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.

Module 4: Instructional Challenge

There could be many reasons as to why Marcus miscues so often.  But, the challenge prompt did not address his comprehension.  I would assume Marcus’s comprehension is interfering with gathering meaning from the text.  I would definitely use a Retrospective Miscue Analysis to help with difficult words.  I like Weaver’s (2002) suggestions of having the reader predict a word that might make sense, sounding out the word in chunks, and daily sustained reading.  Whatever I chose to do, I wouldn’t want Marcus to become frustrated and shut down.  I loved the books on tape idea.  I think Marcus would greatly improve by listening and following along using a text of his interest.  I would be focused more on his attitude and self-confidence as a reader more than his fluency using the books on tape strategy. 

Module 4: Reading Reflection

When I taught second grade, I used many of the strategies suggested for a comprehensive literacy program.  I wanted my reading time to encompass many experiences, and I operated within a tight curriculum structure. 

I read aloud to my students every day.  At the end of the day, the students and I would gather at the carpet area of the classroom with the lights off. They could lie down or sit as they pleased as long as they listened.  I began with fun, kid-related stories by Judy Blume.  The students loved the books about Peter Hatcher and his brother, Fudge.  Towards the end of the year, I started reading a book that was definitely on an adult level.  But, I had described one time to the class to mention what I was reading, and their interest was piqued.  So, I read the book, Meg, by Steve Alten.  It was about a Megaladon shark that was resurfacing after remaining hidden for many, many years in the Mariana Trench.  The students LOVED it, and I have never had such an engaged read aloud time.  The text prompted the students to research sharks and visit museums.

We had guided reading every day.  While I met with different level groups, the rest of the class worked on reading-oriented skill tasks (story elements, curriculum-integrated activities, vocabulary enrichment) independently.  The students rotated from group to group based on progress, and by the end of the year, the members of the yellow (struggling readers) group had advanced, so the “yellow” group did exist anymore. 

The students had an independent reading time every day.  There were labeled/leveled bins for them to select from, and there were organized, individual forms for each student to write their information.  Accelerated Reader was used for comprehension checks, and often the students were buddy reading.

 I conducted individual reading conferences on a weekly basis, but it was not on the level the book described.  Unfortunately, the students and I focused on fluency practices to assess their progress.  This is an areas I would like to develop further using the book’s suggestions.

After lunch and recess, our routine was to participate in writer’s workshop (shared, guided, writing to learn, and sustained writing).  We would begin the workshop with some sort of grammar lesson or parts of speech.  With a previously determined topic, we would talk about ideas and decisions and organize ideas into webs or charts.  The students were given quite time to work, and I was there to assist them with vocabulary or spelling.  As their drafts evolved during the week, peer revision helped them make any corrections.  I used a rubric to assess the final draft. 

I used many components in my classroom, but I’d like to try different techniques.  If I am in a Montessori teaching environment, those practices and curriculum may be different, so I will need to adapt accordingly. 

Prominent Theorist

I chose to do my paper on Jerome Harste.  Hope you like it.  Happy reading!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bza2AVLyAyTicmdEdUFjTGNIR1E/edit

Module 3: Activity 2

I watched three different videos in which G. Reid Lyon spoke of reading.  He seems so knowledgeable about the process and how reading is critical for every child to succeed.  While every child shows differences in reading skills, what Lyon found is that parents are often great teachers in the home environment.  The most valuable idea he presented is that reading is not a naturally acquired skill, that it must be taught.  Therefore, teachers should be and are held accountable for creating and assessing content appropriately. 

            The type of content that Lyon refers to includes phonemic awareness, phonics (which he states are often confused with one another), fluency, and vocabulary.  All of these skills could and should lead to comprehension and meaning, but sometimes even proficiency in all of those areas does not guarantee comprehension due to a struggling reader’s labor of reading the actual text. 

            I really enjoyed the Watch and Learn: Helping Struggling Readers video.  The teacher who was working with the student demonstrated her content knowledge through the selected word tile activity as well as a caring attitude toward her student.  The student, who had been labeled with a reading disability, was showing dramatic improvement with the one-on-one instruction in decoding letters.  The video described the process of decoding as recognizing letters, putting them into a choppy string of sounds, and then transitioning into making the sounds into a smooth sounding word.  When the nonsense word activity was shown, the student seemed to work well with the concept because of his developing knowledge of sounds and letters. 

