leadhumancapital.com

Abstract:
My plan in this study is to compare Concept Oriented Reading Instruction Model with Interactive Literacy Reading Model that I learn this semester. The purpose of this study firstly, as final requirement for EDCI 786, and secondly, to understand a process of literacy development in both Reading Models by comparing key theories and concepts. For suggestion, CORI can be improved if it puts emphasis on students’ biography and its connection to its every stage of instruction like what is implemented in Integrated Content Based Method of Instruction.

Introduction:
My early exposure about CORI came through while reading through a book on Content Area Literacy. It is put into my spotlight since in Malaysia; the implementation of Teaching Science and Mathematics In English Program has been implemented since year 2000. It is related to CORI as the subjects in Science and Mathematics in fact are related to concepts and understanding in content areas. Though I am going to teach English for future Malaysian teachers, however, it is important to see how Literacy is connected to content areas in order to develop proper understanding on how to teach them pertaining to it.

I am interested to know about CORI since science and mathematics subjects are content areas subjects whereby teacher must be able to help students learning to be skillful with reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing in those areas (Conley, 2008). It becomes more pertinent as teachers must teach the subject in English language instead of our national language which is Malay. I still remembered prior continuing my study here, I had to teach Science and Mathematics teachers how to teach the subject in English that when I reflected back, show lots of defect in the behalf of me. I noticed, the main problem is not just about teaching them English,(which significantly adding the problem) in fact the main problem is related to shallow understanding on how to teach and incorporated Literacy and Content Areas together,
In Maryland, CORI is used and has been showing improvement (Guthrie et al, .2004).

This generates my interest to know in depth. Conley, (2008) believed that the best way to help students to learn is through Literacy as it will transform them into independent learner. He believes literacy is a vehicle for transformation. This notion sparks light as I start to assume that if content areas teachers know how to teach Literacy within content areas, problems will solve.

Through this study, I generate questions in order to gear my focus towards finding the answer. They are:

• What is CORI (Concept Oriented Reading Instruction)?
• What are the principles of CORI?
• What is Literacy and its definition according to various model of Instruction
• How CORI is effective when it comes to English Language Learner? From what aspect of CORI can be useful for CLD students?
• What are the key concepts and theories for CORI and Interactive Literacy?
• Are CORI and Interactive Literacy congruent? In what sense they are congruent or not congruent?
• What is the implication if CORI is implemented among CLD students?
• What is the implication if Interactive Literacy is implemented to content area subjects?

CORI: The Principles

CORI is a short term for Concept Oriented Reading Instruction and mainly used as reading lesson planning framework to gear up students motivation for content areas subject. It was developed in 1993 by Dr. John T. Guthrie and a team of elementary teachers and graduate students at the University of Maryland, College Park.(Swan, 2003) It is understood that it is built upon through various approaches mainly focus on student curiosity, social interaction and engagement (Conley, 2008). Through teacher observation on students’ motivation, teacher will try to engage them into reading materials. This process continues by developing conceptual knowledge on reading material, and lastly enhances their understanding by letting them communicating their findings and learning.

The main intention of CORI is to use motivation as a force to represent the lesson/reading material in interesting ways to students. Anyway, this only can be achieved if teacher really knows what are the motivations that he/she can manipulate that exist inside the students’ thinking. According to Conley, (2008) teacher must build curiosity according to students’ interest when using or adapting CORI (pg. 207). Swan (2003) believes the main idea of CORI is revolved around these three main ideas; social interaction, involvement (engagement) and lastly the idea of conceptual knowledge building.

Interactive Literacy: The Principles

According to Herrera et al, (2010) Interactive literacy has many elements inside it, ranging from research based, fundamental and biographical. Literacy is interactive because it is biographical when it incorporates sociocultural, linguistic, academic and cognitive dimension of students into daily lesson. Literacy is fundamental when it involves teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing to students. Lastly, literacy is research based because it focus on five elements of English language instruction which are: phonic, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, comprehension and fluency. Basically, it is very important to continually touching every of these aspects when teaching students (Herrera et al, 2010).

According to Harvery and Goudvis,(2007) English language explicit instruction is very important to teach literacy because importantly, by having variety of instructional techniques, this will be effective to keep them engaged and reached.(pg.45) Specifically, it is noted that language explicit instruction is not focusing only on modeling, rather it can be shown through guided practice, collaborative and independent practice. Many times modeling is avoided if teacher does not mention the specific purposes of the demonstration. It is understood that learning today must be student centered and not teacher centered. Furthermore, the purpose of language explicit instruction is to let students share, focusing on their attention and let them participate so that they can increase their engagement in learning.

