Running head: IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING

Publication information: Pennell, C. (2014) In the age of analytic reading: Understanding

readers’ engagement with text. The Reading Teacher. Vol 68 (4) pp 251-260.

In the Age of Analytic Reading: Understanding Readers’ Engagement with Text

by

Colleen Pennell

Colleen Pennell is an Assistant Professor at Marian University in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, USA;

email [email protected]

This article describes a discussion based reading intervention where students relied upon

dialogic discourse, the fluid nature of the text, and their own experiential knowledge as

mediators for text interpretation.

As the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) unfold throughout school districts across

the country, students in grade three and above are expected to read text analytically through close

scrutiny of central ideas, text structure, and writing craft. Commonly referred to as close reading,

this practice originated from New Criticism (Bressler, 2007), which suggests meaning is

discovered by the reader through careful analysis of what is directly stated in the text and thus is

not created by the reader through personal connections and interactions. From this perspective,

instruction will guide students to engage in multiple, slow, and careful readings wherein their

affective responses to text are pushed to the periphery. By negating such factors as emotion or

experiential knowledge, it is believed that students will more readily extract the objective

meaning deemed implicit in the literary work (Coleman & Pimentel, 2012). Ultimately, the

single meaning discovered through close reading is meant to be uniform and even between

readers.

Indeed, the prevailing stance toward the CCSS is that students’ personal connections to

text are not pivotal to constructing meaning and should be limited (Coleman, 2011; Coleman &

Pimentel, 2012; Shanahan, 2012). However, some scholars (Beers & Probst, 2013) propose close

reading can and should include a reader’s personal interactions as they are a necessary building

block to comprehension “The most rigorous reading is to find what those words on that page

mean in our own lives” (p. 42). Aligned with Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of reading (1978;

2004), this epistemology suggests the emotional, or aesthetic, nature of reading is part and parcel

of a fully realized interpretation.

Rosenblatt (1978; 2004) placed importance on the aesthetic, or the lived-through,

emotional experiences that happen during reading and placed this orientation toward text on one

end of a continuum. She also described reading as an efferent act, where one reads to acquire
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 3

information, and placed this orientation toward text on the opposite side of the continuum.

However, neither efferent nor aesthetic acts of reading are mutually exclusive; readers produce

both, and most acts of reading lie in the middle. Rosenblatt distinguished her beliefs from New

Criticism by arguing that textual interpretation is socially situated as readers transact with the

text by relying upon their unique biographical experiences which mediate the construction of

meaning: “The same text takes on different meanings in transactions with different readers or

even with same reader in different contexts or times” (2004, p. 1384). However, Rosenblatt did

not state that every reader’s interpretation is logically justified, yet like the New Critics, she

honored the role of the text as central to meaning construction. Ultimately, she viewed reading as

both an affective and cognitive act in which the lived experiences of the reader cannot be severed

from textual interpretation.

Despite the various propositions of literary theory and divergent epistemologies of

literacy scholars, there remains a burgeoning emphasis on teaching students to become close,

analytic readers. However, teachers must remain cognizant that close reading is one outcome of

the CCSS and additional instructional methods might better cultivate the aesthetic aspects of

literacy. For instance, in the Speaking and Listening standards, students are expected to establish

agreed-upon rules for group discussion, apply practices of exploratory talk (Mercer, 2000), and

engage in topical discussions pertaining to their grade level. There are various ways to address

these standards but one alternative that promotes critical thinking, argumentation skills, and

aesthetic awareness is the discipline of philosophy.

For example, consider the book, Willow’s Whispers (Button and Howells, 2010), where

philosophical issues about language, identity, and the nature of shyness are ripe for exploring.

Engaging young children in discussion around these issues (e.g. ‘Does Willow choose to be shy
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 4

or was she born that way?’) not only facilitates social awareness but can even advance reading

comprehension, especially for readers who struggle (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey, &

Alexander, 2009).

