Module 6: Instructional Challenge

Okay, don’t get me started on summative testing that doesn’t inform instruction.  That is one test on one day, and that type of test is not indicative of anything other than simple application and reasoning.  Can you tell I am a huge proponent of formative assessment?  And in this hypothetical vignette, I am supposed to teach at a school where a majority of students failed the summative test?  I think I would have my work cut out for me if the school placed a huge emphasis on test scores, especially if those scores were linked to my professional performance or evaluation. 

            Universal literacy strategies that I would employ would involve reading and writing integration throughout several domains ALL DAY, EVERY DAY.  I am assuming the students did not meet the standards in reading, so obviously what was being done before wasn’t working.  Outside the classroom, I would begin with myself by knowing my strengths and weaknesses as a leader.  I would research situations similar to the one I would be in to find significant, valid, reliable, and effective strategies.  Fostering the love of literacy and literacy practices in the home would be my next endeavor.  Through home visits and connections to resources, a rapport and trust relationship would be developed and nurtured all year with two-way open communication.  Inside the classroom, I would apply strategies in an action-based research approach, observing what worked and what didn’t work to further drive my instructional practices.  I would base many of my activities on best practices and assess them formatively all year long.  Students would work with art, music, drama, and technology to enhance their engagement, particularly through the use of comprehensive literacy program components. 

            At the end of the year, I would base my own performance and my students’ performance on their love of reading and engagement in the literacy process, rather than relying on a one-time summative assessment piece.  My goal would be to create a caring environment (Noddings, 2002) in which my students felt loved, comfortable, and open to share with classmates. 

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Module 6: Reading Reflection

In Chapter 15, Weaver (2002) re-emphasized the differences of decodable and printable texts.  I thought this was very interesting, even after reading about the reading passages and the student’s responses for the second time.  I see so many decodable texts in primary grade classrooms.  Should I admit that I use Bob Books with my daughter? Those things make no sense to me (at least the first set), but she feels a sense of accomplishment when she reads through them quickly.  However, I also read predictable texts to her, so she has a variety of literature exposure.  I agree completely with Weaver’s sentiment that children know much more about spoken language than letter-sound correspondences.  I think that is true for any learner in any language.  The focus of early reading instruction in Chapter 15 is something I believe in wholeheartedly. 

“Researchers have shown that the more children know about a topic, the better they understand text on that topic” (Weaver, 2002, p. 373).  That is so true.  When I tutored a 5^th grader last year, her teacher would give cold reading comprehension passages to the class.  My student would constantly get DNM (Did Not Master) written on top of her paper for two reasons: she didn’t understand how to maneuver reading comprehension passage using strategies, and she had no schema to attach to the passage.  So each week before the passage administration on Friday, I would email her teacher and ask about the topic so I could pull resources and introduce them to my student.  I also taught her test taking strategies.  As soon as I did that, she was making 100’s on all the passages. 

Regarding the TORP, my scores changed drastically since the beginning of the course.  I made a 68 the first time and moved up to a 106 the second time.  Although both scores are reflective of a Skills approach, I have moved closer toward a Whole-language approach.  This is very exciting to me.  It shows that I have learned a lot about teaching literacy in relation to my own practices, and that my beliefs are malleable rather than permanent. 

Personal Model of Reading Theory 2

At the beginning of the semester, I scored a 68 on the DeFord TORP.  That score placed me in a Skills approach category.  When I completed the DeFord TORP again last night, my score rose from a 68 to a 106.  It was nearly shocking to me to see that my ideas had changed in less than six weeks.  A score of 106 is still within the Skills approach category.  However, it is four points away from coming closer to a Whole Language approach.  These scores make complete sense to me, especially after admitting that I have not much confidence of experience knowing the rules of or how to teach phonics.  The fact that my scores did not place me in the Phonics approach was not surprising at all.  But, what does my rise in score mean to me?

            Obviously, my thinking has changed.  In my first Personal Reading Theory assignment, I spoke of not knowing one specific way to teach literacy that guaranteed student proficiency.  I mentioned a small introduction of reading skills during my methods courses.  Last, I communicated that from my experience, I believed children learn to read and write by communicating with others.  I still agree with those beliefs now, but my theory has expanded into a much broader perspective. 

