I introduced this concept of embracing difficulty to the seven sixth- grade girls that comprise my book club. While distributing their books, I told them to write down (either in the book since it’s theirs to keep or on paper) any words, passages, dialogue that are confusing or not understandable. (This week I’ll borrow the words “strange moment”). One girl responded that any hard part is usually skipped over, which I already knew from experience. So the first step then in teaching reading is to allow both time and opportunity to the students to explore or dissect their reading, and possibly this habit of skipping over will vanish. Unfortunately, teachers don’t necessarily have this time, especially in elementary school, where time/effort is more focused on SOL preparation. Yet this is the place where students are introduced to poetry and literature. Plus that’s only part of understanding texts; according to Salvatori and Donahue (ch.1) what previous knowledge the student can bring to his reading will not only determine whether the text is deemed easy or hard, but will affect his capability to make inferences. With such diversity in the schools this could compound things, especially when idioms are used.

Whether a student is an abstract or concrete thinker can further affect their ability to see the author’s intent. I find this is very true for me when I read poetry. I take the words for their literal meaning and fail to see the nuances. So I guess for some readings I’m still at the novice level! Which leads me to the article on experts and novices. I feel that my kids primary education is being shortchanged because they are being crammed with loads of information but on a superficial level. What good is all this info if the kids can’t process, manipulate, and apply what’s being taught? How much info becomes inert vs. simply forgotten? (Let me know if my ranting on the current system/methods gets to be a bit much…I find the public education curriculum to be “academically rigorous” and at times not developmentally appropriate).

Professor Sample posed the question of whether these articles intersect. I feel that they do. While the book focuses on understanding and resolving difficulties (or obstacles) novice students encounter, the article explains the hows and whys these difficulties occur, and clarifies the processing system between the two. Now the style in which the book was written was fairly technical, mixing in some educational terms, and focusing more on secondary and beyond students. Although I realize the information can be adapted for younger students. But the further I read, the slower I had to go. The reading became more tedious and at times seemed redundant. I would have liked to have heard more stories of their earlier teaching experiences/mistakes.

As for the sketches, they not only provided definitions but also gave insight and credibility to the difficulty papers provided in chapter 4. For example, Susan Connelly wrote that when reading prose, the author provides everything. In plot, a typical arrangement for action is used, so the reader creates expectations….just like Susan did. Unfortunately, texts aren’t always so tidy in form. Under main theme, it says to ask questions to yourself and engage in exploration, hence the need for difficulty papers or something similar. (It kind of reminds me of economics class, all those flow charts).

In reading Cathedral, I jotted comments that could be used in a Difficulty Paper. Doing so allowed me to see how many times the husband used certain words, pronouns, or expressions which helped form possible meanings. It also aided in recognizing symbols, being the concrete thinker that I am. But I close in knowing that both novices and experts can often be confused/puzzled/perplexed when it comes to figurative language.