After completing the readings for this module, I assert that no, comprehension strategies in the content areas are not different. For example, The "hallmarks for creating an environment for thoughtful content literacy instruction" outlined in Harvey's & Goudvis' 2007 text, Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement, could be applied to any literacy instruction (p.207-8), and similar suggestions were made in Keene & Zimmermann's Mosaic of thought. Rather, I believe that what makes many content specific texts more difficult to comprehend is the level of complexity the reader must navigate using the same strategies and techniques learned for reading in general.
With the advent of CCSS, educators now have a mandated example of what constitutes a grade level text. This can be problematic when teaching reading because teachers have had many options for leveling texts prior to this--all of the formulas differ, and thus their correlations rarely align.
Fisher and Fry concede this, noting that "limiting access to [CCSS defined] complex texts…may oversimplify what readers are able to do even when decoding, accuracy and comprehension are not nearly perfect" (2014 p. 349). However, while I agree with Fisher & Frey when they assert that a gap may be created between complex grade level texts and leveled readers if the level is improperly chosen, there are quantitative and qualitative ways to determine appropriate levels. The Developmental Reading Assessment 2 is a great example.
We use the DRA2 at my school to find each student's independent, instructional and frustrational reading levels, however we do not use the assessments guidelines for this; when compared to state standards, they were not rigorous enough, so the school created its own standards for the three levels. Beyond this, it is up to the individual teacher to preview each text selected for small group or individual instruction, and determine if they align with their instructional goals for the lesson as well as the student's instructional reading level ability.
Bottom line: we must teach students the skills needed to interpret complex texts on their instructional level before they can apply those skills to more difficult texts. I believe a problem only occurs when a teacher cannot differentiate between independent and instructional or is too lazy to preview selected texts.
With the advent of CCSS, educators now have a mandated example of what constitutes a grade level text. This can be problematic when teaching reading because teachers have had many options for leveling texts prior to this--all of the formulas differ, and thus their correlations rarely align.
Fisher and Fry concede this, noting that "limiting access to [CCSS defined] complex texts…may oversimplify what readers are able to do even when decoding, accuracy and comprehension are not nearly perfect" (2014 p. 349). However, while I agree with Fisher & Frey when they assert that a gap may be created between complex grade level texts and leveled readers if the level is improperly chosen, there are quantitative and qualitative ways to determine appropriate levels. The Developmental Reading Assessment 2 is a great example.
We use the DRA2 at my school to find each student's independent, instructional and frustrational reading levels, however we do not use the assessments guidelines for this; when compared to state standards, they were not rigorous enough, so the school created its own standards for the three levels. Beyond this, it is up to the individual teacher to preview each text selected for small group or individual instruction, and determine if they align with their instructional goals for the lesson as well as the student's instructional reading level ability.
Bottom line: we must teach students the skills needed to interpret complex texts on their instructional level before they can apply those skills to more difficult texts. I believe a problem only occurs when a teacher cannot differentiate between independent and instructional or is too lazy to preview selected texts.