            I completely disagree with Houk-Cerna’s (2004) statements.  She questions the activity of nonsense words, which I am sure many teachers do.  Based on the short passage in Module 3, and given that this is my first exposure to Houk-Cerna’s work, I am curious if her passage is more sarcastic than anything else.  Of course five-year olds are going to look puzzled when hearing or seeing words that don’t make sense to them.  Most kindergarten students have some (even if it might be limited) exposure to the English language, either verbal or written, and could distinguish a nonsense word just by hearing it (as discussed in the video).  The student in the passage clearly understands word formation and words that do make sense since he or she sees the possibility of another word just by rearranging the letters. 

            Either way, “cracking the code” activities have a lot of research behind them in demonstrating their effectiveness.  I also believe that one-on-one instruction or reading with students to engage with a text is the best strategy, especially if the adult or teacher possesses a caring attitude combined with helpful skills and strategies. 

Module 3: Mock Memo from a Reading Specialist

From the Desk of the School Reading Specialist:

 Dear Erica’s Teacher,

Thank you for expressing your concerns to me about Erica and some of her fifth-grade classmates. After reviewing the information presented to me, that Erica reads quickly but requires retelling assistance and that her classmates share similar characteristics, I want to extend my possible explanation for what I think is happening and offer advice or assistance.

While Erica and her classmates may read well above the grade level fluency norms, that does not necessarily indicate their reading competence. Rather, they may be displaying their abilities to read rapidly and involuntarily. This is what many teachers refer to as “word calling.” Erica’s and her classmates’ issues may stem from reading under pressure, meaning in front of you or in a timed situation. While it seems the identification of words is consistent, the inability to retell or explain what was just read aloud signifies less proficiency in reading for meaning. This is of particular importance, as reading for meaning is the primary focus of literacy.

I do not want you to feel as though this is a direct reflection on you or your reading practices and strategies. With such an unintended drawback of standardized testing pressure surrounding our curriculum (despite our attempts to continue caring for our students via the curriculum and creativity), many students have learned to identify answers quickly in response to end-of-passage activities. The last thing we educators want to occur is a loss of efficacy in our teachers or loss of self-esteem in our students.

Our school has many resources to create a rich variety of literacy activities, and I would be happy to help explain and demonstrate some strategies for you anytime.

Here are some suggested strategies:

-Allow an open classroom environment to allow risk taking and expression of feeling to occur without fear of mockery or judgment.

-Create reading instructional tasks combining fluency and enjoyment of reading.

-Tape record students reading aloud and engage in meaningful independent or group conversation as you play back the recording for your students to hear.

-Point out, ask, and discuss good miscues and good strategies focusing on revaluing the reader.

-Focus on miscue analysis as more a procedure than an all-encompassing assessment.

-To practice retelling, develop more activities for thinking aloud.

-Develop reader profiles for each student (Weaver, 2002, p. 185-211) to gain further knowledge and develop instructional plans.

Module 3: Reading Reflection

Based on supportive evidence from Weaver (2002), I do not agree with Marilyn Adams’s (1990) statement that “Skillful readers of English thoroughly process the individual letters of words in their texts” (p. 108).  Weaver presented many ideas in Chapter 5 about how the brain and the eyes work to make reading possible even though they are independent of one another and that both have very important roles.  If someone is reading for meaning, which is the highest goal of reading, Weaver, during her discussion of perception, states, “…it seems clear, in fact, that we do not first identify the smaller units of language, letters, and then work upwards” (2002, p. 90).   She provides practice activities for the reader to help identify which letters of a word or text are more important than others (I really enjoyed these!), which are consonants and beginnings.  Weaver relies on the thoughts of Venezky (1970b) to illustrate her argument against Adams (1990) by quoting, “A person who attempts to scan left to right, letter by letter, pronouncing as he goes, could not correctly read most English words” (p. 129).  As the chapter continues, Adams’s thought is refuted with evidence of clustering letters into chunks, not relying on phonics terms or rules for word perception, and that context is essential.  Finally, Weaver solidifies her case, showing Adams’s claim is inaccurate, by explaining that not every word is focused on, much less every letter, during proficient reading.  Therefore, I agree!