Recently, a small group of third-grade readers who struggled with text comprehension

participated in a study that employed a discussion based reading intervention rooted in

philosophical inquiry. In the following article, I detail the design of the intervention and

explicate relevant elements that uniquely contributed to meaning making. In doing so, I hope to

convey that in the age of analytic reading, entryways to text and moreover, the meanings that

students construct are not always so cut and dried.

Why Philosophy?

Matthew Lipman believed that critical thinking and reasoning abilities are essential for

rational decision making in a democratic society. For this reason, he and Ann Margaret Sharp

created a K-12 curriculum called Philosophy for Children (P4C) (Lipman & Sharp, 1984) which

engages students in methodical discussions around philosophical novels connected to the main

branches of philosophy: logic, ethics, and aesthetics. Research examining the effects of P4C on

student learning has been promising (Banks, 1987; Chamberlin, 1993). A meta-analysis

(Murphy, et al., 2009) exploring discussion-based approaches to reading, revealed P4C had

positive effects on critical thinking, reasoning, argumentation skills, and reading comprehension

and was particularly advantageous for readers who struggle. P4C enables reading comprehension

as it promotes logical reasoning, text analysis, and argumentative thinking.

Thomas Wartenberg (2009) has since expanded the possibilities for using philosophy in

the classroom by showing how to derive philosophical questions from children’s literature.

Wartenberg believes picture books are a natural platform for philosophical inquiry because they
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 5

allow children to explore complex issues that may otherwise go unresolved by the reader if not

discussed. For instance, when students listen to a read-aloud of Frog and Toad Together:

Dragons and Giants (Lobel, 1971) they may wonder about the nature of bravery: Is it possible

that Frog and Toad were both brave and scared at the same time?

By design, philosophical inquiry necessitates logical, inferential thinking but also

disarms traditional academic labels (e.g., the ubiquitous reading level) and allows children to

leverage their imagination and experiences in order to reason critically around complex issues.

Since research has suggested that readers who struggle are infrequently provided access into

critical text discussions (Nystrand, Gamoran, Kachur, & Prendergast, 1997) employing

interventions like philosophic inquiry, which are rooted in higher order thinking, can help

ameliorate some of this inequity.

How Does Philosophical Inquiry Promote Comprehension?

When students partake in philosophical inquiry, they develop reasoning abilities through

discourse with others. Through open-ended discussions, students negotiate ideas with peers,

experience tension in their thinking, and collectively search for meaning. In this regard, the

socially situated nature of philosophy is steeped in the theories of Vygotsky and Bakhtin.

Both Vygotsky (1986) and Bakhtin (1986) believed an individual’s cognitive acts are

mediated by semiotic tools—specifically language. Vygotsky stressed the social milieu of

learning by suggesting cognitive processes can be advanced when children use language to

articulate and defend their thoughts. Thus, children will be more apt to assimilate new or

complex concepts when “required to explain, elaborate, or defend one’s position to others, as

well as to oneself; striving for an explanation often makes a learner integrate and elaborate

knowledge in new ways” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 158).

In a philosophical discussion, Vygotskian principles are illuminated as students are

required to ask and answer questions, challenge and debate inferences, and provide evidence to

substantiate their argument. Philosophical inquiry is premised on the Vygotskian notion that

“children will learn to think for themselves if they engage in the social practice of thinking

together” (Murris, 2008, p. 670).

