Close Encounters I
- Remind students that the main idea is what the author wants readers to understand is important and valued in the text as a whole.
- Explain that Part a) assesses if they understand which details in the text support the teacher's main idea. Also explain that the teacher's main idea is made up of two parts or categories, and that details supporting it will need to fit into either or both of these categories:
Category 1: Ramari's cultural background (i.e., her Māori culture).
Category 2: Ramari's scientific background (i.e., the scientific methods she uses such as observation and the collection of statistics).
- Explain that Part b) assesses if they can justify why they think the teacher is right or wrong about the main idea. You may wish to explain that when you justify you give a reason/s to support your thinking.
- You may need to explain that when you give a "quote" you copy the exact words from the text, and when you give a "description" you explain a part of the text in your own words.
- Explain that as long as they can justify their responses, their ideas will be accepted.
- This task can be done individually or in groups.
- Responses can be discussed by teacher and student only, or within larger groups. Group discussion has the advantage of giving students opportunities to consider others' ideas and to practise justifying their own.
- Close Encounters II is a level 5 main idea resource using the same text.
- Close Encounters is a long text – you may prefer the students to read it over a couple of sessions, or decide to read parts, or all of it, to them.
- use comprehension strategies
This resource was trialled by 28 Year 8 students in July and September 2006. The trial involved small groups of students across 5 primary schools.
Details that support the teacher's thinking about the main idea, i.e., Ramari's cultural and scientific backgrounds both influence her work. All details listed below relate, either explicitly or implicitly, to the key elements of the main idea: cultural background and scientific background.
| Page 2 | N/A – introduction |
|
Page 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
|
|
Page 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
Details about Ramari's scientific background:
|
|
Page 5
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 1
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
Details about Ramari's scientific background:
|
|
Page 6
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
Details about Ramari's scientific background:
|
|
Page 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
|
| Page 8 | N/A – Background information on whaling of southern right whales |
|
Page 9
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
|
Details about Ramari's Māori culture:
|
NOTE: on Possible responses to a) The difference between two categories, such as Ramari's Māori culture, and her scientific background, may not always be clear cut. For example, "Understanding the world as a whole rather than specialising" (p.3) and "Understanding our relationship with whales as a special contract" (p.9) can be justified as belonging to either category because many scientists, and not just Māori naturalists, understand the world as a whole and understand their relationship with whales as a special contract. The categories above should not be read as absolute or complete; they are a guide only.
This resource was trialled by 28 Y8 students across 5 primary schools. All students agreed that the teacher was right about the main idea. Most students noted details that were, in general, clearly related to the teacher's main idea. Most students could justify why they agreed with the teacher.
a) Details identified by the trial students
Photos and illustrations – About half the students noted photos and illustrations as details supporting the teacher's main idea.The photos of Ramari and the whales, and the illustration of the girl riding the whale were noted as details. A small group noted the reference to the legend of Paikea. One student commented verbally, "I knew it was going to be about Māori things when I saw Keisha Castle-Hughes."
Vocabulary – All students noted several items of both Science and Māori vocabulary as details supporting the teacher's main idea.Although this text is not a typical science text in that it does not contain a lot of technical vocabulary (in particular, it contains very little nominalisation), all students quoted or referred to sections of text containing items of technical vocabulary such as "naturalist", "scientific observation and statistics", "Hooker's sea lions", "bull sea-lions", and "squid beaks".All students also noted items of Māori vocabulary such as "whakapapa", "kaitiaki", and "karanga". One student wrote when justifying her thinking that, "There are heaps of Māo ri words and heaps of scientist words. They both must be important."
A very small number quoted or referred to sections of text that related to Ramari's feelings, e.g., "I felt moved to karanga…", "I felt deep sadness as I watched the whales", and "I feel I should ask these whales for forgiveness…" It appears they used this kind of vocabulary as evidence of how important Ramari's culture was to her, and so to the text.
Relevant details – A small group noted several details that did not clearly relate to the teacher's main idea.
