two
questions.
These
two
questions
are
entertained
throughout
Crichton’s
thriller
and
the
students
have
a
frame
for
how
to
think
about
the
pedagogy
and
‘real
world’
themes
represented.
In
each
of
these
framing
techniques,
the
students
are
involved,
engaged
and
their
interactions
and
contributions
help
to
shape
the
study.
The
‘deconstruct-‐the-‐text’
structure
is
largely
based
on
Sternberg’s
(2008)
WICS
model,
but
has
been
developed
for
more
specific
points
of
analysis.
To
deconstruct-‐the-‐text,
the
students
generate
questions,
observe
symbols,
motifs
and
themes
as
well
as
analyze
the
psychology,
sociology
and
critical
connections
to
our
world
that
the
work
asks.
That
element,
ironically,
has
been
a
missing
link
in
most
current
practices.
We
think
we
involve
students
by
assigning
worksheets,
‘match
the
symbol
to
its
meaning’
activities,
etc,
but
we
are
really
factoring
out
students
out
instead.
Conclusions
Often,
classroom
teachers
get
caught
in
a
routine
that
doesn’t
allow
for
critical
thinking
on
the
part
of
the
students.
The
concerns
lie
in
high-‐stakes
test
scores,
preparation
for
the
ACT
or
SAT
or
state
level
exams
and
we
lose
sight
that
we
are
preparing
students
to
be
‘outdated’
as
Sternberg
(2008)
finds.
The
next
step
in
instruction
is
to
move
from
this
literacy
famine
in
our
rooms
to
a
literacy
feast
by
changing
the
way
that
we
teach
texts.
By
offering
choice,
by
framing
studies
aptly
and
in
engaging
ways
and
by
deconstructing-‐the-‐text,
teachers
today
can
tap
into
the
minds
of
their
students
rather
than
going
through
the
motions
without
really
considering
the
thinking
of
each
student
in
the
classroom.
The
day
Megan
taught
me
that
the
students
were
going
through
the
motions
during
our
study
of
Mark
Twain’s
classic,
Huckleberry
Finn,
changed
my
pedagogical
philosophies
and
practices
for
the
better.
Megan
showed
me
not
to
‘go
through
the
motions’
as
a
teacher
anymore,
but
to
implement
the
ideologies
of
Gallagher
(2009 KCH0