may not form the kind of community that I want them to, but this is something out of my control. While I can’t force communities to form, I can help them with activities that encourage them to get to know one another.

  

In conclusion, despite my mistakes, I think book club assignments are worth doing. The benefits outweigh the potential roadblocks. And much of the reason why it didn't work as I expected was my own fault. But the fact that I had struggled to properly collaborate with my group members did serve as a reality check. There is a great deal of factors at play when collaborating in such group work and one can’t assume that it only occurs to other students. I think the important thing to remember is that no two classes are the same. The same assignment won’t work for every class. The one thing I have decided after going through my readings is that whatever the assignment, if it is failing to foster the right kind of learning environment that was originally intended, it’s better to move on.

Responding to Armstrong & Newman

I’m beginning to worry because I feel like I not as engaged with the text as I should be because every time a scholar defines what successful readers do, I feel like I don't actually do that when I read. It could be that I am just unaware of the specific strategies I use.

I know I run the risk of sounding a bit pretentious--and I'm trying not to--but I wasn't entirely sure if Armstrong & Newman were bringing up any new ideas. Their notion of intertextuality seemed to overlap with Schoenbach's knowledge building dimension. Although I do think Armstrong & Newman specifically focuses on bringing in a variety of outside text to help build students' schema.

I did find myself wondering how a curriculum based on intertextuality would address difficulty or engagement. It seemed like something was missing. I got the sense that the approach is meant to build students' schema through supplemental texts, but I couldn't pinpoint how instructors were supposed to help students learn the kind of reading discussed in the article. They address misconception and the flaws of skill-based teaching but don't demonstrate how the use of intertextuality fosters student growth in other areas.

The longitudinal study mentioned in the closing paragraph was rather intriguing. This is the kind of research project I've been interested in conducting but I haven't been able to find the right focus.  

Responding to Schoenbach (Chapters 7-8)

I did not think that the teaching of reading could effectively transfer over into subjects like math and chemistry. I always thought that math and science didn't require reading skills because those subjects didn't require the kind of interpretation that reading needs. It's much more fact-based and memorizing. There are concepts to learn, but it's a different thought process. What I didn't realize, however, was the fact that it wasn't the teaching of reading, but it was the mental attitude that was being taught. The subject teachers weren't teaching students how to read but they were teachings students how to approach their struggles, use their peers as fellow learners, and bring in their prior knowledge of schema.

There were also some ideas that I knew that I would struggle with as an instructor. Schoenbach cautions that "knowing when, whether, and how to intervene in students' misunderstandings is a skill that teachers develop as a crucial part of encouraging and guiding students toward deeper comprehension of challenging texts.

"the need to ensure that students have immediate, correct information almost never trumps building or maintaining students engagement." I am going to have to work really hard to stop myself from being too pushy. This may explain my desire to fix every mistake I see on student papers. The good news, I suppose it that my perspective on this has considerably changed. I initially believed that grammatical clarity was extremely important, but I've managed to shift my focus.

I was also surprised by the amount dedicated to building students' vocabulary in Chapter 8. Vocabulary was something I had not considered important enough to implement direct lessons. I suppose my response would vary depending on the my class' needs. If it seems like many students are struggling because of vocabulary, I would most likely add some type of exercise or activity that would help them address their needs.  

There was also one idea mentioned in Schoenbach's knowledge-building dimension that stuck with me: "knowing when, whether, and how to intervene in students' misunderstandings is a skill teachers develop as a crucial part of encouraging and guiding students...the need to ensure that students have immediate, correct information almost never trumps building or maintaining student engagement." This worries me partially because it is a skills teachers develop. I fear that I'm the type of person who feels obligated to correct people's misconceptions or mistakes. 

Responding to Schoenbach (Chapters 3-4)

The framework taught me a great deal about myself. I've come to accept that my view of student learning was slightly flawed. I assumed that through lecture and note-taking, students would learn everything they need to know. The idea that the professor would ask for my ideas seemed preposterous. How would I, a graduate student with barely any knowledge, have anything useful to contribute to class? I don't think my perception of learning is completely wrong but it just won't work for everybody. Additionally, I'm not arguing that lectures are the only way to teach. I just think a good balance between student-led learning and teacher-based lessons would keep things interesting. 

Out of the four dimensions in the Reading Apprenticeship framework, I've probably given the least amount of thought to the social aspect. I've always considered a "good" classroom to be one where the professor lectures and students pay attention and take notes. So I was rather surprised at the amount of collaborative small group work that was often assigned during classes here at SFSU. I've always hated talking in class. Even as a graduate student, I have to admit that I'm worried about ask "stupid" questions or sounding incompetent. My second surprise was how much information I was gaining from the activities. Despite the fact that I had been doing much of the talking with my group members, I had learned

I liked that Schoenbach provided specific activities to consider in order to encourage some connections between students. I don't know if it's true, but I feel like some teachers assume by students will be able to form some type of connection with each other simply by being in the same group. The classroom Bingo activity sounded fun but I don't think it will be as successful in a college setting. I think students might feel forced to participate and will only follow through for appearances, but I could be wrong.  

Since I've started the program, the idea of my ideal classroom has slowly changed; now I am constantly thinking about how I could get students participate and actually care about the material. Still, I think a teacher based lecture has its benefits when used properly. I think in some ways, it takes the pressure off of students. I see it as being read to; students just have to listen to the material and take note of any questions or curiosities. Then the teacher would open up the floor for discussion. In this manner, I think lectures can be equally engaging.

Responding to Schoenbach (preface-Chapter 2)

These chapters outline some ideas that I think resonate throughout the English Composition program at SFSU and some of the pedagogical changes that many teachers have been pushing for.

Schoenbach brings up many ideas that have come up in our class readings before. The reading almost felt like an instructional guide in some ways. Sometimes I felt like the text was showing me examples of how to apply interactive, student-centered learning. I also appreciated how Schoenbach touches on the idea that struggling students simply are not motivated. I would have believed that before, but after reading some of the literature on students engagement, I now know that is not the case. Schoenbach also mentions something that I think contributes to the low success rate of "remedial" programs. Such programs become so focused with bringing students up to speed that they seem to ignore how reading skills are learned in the first place. She points out that "these programs require skilled implementation to build students' personal engagement, develop social supports for reading, and engage students in the extensive reading of extended text." It was refreshing to read that "there is no quick fix for reading inexperience."

This reiterates the idea of what we've often learned not to do; mechanical, repetitive tasks that usually have nothing to do with the material at hand.

Schoenbach mentions that "skills-in-a-box" curricula tends to fail. I am certain that she is referring to the quick-fix programs mentioned before, but I would argue that the Reading Apprenticeship is a expanded version of a "skills-in-a-box" program as well. For example, instead of teaching students simple content-based tools, the Framework helps students assemble their own collection of cognitive tools that they will need to succeed as students.

I think the provided definitions of reading and successful readers are useful. My instinctive reaction is to show this to students on the first day of class, but I get the feeling that they aren't going to believe it or take it seriously.

I think the Reading Apprenticeship Framework is great partly because it can be applied to a variety of disciplines. In fact, I'm not sure it should be specified as the "Reading" Apprenticeship Framework. I think that all successful classroom incorporate the social, personal, cognitive, and knowledge-building dimensions in one way or another regardless of subject. Granted, I don't think the personal dimension isn't as applicable as it would be if it were part of a math or science class, but the other dimensions are important.