CORI: The Explicit Strategies Used in Teaching Reading
According to Guthrie, (2004) teachers use some strategies when using CORI Model and it is consistent with the National Reading Panel Report. Among the strategies used in CORI are:

a) Focusing on Background Knowledge:
Teacher will focus on recalling experiences and knowledge of reading texts before reading so that students will be able to bridge the content with their own understanding, though it may be irrelevant to the context/content, however teacher will help to rectify the problem by interconnected the concepts and information related to the text/topic through cognitive strategies by prompt them questions or using books/text/materials that have pictures to make sense of their thinking. (pg.93)

b) Questioning:
Through questioning, students will have opportunity to ask self initiated questions about the content of a text, before and during reading, to help them understand the text and topic. (pg 93) According to Guthrie, (2004) students cannot ask question about an unfamiliar topic so it is important for teacher to introduce the book/materials to students first and get them familiar with the text first before expecting them to ask higher level questions.

c) Searching for Information:
When searching for information, in CORI it emphasis on students seeking and finding information from the text by forming selecting goals. It is different from comprehension of a total text as it aims at comprehending relevant text related to goals.

d) Summarizing during Reading:
Students will be able to get gist of their reading by maintaining main ideas and supporting facts in what she has read. Students can achieve this as teacher will teach to identify key words and then omitting less relevant details.

e) Organizing Graphically:
It is basically similar to concept mapping, and it is related to the understanding that students who comprehend a text usually will be able to represent the data/information in a spatial format (Guthrie, 2004). Later, student will try to connect the main ideas/relevant information to central issue of the reading by showing relationships and interconnection.

f) Structuring Story:
Students’ understanding of the setting, plot, characters, motives, themes and their relationships in literary texts is called structuring story. This will reflect students’ awareness of the twists and complexity of the plot and main story line from any reading material especially related to literary piece.

Interactive Literacy: Strategies Based Comprehension Instruction
According to Herrera et al (2010), reading comprehension strategies that is taught through Strategies Based Comprehension Instruction will focus on CLD students background knowledge and experiences to make meaning from text by putting emphasis on their sociocultural backgrounds, linguistic, cognitive and academic knowledge because CLD students are very different from other students whom curriculum traditionally has been designed for them(pg 134). It means in order to create comprehension among CLD students, it is a must for teacher to connect CLD students background that she/he brings to the reading text (pg 136). This is helpful because it will build up schematic connections to text (pg 136).

Interactive Literacy basically will focus on variety strategies on teaching metacognitive, cognitive and social reading comprehension strategies. Among them are:

a) Metacognitive Strategy:
It is the ability for students in monitoring their thinking and understanding and making relation to text in order to build comprehension.( Herrera & Murry,2005). According to Perkinds et al (1992), there are four types of metacognitive readers, namely:

• tacit readers: This kind of readers have lack awareness of how they think when they read
• Aware readers: They have ability to recognize the confusion when it is set in however, they do not have sufficient strategies to fix the problem.
• Strategic readers: They have the abilities to use the strategy to understand and acquire knowledge as well as monitoring and repairing the meaning when it is disrupted.
• Reflective readers: They can apply the strategies flexibly according to their goals and purposes. They keep monitoring their thinking and able to ponder and revising the use of the strategies either it is relevant or not.
Among the metacognitive strategies available under Strategies Based Comprehension Instruction such as In My Head, True or False, Sticking to the Main Idea and Question Bookmark.

b) Cognitive Strategy:
According to Herrera & Murry, (2005) it means reading strategies that involve the mental or physical manipulation of the material to be learned so that CLD student can compare information and draws analogies from their existing background knowledge. Among the strategies are; SEA Box, Visualize Interact Predict (VIP), 1, 2,3 Imagery, Signature Lines and Story Retelling.

c) Social Affective Strategies:
It focus on making connection of cognitive and sociocultural dimensions of the CLD student biography and may involve the learner as an individual or the learner in interaction with another or others. (Herrera & Murry,2005,pg 43) importantly, teacher must use this strategies to foster communication for learning environment among CLD students. pg 43) Among the strategies are: Critical Questions, Through My Eyes.

