MrsBucket, also known as Lori, asked the following:

A couple of questions about the downloadable study guides: Did you write them? Other than theme, they don’t really address reading strategies; is that something you think children should be taught? I’m interested in how you, as a children’s writer, think children should approach books. Vocabulary, comprehension, et al. are good, but what about deep reading (i.e. critical theory)? Do you think that’s something children can and should learn or no?

I did write them.  As for reading strategies/deep reading (which are synonyms for the same types of moves), these are tactics or methods to achieve comprehension, not separate things.  Readers adopt particular strategies to help them decode a text; readers read deeply rather than superficially to comprehend the meaning of the text more completely and intimately.  So, the way I interpret your question is: “Why didn’t I include more proscribed critical reading methods in the study guide?”

Two answers.  First, I did give some basic critical reading strategies in the form of a reading journal that teachers can have their students keep.  In the journal I suggest that students: 1) summarize the chapter, which is a distillation thought process that involves creating a heirarchy of information, essential to understanding any text; 2) record words they did not understand to be learned later or looked up in the dictionary, which teaches both intertextuality and rereading; 3) a section where students record questions they have about the chapter, an exercise of self-monitored comprehension; and 4) a few sentence response to each chapter, an exercise of reflection that introduces basic, non-threatening reader-participant awareness.  The guide recommends that this journal be kept for each chapter, so you can see that there are quite a few opportunities to learn these basic critical reading strategies and processes.

Also, deep reading entails certain types of thought, such as analysis, synthesis, and problem-solving, among other metacognitive processes.  Contained within the comprehension sections of the guides are questions and prompts that require all three of these specified modes of thought.  Analysis is addressed through many what and why questions, including some that encourage readers to privilege certain characters, actions, or situations, which all requires analysis.  The “Crystal Ball” sections of the guide ask readers to predict what will happen in the future in the story, which requires a logical identification and analysis of past events.  The “Exploring Theme” sections often ask students to synthesize  material from the story with their own experience and contemporary culture.   Finally, the children are frequently asked both to identify and critique problem solving shown in the story and to solve similar problems on their own.

I guess I’m saying that the guide does, I feel, facilitate deep reading in many different ways appropriate to the primary educational audience of the book.  

My second reason for structuring the guides the way I did (emphasizing the reader’s comprehension and response over proscribed reading tactics)?  Because the book is for 8-13 year olds (the primary audience), I’m less concerned that they learn specific ways to read critically than that they become aware that such options exist in a text.  When children read, some of the moves and cognitive processes adults make unconsciously take conscious effort.  Reading deeply is more difficult for children and, frequently, not possible at certain depths.  I had very little interest is giving a bunch of theoretical tools that the kids weren’t yet equipped to use. 

Instead, I took a response-based approach.  Sometimes the best way to teach a method or technique, especially to learners new to such skills, is to start with the results of their cognitive processes.  By examining the thoughts and feelings (what they comprehend) from the text, kids gradually become aware that their understanding is not exactly the same as their classmates’ and their teacher’s.  Further discussion results in evolved understanding of the text, which promotes the realization that their current comprehension is not a perfect given, but instead came from somewhere.  For this age group, this realization is what I’m going for.  I want them to know that options and factors do affect the way we read.  That they understand which factors and how these function takes greater metacognitive awareness and is more demanding, and they have a whole lifetime of reading and school to learn that.  And they will—as long as they understand the basic truth that comprehending what we read takes effort, tools, and intent.

To put all this more simply, I didn’t want teachers telling kids how to read this book.  I want kids to read it however they are currently equipped and to enjoy it—then I want them to take the understandings they have gleaned, discuss those, and reverse engineer their own understanding of their cognitive processes.  I don’t care if they do things perfectly, efficiently, or even correctly.  By continually examining “What is the effect of this?” in groups, kids are led gently down the path “So how did I get here?”  If students are asking themselves that question, even without realizing it, the guides have done their job.

Does that makes sense?  I hope so.  As always, if anyone has other questions—or wants to argue with me about my answer to this—Bring it on!