Russian theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) expanded Vygotsky’s ideas by expounding

upon the role of social language in meaning construction. Bakhtin explained that when

participants engage in dialogue, the utterances spoken are woven together through the thoughts

and anticipations of other participants. For example, in philosophical discussions, students

discuss ideas and formulate responses (e.g., agreements, disagreements, or elaborations). By

preparing the response, meaning is being negotiated, particularly if two or more students engage

in opposing viewpoints. As the discussion becomes populated with multiple viewpoints it

mediates interpretation and constructs understanding. Bakhtin (1986) referred to this as dialogic,

and explained:

The fact is that when the listener perceives and understands the meaning of speech, he

simultaneously takes an active, responsive attitude toward it. He either agrees or

disagrees with it (completely or partially), augments it, applies it, prepares for its

execution and so on...any understanding is imbued with response and necessarily elicits it

in one form or another: the listener becomes the speaker. (p. 68)

Instructionally, philosophical inquiry relies upon dialogic teaching principles (Alexander, 2009)

where classrooms are structured to foster collaborative, strategic, and intellectually engaging

language practices. From a literacy perspective, dialogic teaching relinquishes the interpretive
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 7

authority of the teacher and implements intentional discourse practices that engage readers in

critical comprehension.

Designing a Grass Roots Reading Intervention

In the spring of 2010, I used my knowledge of research-based practices that promote

reading comprehension, and created and implemented a dialogically organized reading

intervention rooted in philosophical inquiry and undergirded by Vygotskian principles of

language and cognition. The participants, Jacob, Lucas, Michael, and Sean (all names used are

pseudonyms), were in the third grade and identified as having specific difficulty with higher-

level comprehension (not due to issues of decoding) as measured by district reading assessments,

state standardized tests, and teacher observations. Jacob and Sean were identical twins who both

received special education services for an identified language impairment. Lucas was new to the

public school system and had been previously home-schooled and Michael had been in and out

of reading intervention since kindergarten.

From January 2012 through April 2012, we met for approximately 35 minutes every

Monday through Thursday. During the first two weeks of the intervention, students were

provided a “discourse training” phase where they learned techniques for dialogic discussions.

Since students were new to this type of talk, they uncovered strategies for stating agreements and

disagreements, posing questions, and providing evidence for opinions. Students also established

“ground rules” of talk (Figure 1) that would anchor their remaining discussions.

When the two weeks ended, I relied upon Wartenberg’s (2009) suggestions for teaching

philosophy through children’s literature and infused the key tenets of P4C (Lipman & Sharp

1984; Gregory, 2008) as a framework for discussion. I also embedded additional methods that

would facilitate text comprehension: (1) completing story maps of read-alouds, (2) using a
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 8

vocabulary word wall to build word knowledge, and (3) employing a think-aloud progress

monitoring tool I created in order to track comprehension progress. Lastly, to avoid behaving as

a turn-taking mediator, I relied upon suggestions from the Accountable Talk Sourcebook

(Michaels, O’Connor, Hall, & Resnick 2010) and posted anchor charts (Figure 2) as a means of

promoting exploratory discussions. The day-to-day intervention was as follows:

1. I read a picture book aloud.

2. We discussed two or three vocabulary words per book that we charted on the word wall

and reviewed daily.

3. Sharing the pen, we completed a story map on poster paper; the map also included

philosophical questions and issues that were raised in the text.

4. Students selected a question to discuss and then generated various hypotheses to answer

(Figure 3).

5. Students discussed the merits of each hypothesis until they were able to agree on one that

was plausible.

6. Repeat (cycle usually took three or four days).

A Close Look at the Philosophy Circle: Discourse, Text, and Experiential Knowledge

In order to understand how students co-constructed meaning through philosophical

inquiry, I highlight three salient elements within the intervention that guided their reading

development: the dialogic frame of the discourse, the fluidity of the text, and readers’

experiential knowledge. Although my intent is not to oversimplify the process of meaning

construction, as additional factors mediated understanding, I do hope to elevate an awareness of

these areas in order to demonstrate how they worked in concert to advance growing readers

higher order thinking.

Dialogic Discourse.

In philosophical inquiry, the discourse framework is structurally dialogic and resembles a

discourse chain where student turn taking dominates the flow of a discussion (e.g. student:

student: student: student: teacher: student and so on). From an ideological perspective,

(O’Connor and Michaels, 2007), dialogic discussions cultivate shared ownership between

participants and position students as both agents and negotiators of meaning-making.