For example, "A lady went for her first adventure to an island", and "Watching those whales changed Ramari's life."In contrast, details that clearly related to the teacher's main idea could be grouped under either or both of the following headings:
- Ramari's Māori culture
- Ramari's scientific background
For example, "Her Māori father helped her to understand how species are deeply connected to each other and to the environment" (p.2, Māori culture heading); "When she talks about waiata explaining nature and also using scientific observation and statistics" (p.4, both headings); "Spending many sessions observing bird behaviour and marine mammals as part of her scientific observation" (p.4, scientific background heading); "My Māori ancestors used them to identify individual whales, and so do we" (p.6, both headings); "In this page both her scientific and cultural backgrounds show, as she mentions her ancestors and the way she studied the whales" (p.6, both headings).
Scanning – A small group of students scanned for details that supported the teacher's main idea.This text is not a typical science text in that it does not contain the kinds of text features readers are taught to scan for in science texts, such as graphic organisers, text boxes, or typical science text phrases such as for example, such as, in fact, and most important. However, a small group scanned for technical vocabulary related to Ramari's work as a scientist and to her Māori culture. One student commented verbally, "I quickly looked for those two types of words, then, when I found them, I slowed down and read properly." These students verbally confirmed that, once key words were found, they carefully read extended pieces of text around them.
b) Trial students' ability to justify their thinking
Main and minor ideas – Most students justified their thinking about the teacher's main idea. These students showed evidence of having distinguished between main and minor ideas.A very small group explicitly stated that there were other ideas in the text, such as the hunting of whales in the past, but that there were not enough details to justify them as the main idea. Most, however, showed they had implicitly distinguished between main and minor ideas by writing comments such as, "Yes, that's what the article is mostly about…she talks about her culture side of things and her research side of things" and, "I think the teacher might be right because that's what it mainly says…both have helped her become a naturalist."
Background knowledge – A small group who struggled to justify their thinking about the teacher's main idea relied too heavily on their background knowledge. Those who struggled drew on what they already knew, about culture in particular, to justify why they agreed with the teacher. For example, one student wrote, "…what you do at home will have a big impact on how you are outside the home, e.g., school work and family outings. [If who you are at home doesn't impact on your work] you won't be able to study properly etc., and you will not be happy all of the time." In contrast, those who could justify their thinking referred to evidence in the text about both groups of details, e.g., one student wrote, "I totally believe that the teacher is right, as Ramari gives us lots of examples of her two backgrounds. She mentions her ancestors and guardians as a cultural background, and her research and studies as a scientific background."
These students may not understand that details supporting the teacher's main idea (Ramari's cultural and scientific backgrounds both influence her work) need to fit into either or both of its categories:
- Ramari's cultural background (i.e., her Māori culture)
- Ramari's scientific background (i.e., the scientific methods she uses such as observation and the collection of statistics).
Support them to identify the two parts, then to find details that relate to them. Page 5, paragraph 2 has details that clearly fit into the two parts, e.g., "In July 1995, I arrived with a team of researchers who were going to study these whales over a three-year period" (Ramari's scientific background) and "We arrived in the dark, but in the stillness of dawn, I felt moved to karanga the whales in greeting" (Ramari's cultural background).
Page 6, paragraph 1 has details that clearly fit into either or both of the two parts of the main idea, e.g., "One member of the team…because no two whales have the same pattern of white callosities on their heads" (Ramari's scientific background); "These markings are like moko. My Māori ancestors used them to identify whales, and so do we" (both Ramari's cultural and scientific backgrounds); "The research team intended to use our photo database to work out which whales are returning to the bay every year" (Ramari's scientific background).
Students having difficulty distinguishing between main and minor ideas:
These students may not understand that there will be more details relating to the main idea, and fewer relating to minor ones. They may also not understand that minor ideas often feature in one or two parts of the text only, whereas the main idea features throughout the text. For example, a minor idea in Close Encounters might be the barbaric slaughter of whales in the past. Students having difficulty in distinguishing between main and minor ideas need practice in finding details relating to the main idea and comparing their number and placement in the text with the number and placement of details relating to a minor idea.
Students relying too heavily on background knowledge:
These students may not understand that their background knowledge is used to make connections between what they know and the author's message, and so improve their comprehension, but that it should not dominate the reading process. If students do understand this however, their over reliance on background knowledge may be due to a lack of skill in finding evidence in the text. If this is the case, students need practice finding details that relate to the main idea (see above).
Further information about the main idea can be found in this article: What's the main idea?
- Duffy, G. (2003). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.
- Ministry of Education. (2006). Effective literacy practice in years 5 to 8. Wellington: Learning Media.