            How do children learn to read?  Children learn to read by communicating verbally with others around them.  The build schema through their experiences and rely on those schema when interpreting words or texts.  They are introduced to several literacy approaches throughout education, and those depend on the type of setting they are in.  Some teachers value a skills, phonics, or whole language approach.  Many pre-service educators (like me) have been instructed in a skills approach manner, learning to work with the smallest piece of language and working upward.  From class this semester, I gathered throughout the Weaver (2002) text that a skills approach is not as beneficial as a comprehensive literacy approach.  I can adamantly say that many educators do use strategies from a comprehensive literacy program such as reading or writing workshop or guided reading.  However, a comprehensive literacy program entails so much more than just those methods, especially an excellent foundation in understanding what is best for one’s class in terms of whole group, small group, or individual instruction. 

What are effective ways to teach reading? I value Harste’s (2003) theory of inquiry learning as well as Shannahan’s (1997) idea of integrating reading and writing throughout the curriculum.  I really appreciate Weaver’s (2002) strategies such as the developing a Reader Profile (p. 185), conducting a Retrospective Miscue Analysis (p. 221), designing a Comprehensive Literacy Program (p. 276) , and Phonics instruction strategies (p. 325).  Among all of these practices, the CLP is the most important to me.  In addition, I believe in building rapport and trust with my students, especially students from diverse cultures. 

As I was reading Chapter 14, I realized how much I do not know about shared reading.  I thought all of Mr. Peters’ ideas were fantastic.  I loved his ideas of working with one text for several days using several engaging activities.  He also incorporated phonics instruction into his lessons in a systematic fashion.  Unfortunately, after I finished the chapter, I felt a little uncomfortable.  I have used some strategies of a CLP in my last few years of teaching, but not to the degree that Weaver suggests.  I feel that reflects poorly on me even though this is a learning process.  I am also vexed over learning about and embracing the idea of a CLP’s components to then enter an environment in which I may not be able to practice those methods.  This could occur in any public school system under any bureaucratic principal.  My experience with Montessori classrooms is increasing, and I do believe there are whole language elements embedded, particularly using constructivist approaches.  Honestly, I feel that my theory may differ from my practices depending on the context, which is something I have had to get used to since I began teaching in the first place. 

Nevertheless, I have confidence in my organizational and philosophical beliefs and practices, even when I am not in a classroom setting.  These beliefs are a great place to start as transitioning educator and parent.  In terms of transitioning as an educator, I want to be reflective on my practices and develop convictions based on my beliefs, practices, and research-based strategies.  As a parent, I work with my daughter every day as she develops her literacy skills.  She interacts with technology, a variety of literature, and workbooks to strengthen her growing foundation.  I look forward to learning more about myself and literacy practices in the field of education as I move forward in my career and professional development. 

Module 5: Instructional Challenge

If I were to start the school year off with three ELL students who were newcomers to the United States, my first objective would be to make sure the students and their families feel welcomed.  “For families to become activity participants in the life of the school, they must first feel welcomed, valued, and connected to each other, to school staff, and to what their children are doing in school” (Padak & Rasinski, 2010, p. 294).  Padak and Rasinsky offer several approaches including new family introductions and effective communication in various formats.  Second, I would do my best to create a culturally relevant classroom in which there are “important connections between culture, teaching, and learning” (Jones, Pang, & Rodriguez, 2001, p. 36).  Third, since the school I (would) work in adopts a Success for All (Slavin et al., 2009) approach, I would use “…well-structured curriculum materials, emphasizing systematic phonics in grades K-1, cooperative learning, and direct instruction in comprehension and vocabulary skills in all grades” (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). 

I would begin instruction by fostering a love of reading for a variety of texts.  With their captivated curiosity, I would determine their interests in topics and select reading materials based off those interests.  I would conduct one-on-one conferences to build rapport and determine their reading ability, even at the smallest level of identifying letters or sounds.  From there, I would conduct segmented reading interviews (Weaver, 2002), and use that data to inform instruction.  Since the interview consists of a miscue analysis segment, I would be able to code those miscues (if the student spoke any English at all) and determine areas that I need to work on, whether those areas are phonics, phonemic awareness, or comprehension. 