Epistemologically, dialogic discourse is undergirded by the belief that “discourse is cognition is

discourse” (Resnick, Pontecorvo, Säljö , & Burge,1997, p. 2).

Throughout our discussions, I strived to position myself as the facilitator of the talk and

often began the inquiry by attending to procedural norms (e.g. “Let’s begin by discussing the

first hypothesis we created yesterday. Who wants to start?). Together, the students and I sat in

an aptly named “philosophy circle”, where hands-free turn-taking was controlled by the students

and eye contact was afforded to everyone, not just me, the teacher. My instructional duties were

to pose questions, prompt for elaboration, and help students establish relationships between

ideas. The following vignette characterizes these interactions as students considered the

philosophical elements of pride and friendship from the text Frog and Toad Together: The

Dream (Lobel, 1970). In this discussion, they worked to understand why Frog would be getting

smaller and smaller in the presence of Frog’s hubristic performance.

TEACHER
Okay, the next one. So Toad was amazing, and Frog was shocked. So talk more about
that.

JACOB
Because he was shocked that he was melting. And he was getting tinier and tinier because
he was shocked.

MICHAEL
Did it say he was shocked? I don't think it said he was shocked.
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 10

SEAN
It looks like he got tinier and tinier.

TEACHER
Let's look at the book, does it look like he’s shocked?

SEAN
Yeah, you see his eyes wide open?

MICHAEL
He doesn't look shocked.

TEACHER
Well, let's read it. Toad walked on the high wire. Frog cried “Toad can you do tricks like
this?” “No” peeped Frog, who looked very, very small.

So how would being shocked get you smaller?

JACOB
I think that because he looked shocked on that page.

LUCAS
Can I see?

MICHAEL
He's just sitting there like this with a frowny face (motions with hands).

SEAN
No, he's like this (shows with arms). You can tell that he’s shocked because if you put
your arms up your shocked.

MICHAEL
No, he's not putting his arms up. He's putting his hands on the arm rest.

Within this dialogic exchange is the indicator of high level talk known as exploratory talk

(Mercer, 2000). Suggested to advance critical thinking, exploratory talk is defined as:

…that in which partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas.

Relevant information is offered for joint consideration. Proposals may be challenged and
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 11

counter-challenged, but if so reasons are given and alternatives are offered. Agreement is

sought as a basis for joint progress. (p. 98).

Note how the boys began to construct an argument regarding Frog’s behavior by building off one

another’s ideas. They analyzed suppositions as observed when Michael and Sean disputed the

picture’s meaning; they also provided evidence to support their inferences. Most importantly,

students worked towards jointly understanding the behavior of the character Frog. My role as

the teacher was limited, but necessary, as I prompted students to consider evidence in the text.

Additionally, it’s important to note that although students engaged in exploratory talk,

they were still developing the ability to provide elaborated explanations (Soter, Wilkinson,

Murphy and Reninger, 2007). Also reflective of higher order thinking, elaborated explanations

are defined by an individual making a claim and then providing at least two or more reasons of

support. For instance, note how Jacob stated “I think that because he looked shocked on that

page” but doesn’t elaborate with why. When students began the intervention, these sorts of

responses were not uncommon. In fact, students with language impairments, like Sean and

Jacob, often have concomitant reading difficulties (Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002).

Therefore, scaffolding the academic language of inquiry through discourse training, ground rules

of talk, and anchor charts were critical to facilitating these dialogic exchanges. Although the

trajectory of student talk increased over the course of the intervention, ultimately students needed

sustained dialogic environments, both in and out of the intervention, in order to foster

elaboration.

