[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-600797-105":59,"doc-detail-600797-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","rereading-comprehension-pedagogies-toward-a-dialogic-teaching-ethic-that-honors-student-sensemaking","Rereading Comprehension Pedagogies - Toward a Dialogic Teaching Ethic that Honors Student Sensemaking","","This conceptual essay critiques reading comprehension pedagogies within contemporary education and analyzes how comprehension teaching reflects three distinct orientations. It distinguishes outcome-focused approaches that treat meaning as something to get “right,” procedure-focused approaches that teach the “right” ways to read, and sensemaking approaches that honor interpretations regardless of “rightness.” The argument calls for dialogic sensemaking pedagogy as the primary ethic, subordinating outcome and procedure so students’ meanings are more fully heard, respected, and examined in classroom talk.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/rereading-comprehension-pedagogies-toward-a-dialogic-teaching-ethic-that-honors-student-sensemaking/600797/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/rereading-comprehension-pedagogies-toward-a-dialogic-teaching-ethic-that-honors-student-sensemaking/600797.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"dhado","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What three orientations does the essay use to characterize reading comprehension pedagogy?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It frames comprehension pedagogy in three orientations: comprehension-as-outcome, comprehension-as-procedure, and comprehension-as-sensemaking. Each orientation assumes a different definition of what comprehension is and how it should be taught.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why does the essay critique outcome-focused reading instruction?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It argues that emphasizing “right” interpretations reifies textual meaning in ways that are theoretically and ethically problematic. The essay maintains that this overarching outcome emphasis permeates current instruction.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What alternative does the essay propose for reading classrooms?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It proposes making dialogic comprehension-as-sensemaking the primary engine and ethic of reading instruction. Outcome and procedure approaches should be subordinated so students’ sensemaking is heard, respected, and examined through dialogue.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},600797,1792189009,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},5909893218464,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","ISSN: 2325-3290 (online)  \nRereading Comprehension Pedagogies: Toward a Dialogic Teaching Ethic that Honors Student Sensemaking  \n\n|  | | Maren Aukerman\u003Cbr>Stanford University, USA |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Abstract\u003Cbr>This conceptual essay critiques reading comprehension pedagogies that are part of the current educational landscape. I argue that comprehension pedagogy generally reflects one of three differing orientations, each with its own assumptions about what comprehension is: comprehension-as-outcome pedagogies, which emphasize getting textual meaning “right”; comprehension-as-procedure pedagogies, which emphasize knowing the “right” ways doing reading; and comprehension-as-sensemaking pedagogies, which take all textual interpretation seriously, regardless of “rightness.”Comprehension-as-sensemaking pedagogies, in turn, can be distinguished as either primarily responsive – aimed at surfacing student understandings – or primarily dialogic – aimed at getting student understandings to refract. Arguably, comprehension-as-outcome pedagogy dominates current reading instruction. A focus on measuring and teaching toward “right” interpretations permeates almost all aspects of comprehension pedagogy even when one of the other orientations toward comprehension pedagogy is also at play. While seemingly intuitive, this overarching outcome emphasis reifies textual meaning in ways that are both theoretically and ethically problematic. I make the case that comprehension-as-sensemaking pedagogy should become primary instead. I propose that comprehension-as-outcome and comprehension-as-procedure pedagogies should not be abandoned, but should be subordinated to dialogic comprehension-as-sensemaking pedagogy so that students’ textual sensemaking is more fully heard, respected, and examined in reading classrooms. |  |  |\n| Keywords: Dialogism; Reading Comprehension; Sensemaking; Theories of Reading; Ethics; Understanding |  |  |\n\nMaren Aukerman, a former bilingual classroom teacher, is an assistant professor of Curriculum and Teacher Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. She is the recipient of a National Academy of Education/Spencer Postdoctoral Fellowship, which helped support this research, and also received the 2009 Albert J. Harris Award for her Research in the Teaching of English article: “When reading it wrong is getting it  \nright: Shared evaluation pedagogy among struggling fifth grade readers.” Her research focuses on how students make meaning from text in conversation with others, and how teachers can better facilitate talk that makes authentic room for student voices. She can be contacted at: Stanford Graduate School of Education, 485 Lasuen  \nMall, Stanford, CA 94305-3096. Email: [aukerman@stanford.edu](aukerman@stanford.edu)  \nRereading Comprehension Pedagogies: Toward a Dialogic Teaching Ethic that Honors Student Sensemaking  \nMaren Aukerman  \nStanford University  \n“Children are taught to read so they can understand what is in text. Thus, most of what matters in  \nreading instruction matters because ultimately it affects whether the student develops into a reader who can  \ncomprehend what is in text. Reading instruction is effective in stimulating student comprehension abilities to the  \nextent that it stimulates students to process texts as good readers do.” (Pressley, 2000, p. 545)  \n“Meaning making is always creative; it is a surprise. It is a possibility among many other possibilities,  \nand therefore never pre-determined.” (Matusov, 2009, p. 2)  \nIf reading is about the making of meaning with from text, what we make of that meaning-making is pivotal to our understanding of reading pedagogy. From Pressley’s common-sense perspective, meaning-making is a standard way of engaging with text; consequently, teaching reading comprehension is about enhancing children’s abilities so that they can become “good readers.” Matusov, by contrast, has a less fixed view: following Bakhtin, he posits meaning-making as a “sur","cbCaibD6VnVYGWuC","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibD6VnVYGWuC","pdf",606029,31,"English","# Abstract\n# Key Orientations in Comprehension Pedagogy\n## Comprehension-as-Outcome\n## Comprehension-as-Procedure\n## Comprehension-as-Sensemaking\n# Toward Dialogic Comprehension-as-Sensemaking","[{\"question\":\"What three orientations does the essay use to characterize reading comprehension pedagogy?\",\"answer\":\"It frames comprehension pedagogy in three orientations: comprehension-as-outcome, comprehension-as-procedure, and comprehension-as-sensemaking. Each orientation assumes a different definition of what comprehension is and how it should be taught.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the essay critique outcome-focused reading instruction?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that emphasizing “right” interpretations reifies textual meaning in ways that are theoretically and ethically problematic. The essay maintains that this overarching outcome emphasis permeates current instruction.\"},{\"question\":\"What alternative does the essay propose for reading classrooms?\",\"answer\":\"It proposes making dialogic comprehension-as-sensemaking the primary engine and ethic of reading instruction. Outcome and procedure approaches should be subordinated so students’ sensemaking is heard, respected, and examined through dialogue.\"}]","Rereading Comprehension Pedagogies - Toward a Dialogic Teaching Ethic that Honors Student Sensemaking | PDF",1792091404,78]