Not what I had in mind

But, then again, maybe I'm being too narrow in my thinking ...?

Just read an article that had the look and feel of research that would be dead-on for my study. Heck, the title sure nailed it: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Literacy through Picture Books and Drama (Burke & Peterson, 2007). Uh, no. Although the research looked good, I was underwhelmed by the application.

The authors assert that our teen kiddos like picture books because they are members of a highly visual culture. Okay, I can buy that. Interesting idea I had not thought of. Well, I'd thought of the visual nature of our culture and the text/visual interplay our kids are constantly exposed to (text messages, the Internet, Twitter, etc.). But I had not made the connection that the hyper-visual world they live in explains their reception to picture books. Okay, I can buy that, too.

But where the article falls apart is in the application of the lesson. Let me explain. The disciplines of the WWII-thematic unit are:

- art
- drama
- history
- language arts

The primary vehicle for teaching the lesson (which, by the way, covers SIX WEEKS) is the reading and interpretation of two picture books: Rose Blanche (Innocenti) and One More Border: The True Story of One Family's Escape from War-Torn Europe (Kaplan).

First, students spend a couple of weeks in history lessons, plus they watch a movie. Then, they read the two picture books in weeks three and four, while also learning some basics illustration principles. In weeks five and six, students write monologues, stage tableaux, and respond to journal prompts.

My most serious concern is the low-level thinking required throughout the entire six weeks. The tableaux are nothing more then scene recreations, the journal prompts ask students to apply the art lesson to an evaluation of the illustrations in the books (sounds like application BUT the student-talk in the article reveals extremely low-level thinking), and the monologues are character summaries. We never leave level two of Bloom's -- even after six weeks of instruction.

Here's why all of this scares me: I fear that when teachers hear "picture books," they may think dumbed down lesson. And unfortunately, this article would prove them right. No matter that it ran in a highly respected journal or that the authors are professors at the University of Toronto or that it was taught to kids in 10 - 12th grade. The lesson doesn't ask kids to think. Never once are skills targeted -- much less built or assessed.

Picture books can be a spring board, diving board, back board (whatever silly board analogy works) for rigorous lessons. It doesn't matter what the content area or discipline. But if picture books are used for no reason other than our kids like visual stuff? Well, then we haven't used them to teach.