Finally, you will note throughout the vignettes provided in this article, that students

generally didn’t receive praise (e.g. good job) regarding their ideas. When the teacher focusses

on the process of problem solving instead of praising correctness, it demonstrates that thinking
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 12

through ideas is what matters, not merely finding the “answer” (Johnston, 2012). Instructionally,

our habit might be to interject and explain plausible interpretations of the text, but as Vygotsky

(1986) noted, social language is an essential mediator for children’s intellectual growth. Indeed,

the dialogic nature of students’ engagement in philosophical discussions underscored the

Vygotskian (1986) notion that children’s cognitive development can be advanced through social

interaction and collaborative problem solving.

Fluidity of the Text

A second element that was central to the intervention was the positioning of the text.

Unlike the method of close reading where meaning is discovered by the reader within the four

corners of the text, our process of philosophical inquiry assumed no intrinsic meaning to the text.

In this regard, the text was considered fluid, not fixed, due to the various lenses and socially

informed practices that readers used to transact with it. Contrast this with the CCSS, where the

text is context free and positioned in a fixed state with the intent to facilitate the acquisition of

knowledge (Coleman and Pimentel, 2011). However, in philosophical inquiry the text is socially

situated and positioned dialogically (Bakhtin, 1986) with the intent to facilitate the co-

construction of meaning. Thus, the text’s importance lay in its ability to serve as a conduit for

philosophical interpretation.

For example, consider the book Little Blue and Little Yellow (Lionni, 1959), where two

best friends (illustrated simply as circular splotches of yellow and blue paint) temporarily merge

to become a new color, green. A CCSS text-based question might ask “How did Little Blue and

Little Yellow become green?” But in a philosophical discussion the inquiry shifts as readers

consider the deeper notion of what it means to be. If Little Blue and Little Yellow have now
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 13

merged, have their essential qualities of being also changed? In the following vignette, students

began to grapple with this question:

TEACHER
So, is Little Yellow still Little Yellow or is he someone new now?

JACOB
Still Little Yellow.

LUCAS
Um, someone new.

SEAN
Someone new because he’s different colors.

TEACHER
Talk into it. You’re seeing things differently. You’re saying he’s someone new, you’re
saying he’s still the same.

MICHAEL
Cuz he has the same name.

SEAN
And he does the same stuff. He’s the same but the color, he just looks different. He’s the
same still.

So here students began to explore the deeper meaning of self by considering what

essential elements define someone (their name, their physical color, their actions). The answer

didn’t lie fixed within the text but rather the text was base camp for interpretation; the launch for

philosophical exploration of characters’ actions, traits, and sense of being:

TEACHER
They’re the same but a different color?

JACOB
Yeah. Everything that is… yes. It’s the same but different color.

MICHAEL
The same doesn’t mean you change color.

SEAN
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 14

Same means what you do on actions.

So, as the discussion evolved, Sean described the essential quality of action as a defining

characteristic of being. Interestingly, as the discussion continues below, students turned to

reflect on the “sameness” of identical twins Jacob and Sean which propelled an examination of

their being as brothers:

MICHAEL
Yeah, you’re twins.

LUCAS
But you have different opinions. You have different stuff that you like.

MICHAEL
Like you like Luigi and you like Mario.
SEAN
Yeah, but we’re different people. Like I’m more quieter than Jacob.

JACOB
We’re separate people.

TEACHER
So, does same have to do with how you look?

SEAN
No, it means how your actions and things, how you act.

MICHAEL
Not always.

TEACHER
Why not?

GRADY
Not always because you can, you can look the same, and you can kind of act, but you
don’t think the same.

So in this example, students relied on knowledge both in and outside of the text and

began to build a nuanced understanding of how the characters, Little Blue and Little Yellow,
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 15

manifested. Initially students defined the characters only by their color. However, the fluidity of

the text allowed students to move in and out of its pages and reflect upon the individuality of

Jacob and Sean. In effect, this allowed them to recognize how one’s actions could further define

the characters. Through a staircase of dialogue, Michael concluded that the way an individual

thinks is the essential quality that defines someone.