Discussion: CORI vs. Interactive Literacy:
Reading about CORI is frustrating because though the writer emphasis on building up students’ competency, however it is demeaning when it is not connected to Prism Model or Biopsychosocial Approach. There are not enough explanations on building up students profile and connecting their demographic profiles to building up concepts especially related to CLD student, rather the writers believe that reading will be always effective when teachers manage to engage them with the lessons. This is believed will make them competent and want to study harder which I found quite untrue because in my opinion, CLD students will not be motivated to attend the lessons that do not related to their 4 Prism Model aspects because firstly, they will not be engaged as it is not meaningful to them. Swan (2003) agrees with it as CORI, if not focusing on building appropriate background knowledge can be a problem to students who are not familiar with particular themes and concepts. (pg 120)

It is important to emphasis that motivation and interest can only be geared if thorough understanding of Biopsychosocial and Prism Model is fully understood especially reading and literacy because literacy must be viewed as interactive. I am not saying that CORI is not interactive anyway, Prism Model and Biopsychosocial approach emphasis/have interactive elements thus it can positively affect the performance of students especially CLD students whom usually have to bear the difficulties to understand the subject/lessons from norms point of views (traditional classroom students).

Though CORI highly focus on its own rules of getting students engaged with reading materials, it will be a problem to gear up CLD students motivation because any materials that do not successfully addressed in whole, will make their affective filter high as they may lead to anxiety or culture shock. Again, CORI can successfully be implemented for CLD students if no single dimensions of them are isolated. This will need CORI to specifically focus on students’ biography profiles.

Though CORI emphasis on building up conceptual knowledge anyway, it must allow students to build up content knowledge according to their own background knowledge. This is parallel to ICB approach as for CLD students where they can transfer the unknown to known. In fact, this will strengthen their understanding. Failure to emphasis on building this connection is not good as CLD students profile is very important and well connected. It will be fatal as teachers are not able to integrate academic content( Content Subject) and language development (Interactive Literacy)due to misunderstanding of CLD students’ nature.

However, CORI can be improved if teachers allow feedback from students by letting them to to express ideas and opinion and take a stand and allow them to interpret it according to their own scope of culture. This will allow reflective thinking that is good for metacognitive development of CLD students.

I notice CORI is based upon its own principles, which can be very flexible as long as the principles I mention above are in place. This is good as it allows flexibility, for example,Swan builds up her own CORI according to 9 Principles that has all CORI elements such as building up background knowledge, questioning, searching for information, organizing graphically and structuring story as what Guthrie laid it out. She lays it out according to what she called as Coherent Instruction to expand more on CORI by having instruction that focusing on autonomy supports, real world instruction, collaboration support and etc.

In fact, based on its flexibility concept that can be used in its own teaching, CORI and Interactive Literacy can be applied together in some of its strategy because of the similar elements. For example the main idea of collaboration support in CORI classroom is to provide engagement in reading through sharing ideas, discussion, making decisions and collaborate for common goals. It does not differ much in Interactive Literacy because collaboration is used to support fluency development whereby students will have ample opportunity to read, write, speak and listen in all content areas. Teacher again, based/through assessment and CLD student’s biography card should use the information to put them in necessary group so that they can benefit and learn best. It is best to put them in a group that can ensure their affective filter does not go high.

In conclusion, I believe CORI is a good reading model because the strategies that are implemented in it are actually similar to strategies that I learn in Interactive Literacy, however, I prefer to choose Interactive Literacy as it supports CLD students development thoroughly by specifically focus on 4 aspects of Prism Model.

References:
1. Herrera S.G., Perez D.R.,Escamilla,K.(2010) Teaching Reading to English Language Learners: Differentiated Literacies. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Herrera S.G.& Murry K.G.(2005) Mastering ESL and Bilingual Methods: Differentiated Instruction for CLD Students. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Harvey, S.& Goudvis, A.(2007) Strategies That Work: Teaching Comprehension for Understanding and Engagement. Portland,Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
4. Conley M.W.(2008) Content Area Literacy: Learners in Context. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Swan E.A.(2003) Concept Oriented Reading Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learners. New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Guthrie J.T.,Wigfield A,.Perencevich K.C.(2004) Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

Tags: Biopsychosocial Approach, Concept Oriented Reading Instruction, conceptual knowledge, cori, english language learners, Interactive Literacy, literacy development, metacognitive, social affective strategies, student centered