Making predictions is good. It can even be a lot of fun. So why does the method of teaching children to think about what they are reading (DR-TA) feel so cumbersome and legalistic?
1. cf C.S. Lewis's looking along the beam vs. looking at the beam. This seems to take materials that are meant to be looked *along*, to be enjoyed, and to turn them into something to be looked *at*, at a possibly developmentally inappropriate stage.
2. It increases for the students the sense that there is right and wrong as regards prediction and interactions with texts. Conflating accurate / inaccurate with moral / immoral.
3. It becomes cumbersome and tedious to children who predict automatically and accurately, slowing down and interfering with the actual enjoyment of the book.
4. For children's books which may operate with an element of surprise (many), it functions to ruin the joke by explaining the joke. (Q: Tell me class, why did the author do this? A: To be silly. To make me laugh.)
5. The focusing on the "what" obscures the "how." Better questions: Did you like what happened? Would you have done the same thing?
Critical idea: give children "ownership" of their literature . . . let them be free to stand over it in judgement, not just under it, needing to "get it right."
So, perhaps I believe that this method of evaluating is not appropriate to materials that are to be consumed in one sitting, or by children who are too young to critically evaluate? Maybe we should encourage young kids to wonder and let the wondering be?
No comments:
Post a Comment