Exchanges like this demonstrate how the text’s positioning was critical to meaning

making. For students who struggle with comprehension, the fluid nature of the text provided

alternate routes of interpretation and further allowed students to imbue the stories with relevance.

In sum, these transactions rendered a rich, meaningful, and thoughtful analysis.

Readers’ Experiential Knowledge

Philosophical inquiry not only positions the text as fluid, but inherently allows readers to

leverage experiential knowledge for meaning construction. Rosenblatt (2004) argued that the text

is necessary for interpretation but insufficient on its own “…the teaching of reading and writing

at any developmental level should have as its first concern the creation of environments and

activities in which students are motivated and encouraged to draw on their own resources to

make “live meanings”” (p.1389). Throughout the intervention, students frequently culled

memories and outside sources of knowledge that complemented the text’s philosophical themes.

Consider the following vignette where Sean provided a personal anecdote to support his

argument that the characters, Frog and Toad, were brave to go up a dangerous mountain even

though they experienced fear while doing so:

SEAN
…Ms. Wilson. She's a grown-up and she said her daughter got earrings in third grade,
and she said her daughter was scared on the chair, but Ms. Wilson said she was brave to
do it, so you can be brave when you run away.
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 16

Likewise, Michael elaborated on this line of thought by citing an experience with his family:

MICHAEL
Well, I held a dead raccoon. I was driving a dead raccoon into the - that my dad shot its
head off with a shotgun and so we were driving it to the junkyard.

JACOB
That’s brave. Using a weapon.

MICHAEL
Yeah. But me and my mom were so scared my mom was so scared that she just threw it
in there.

This exchange typified how students leveraged their experiences as a means to

substantiate arguments and analyze character traits. Moreover, the discussion underscores the

socially situated nature of interpretation as evidenced when Jacob defined a key characteristic of

bravery as using a weapon. This propelled the group to consider if any fallacies were present in

his original line of thinking where he argued that Frog and Toad were scared and not brave,

because from Jacob’s viewpoint, bravery and fear could not co-exist. Therefore, the question

was posed “Can you be scared and use a weapon?” Students didn’t cite text evidence to advance

their argument but rather relied on experiential knowledge just as Sean did below.

SEAN
Jacob’s wrong because I saw a Ninja Turtles movie. And there was a guy, and he was
scared. And he was shaking and he had a gun and he was trying to shoot him, but he was
brave.

Interestingly, a few minutes later Jacob began to shift in his thinking as he drew from his own

life experience when asked whether he had ever been brave and scared at the same time.

JACOB
Like when I got a shot. I was scared. But then when I got a shot it really didn't hurt at all
in my arm.

MICHAEL
So you were scared and brave.
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 17

These episodes, though seemingly digressing from the text, actually served to strengthen their

growing interpretation of how Frog and Toad behaved as illustrated below:

JACOB
Yeah, but they [Frog and Toad] were brave anyways because they went there.

MICHAEL
And they ran past the avalanche and they ran past the snake. They ran past the Hawk and
stuff.

SEAN
So that's brave. When you run all the way like that.

Consistently, students relied upon relevant experiential knowledge in order to construct

arguments and synthesize their thinking. By design, philosophical inquiry embraces knowledge

outside of the text as a legitimate form of academic currency. Although the text is an important

mediator for understanding, it is not the sole authority. Scholars (Moll, Amanti, Neff &

Gutierrez, 1992) have long suggested that learning environments capitalize on the familial and

cultural “funds of knowledge” (p.133) students possess as these can bridge understandings.

In this study, the boys relied upon a shared knowledge of video games and television

shows as well as their familial and social experiences. Notably, these were cited to build

arguments and complement interpretations. By and large, students’ academic and experiential

knowledge intersected and flowed beyond the four corners of the text to provide transformative

interpretations.