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21 (1), 103-127.

Jones, E. B., Pang, V. O., & Rodriguez, J. L. (2001). Social studies in the elementary classroom: Culture matters. Theory Into Practice, 40 (1), 35-41.

Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Welcoming schools: Small changes that can make a big difference. The Reading Teacher, 64 (4), 294-297.

Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Module 5: Reading Reflection

In Reading Process and Practice, Weaver (2002) describes several components of a comprehensive literacy program.  These include read-aloud, shared reading, guided reading, sustained reading, individual reading conferences, literature groups, reading to learn, write-aloud, shared writing, guided writing, sustained writing, individual writing conferences, journals, and writing to learn.  I appreciated Figure 12.1 on p. 277, which demonstrates effective reading instruction.  I like the idea of fitting phonics in during a whole-class instruction time.  However, the constraints of scheduling did not permit me to implement this instruction as Weaver recommends.  Instead, I selected to instruct students in phonics during shared reading or guided reading.  This is also an excellent time to discuss other activities as Weaver shows in Figure 12.3 on p. 283.  When I taught second grade, I didn’t feel that all of my students needed extra instruction in phonics, so I spent more time with the groups of students who did need that assistance.  Given the time constraint, I prefer Figure 12.8 on p. 299 of the 70-90 minute Reading Workshop sample schedule.  The only aspect of it that I would change would be providing guided reading 4 days a week.

            However, I will honestly (and embarrassingly) admit I don’t know how to teach phonics.  I have worked with phonics programs such as Saxon Phonics, and I have also worked with supplementary materials to accompany the basal series that the county provided.  I need to be trained appropriately in teaching phonics before working with students. 

Module 4: Activity 1

This video was really inspiring.  Watching Robin make such a huge transition in less than a year really has the power to instill hope in readers and teachers that it is never too late to learn to read.  I appreciated the reasons that drove Robin’s motivation to read, including holding on to this dream.  There were so many interesting strategies used.  He worked with letter tiles, he was finger pointing while reading, he asked himself and his teacher questions, and his reading was connected to writing.  The teacher also provided many styles of text such as emails, ads, books, and newspapers.  2010 was a huge year for him, and it took 6 months for him to build such a meaningful foundation. 

Module 4: Activity 2

The NRP areas I find to be crucial for student success include Alphabetics, Fluency, and Comprehension.  I do feel that Teacher Education and Reading Instruction, and Computer Technology and Reading Instruction are relevant to education in general, but there are studies that show that parents can be just as effective in tutoring at home, and that computer technology should not be solely leaned on for instruction.  The three areas I mentioned have been explained thoroughly by the NRP in terms of definition and strategy.  One idea mentioned in the phonics instruction section was this, “Teachers must understand that systematic phonics instruction is only one component—albeit a necessary component—of a total reading program; systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension strategies to create a complete reading program.” Extending off this statement, I think the idea of a complete reading program entails all three areas, Alphabetics, Fluency, and Comprehension, and that all three should be integrated.

The Allington pillars I find to be crucial for student success include Access to interesting texts and choice, Writing and reading have reciprocal positive effects, and Classroom organization.  I disagree with this statement, “Struggling readers need appropriately difficult books in their hands all day long.” This implies that a struggling reader may not be able to comprehend a text that is more difficult. I think a struggling reader, or any learner for that matter,  needs to be exposed to many different types of literature, no matter the difficulty level. Sometimes a variety of exposure is what ignites interest and engagement, especially during read aloud, buddy reading, or self-selection of books.  I also disagree with this statement, “Further, there exists little evidence supporting interventions where the instructional group is larger than 3 students.”  I have had plenty of success with small groups that have four to five students.  No one was there to empirically observe or report it!

I think both NRP and Allington have excellent ideas about reading education and instruction that would benefit student success.  And, I am only an expert in some areas of the literature and in my own classroom experience.  I have seen what techniques worked, tried new things, scrapped practices that were not effective, and learned that each individual child and the class as a whole is dynamic each year.