"In response to the Common Core State Standards in English/language arts, a group of about 70 teachers and literacy specialists got together to rewrite the basal readers, getting teachers to ask questions different from those found in teachers’ editions."
Below is a link to the article they were referring to....
Teachers Embedding Standards in Basal Reader Questions
I was wondering what would happen in terms of curricula that we currently use when we (Oregon) adopt the core standards. The reading program (Treasures) that we currently use is aligned with the Oregon state standards. When I looked over the common core state standards, they are definitely different. So, in a district where we are expected to teach the adopted curricula with fidelity, I wonder how we do that when the curricula we have adopted no longer match the standards that we are supposed to use....
It's all so confusing.
This article somewhat answered that question. The companies who write the curricula are making attempts to update their products, but there are also teachers who are making strides to figure out ways to make the current curricula more aligned with the new standards. One area in particular where they are focusing is on the comprehension questions that go along with the basal stories. The common core state standards focus on higher order thinking and critical thinking, so the lame questions that often accompany the basal readers need to go! That makes total sense.
But, one part stood out to me and made me cringe (just a bit!) was the idea that "text to self" connections should be phased out (or at least not part of comprehension questions until a student has read a story multiple times). In all my reading about being culturally responsive, being able to help kids relate to the material and content is a very important piece of the puzzle. The perspective in this article, however, is that kids need to be able to understand the content of the text and what the text is relaying rather than focusing on how they feel about it. The article states that when kids are in the "real world" and working, when they read text, they most likely will not be asked to reflect on how they feel about it, but will need to understand the information. I get the idea, yet I think that the article represents "text to self" connections as more about "feelings" than they truly are.
Text to self connections contribute to comprehension of the content because the reader is making connections between personal experiences/prior knowledge and new information. Sure, text to self connections should not be the main focus of comprehension questions, but I definitely think they are an important aspect of comprehension, especially for students whose personal experiences may not align directly with the content being read. I love the push for more critical and higher order thinking, but I don't think it should be at the expense of allowing kids opportunities to make sense of information by talking about how the information pertains to them/their lives. Also, text to self is one in a series of three with "text to text" and "text to world" being the other two. If the new standards want to emphasize students gaining a better understanding and ability to discuss what the text is relaying, then I don't think either of those other types of connections is any better than text to self. They both focus on relating the text being read to something other than the text being read, which takes the focus off the specific message/content in the text being read....
What do you think? Should text to self be a thing of the past?