Closing Thoughts

Throughout this process, I have attempted to show how readers who experience difficulty

are capable of higher level thinking but need instructional environments that are dialogically

organized, provide multiple access points to text, and sanction experiential knowledge. My
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 18

interest in this study concerned not only discovering this intervention’s impact on reading

comprehension but how other elements such as student epistemology and socially situated

language practices influence learning. To that extent, I share the following findings.

To begin, each student demonstrated gains on the QRI-V (Leslie & Caldwell, 2011).

Their instructional reading levels on narrative passages advanced from levels 2-3 for Jacob,

Lucas, and Sean, and from level 3-4 for Michael. Pre assessments revealed that all students had

few oral reading miscues but showed difficulty with elaborated retellings as well as explicit and

implicit comprehension. Students’ comprehension errors on the post-assessment illustrated

implicit comprehension, although improved, needed continued remediation. Retellings remained

brief and demonstrated general text understanding. Pre-assessment data revealed that Sean

incorrectly identified the setting of the passage but was able to successfully accomplish this task

on the post-assessment. I attribute this growth to the story-mapping that occurred after each read

aloud. These results are not generalizable due to the small sample size of participants and

unaccounted for variables within this qualitative research study.

Additional observations noted over the course of the intervention revealed students

engaged in lengthier and more frequent patterns of exploratory talk. Collectively, their use of

reasoning words (Mercer, 2000) such as “because”, “but”, “I think”, and “so” increased which

suggests greater engagement in cognitive reasoning. Moreover, towards the end of the

intervention, I observed students appropriating a philosophic stance towards text by

independently asking questions rooted in philosophical wonderings. Lastly, from an epistemic

standpoint (Johnston, Woodside-Jiron & Day, 2000) my pre and post interviews with students

suggested a shifting epistemology underpinning discourse as they began to view discussions as a

tool to construct knowledge as opposed as a means to merely receive it.

Although this study employed small groups of students, philosophical inquiry can be

accomplished with larger class sizes (see appendix for resources). I suggest teachers approach

interactive read alouds through a philosophical lens and pose thought provoking questions

regarding issues observed within the text. In order to foster meaningful language practices,

provide small group lessons for students with language impairments or English Language

Learners. Philosophy is a naturally inclusive discipline and flourishes with diverse cultural and

social perspectives.

Moreover, when considering the prominent role of writing in the CCSS, philosophical

inquiry is an excellent way to advance students’ argumentative writing. Using this approach as

rehearsal for the writing process promotes students ability to reason through ideas, consider

opposing viewpoints, and defend propositions with evidence. Collectively, these comprise a solid

skill set for composing a written argument.

In closing, philosophical inquiry holds an important place in the classroom, academically

and socially. Although the CCSS emphasize engagement in close, analytic reading, we must

remember a broader yet equally important mission for literacy which is grounded in a human-

centered approach to learning. As Wells (1990) noted, “To be fully literate is to have the

disposition to engage appropriately with texts of different types in order to empower action,

feeling, and thinking in the context of purposeful social activity” (p. 14). Ultimately, educators

must adapt to the instructional shifts that are called upon by the CCSS yet continually remember

that effective literacy instruction embraces the complex social, emotional, and linguistic

practices that children interact with both in and outside of the school day.
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 20

Take Action!

1. Even without a background in philosophy, you can bring this practice into the classroom.

Start by analyzing a picture book through the lens of a philosopher and consider

questions that are raised. Now consider how to adapt your questions so they are

connected to the text. For example, after reading the text Willow’s Whispers (Button &

Howells, 2010), you could create the following questions (see table 1):

2. Establish a philosophy circle:

 Start by co-constructing the ground rules of talk and establishing turn taking

norms and strategies for expressing ideas respectfully.

 To support the academic language of philosophy, post anchor charts with

sentence starters as a resource.

