Sample Education Paper on Engaging with Text

Engaging with Text


Getting students to read texts in the classroom can be a difficult task. Educationalists must effectively identify how to go about the process especially when students are going to be engaged in multiple readings. Distinctively, they must establish ways to convince reluctant students to re-read texts that appear difficult. One way of achieving this mission is for readers to interact with specific texts more than once but in ways that will not make them feel that the texts are difficult and an educator is simply trying to force them to grasp the content. Text engagement is the ability of learners to provide reasons as to why they make specific conclusions on text in regards to specification, classification and generalization of characters making up readable texts. Engaging with text strategies is fundamental in helping students deal with new and challenging texts. Instructors should promote engaging with text strategies through many ways.

Strategies to Promote

First, instructors must know student grades and boundaries as they try to implement these strategies. Studies have revealed that each level of reading requires a different level of cognition, and instructors have responsibilities to increase the vigor (Stavroula and Campis, 2010). For example, when a standard requires students to identify key details in a text at the comprehension level, an instructor must use the instructional method to meet user expectations. An instructor may compare characters of difficult texts with those that a student is recognizing. It may make them draw a fundamental conclusion in dealing with such texts by ascertaining why an author created the setting in such a way and how one story compares to another.

Second, instructors may mark text using a graphic organizer to assist students to organize and draw relationships between parts of the text. However, it may not come out naturally; an instructor should, therefore, model the thinking and learning ability of students during the comprehension process. To effectively engage students, a teacher can encourage students to answer questions after an instructor has read out texts loudly. After which, there is need to provide explanations on how to mark texts and help them determine what they should mark.

Third, instructors can also use broader applications to allow students make connections and relate texts that they read. They must understand the flexible use of reading strategies to understand messages, how to refer to texts to understand the underlying meaning of texts and understand the intentions of the authors and their perspectives. Making personal connections is fundamental in ensuring that students relate the text to the aspect of the story they are reading. Students can be encouraged to make inferences by ascertaining the evidence that encouraged them to make connections.

Lastly, it is essential for instructors to create expectations as they begin reading texts. As they read, readers must be able to create the link between texts and the reason why they are part of sentences, paragraphs and stories. Perhaps, this is the reason why studies have established some readers prefer to use synopsis to guide their reading experience while others contend to go straight to specific parts of a story (Stavroula and Campis, 2010). Regardless of their methods, readers must aspire to understand the underlying organization of text before they engage in close reading.


Promotion of engaging with text strategies is a fundamental method of helping students deal with new and challenging texts. When engaging with texts, students must aspire to deepen their understanding of the text and the author’s underlying meaning. In using myriad strategies, students have improved their ability to understand and easily engage in high-level recognition and cognition.


Stavroula Kontovourki and Campis Carolyn. (2010). Meaningful practice: test prep in a third-

grade public school classroom. International Reading Association. The Reading Teacher, 64(4), pp. 236–245. DOI:10.1598/RT.64.4.2.