 Praise the process of thinking and not the interpretations

3. Reflect on the Discussion

 Philosophical discussions may end without consensus which can frustrate

students. (Wartenberg, 2009). Engage in meta-level reflection by providing

markers, or highlighting the thinking that has occurred. This illustrates the many

avenues students have considered and can improve the quality of future

discussions.

Pause and Ponder

1. Examine the CCSS. What standards did this intervention address?

2. What philosophical questions could you pose after a read aloud?

3. Why is “discourse training” a critical component of philosophical discussions?

Bibliography

Alexander, R. (2009). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Thirsk:

Dialogos.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (Y. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press.

Banks, J. C. R. (1987). A study of the effects of the critical thinking skills program, philosophy

for children, on a standardized achievement test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

Beers, K. & Probst, R. (2012). Notice and Note: Strategies for Close Reading. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinneman.

Bressler, C. (2007). Literacy criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Catts, H., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading

outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and

Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157.

Chamberlain, M. A. (1993). Philosophy for children program and the development of critical

thinking of gifted elementary students. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kentucky,

Lexington.

Coleman, D. (2011, April 28). Bringing the Common Core to life. Presentation made in Albany,

NY. Retrieved from New York State Education Department website:

http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/bringingthecommoncoretolife/part6transcript.pdf

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers' criteria for the Common Core State

Standards in English language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from the
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 22

Common Core Standards Initiative website:

www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf

Dawes, L. (2008). The essential speaking and listening. Talk for learning at key stage 2. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Johnston, P. (2012). Opening minds: Using language to change lives. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Johnston, P. H., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2000). Teaching and learning literate

epistemologies. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning &

Achievement, State University of New York at Albany.

Goodnough, A. (2010, April 16). The examined life, age 8. New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/education/edlife/18philosophy-t.html?

_r=1&ref=mountholyokecollege

Gregory, M. (2008). Philosophy for children: Practitioner handbook. Montclair, NJ: Institute for

the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State University.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory 5. New York: Pearson

Education.

Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1984). Looking for meaning: Instructional manual to accompany

Pixie. New York, NY: University Press of America.

Lipman, M. (1998). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some findings from the Philosophy

for Children program. The Clearing House, 71(5), 277–280.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York:

Routledge Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. (2010).
IN THE AGE OF ANALYTIC READING 23

Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works (version 3.1).

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using

a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice 31(2), 132-

141.

Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009).

Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ high-level comprehension of

text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.

Murris, K. S. (2008). Philosophy with children, the stingray and the educative value of

disequilibrium. Journal of Philosophy Education, 42(3–4), 667–685.

Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue:

Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New

York: Teachers College Press.

O’Connor, C. & Michaels, S. (2007). When is dialogue ‘dialogic’?. Human Development. 50,

275-285.

Resnick, L., Pontecorvo, C., Säljö, R., & Burge, B. (1997) ‘Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning’. In

L. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds). Discourse, tools, and reasoning:

Essays on situated cognition. Berlin: Springer.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary

work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J.

Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1363-1398). Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Soter, A., Wilkinson, I., Murphy, K., Rudge, L., & Reninger, K. (2006). Analyzing the discourse

of discussion: Coding manual. The Ohio State University and Pennsylvania State

University.

Shanahan, T. (2012, July 12). Planning for close reading [blog post]. Retrieved from

http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/2012/07/planning-for-close-reading.html

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general

psychology. New York: Plenum.

Wartenberg, T. (2009). Big ideas for little kids: Teaching philosophy through children’s

literature. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wells, G. (1990). Creating the conditions to encourage literate thinking. Educational Leadership,

47(6), 13–17.

Literature Cited

Button, L., & Howells, T. (2010). Willow's whispers. Toronto: Kids Can Press.

Lionni, L. (1959). Little Blue and Little Yellow. New York, NY: McDowell, Oblensky.

Lobel. A. (1970). Frog and Toad are friends. New York, NY: Harper Row.

Lobel, A. (1971). Frog and Toad together. New York, NY: Harper Collins.