Module 2: Instructional Challenge

Before responding to this Instructional Challenge, I would like to preface my thoughts by explaining that I am in no way proficient at miscue analysis. As I explained in my Personal Reading Theory, I have more experience with more proficient second grade readers in the areas of fluency and comprehension, as well as reading for meaning. As I read Chapter 4, I found myself marking in the text reminders as to what some of the miscues meant, and I took careful notes in order to understand the chapter and respond to this prompt. I found several helpful quotes from Weaver to support my argument that these children’s miscues are evidence of proficient readers. (Now, I could be completely wrong, but I am going to go with my gut instinct here without the help of class discussion or formal training on miscue analysis.) Weaver points out that both proficient readers and nonproficient readers make miscues on simple words, as shown in the table for this Instructional Challenge. If many (not all) of the words in the sentence/text are correctly identified and understood, then that leads to a higher construction of meaning. In the table, most of the words are identified correctly, especially because the sentence still makes sense. Weaver discusses that occasionally dialect miscues may just be an alternative way of expressing the text. When pondering what assistance to offer, I adopt Weaver’s (2002) strategies of disregarding any special reading materials or methodology, maintaining a positive attitude, understanding that eventually word recognition will improve with practice, discussing effective strategies, establishing revalue in one’s self as a reader, and celebrating strengths.

Module 2: Activities 1 & 2

A Clockwork Orange is a strange movie. I remember hearing about during my Learning Theories course last summer, so my husband and I watched it. That was one of the weirdest movies I had ever seen, and I remember then not understanding half of the stuff the main character was narrating. With Exercise 3c, I wrote down all 12 of the words (with no guesses to definitions because I felt silly trying to come up with any) and read the entire chapter of A Clockwork Orange. I wrote the words in their sentences and read before and after to make sure I was understanding the context. Some of the words I had no trouble with when reading them in the sentence. However, I did notice that many of the words were repeated throughout the chapter, so my definition changed a little or left me unsure as the chapter progressed. I was still not quite sure what glazzies or zoobies were, but I made some guesses. I think I finally guessed that glazzies were eyes or glasses, and zoobies were dentures. Needless to say, I felt comfortable reading the chapter, but because of all the silly nonsense words, I would not choose to read this entire book.

With Exercise 7, I tried it on myself and then my husband. I can state proudly that I did not read the words letter-by-letter. However, I caught myself chunking some of the words into syllables (submandibular, extravasate, botrydoidal) which made me feel somewhat unintelligent…until I arrived at words like samizdat and demesne, which I had no clue how to really pronounce or define. What’s worse is that I recognized some of the words from reading higher level texts, and I have even looked them up in the dictionary, but could only define plesiosaur because it is 1. A type of dinosaur, and 2. I discussed this type of dinosaur with my students during a second grade unit. Pronouncing the words didn’t really help me generate meaning, it just jogged a memory of possibly seeing them beforehand in another context. If I see unknown words like this in a text, I stop reading and look them up in a dictionary or circle it and look them up later. Regarding implications with students and unfamiliar print words, I would encourage them to do the same: sound it out, try to determine their meaning from the context or schema, and eventually find the meaning using another resource. When I showed the same words to my husband (whom I consider to be quite intelligent), he was able to pronounce all of them except sapogenin and botryoidal. I caught him pausing before moving on to the next word, which signified to me that he was sounding them out in his head before saying them out loud.  He knew 5 definitions and then said the rest of the words were “dumb.” However, we both want to know what samizdat means. I guess I will go look that up…wait a second, is this even a real word? (yes it is, but I couldn't find it in two of my dictionaries!)

Module 2: Reading Reflection

To respond to this honestly, I will give an explanation in agreement and disagreement. Keep in mind that a theory is a general principal and explains observed facts.

Agreement

In the time of Columbus the “theory” of the earth being flat was the prevailing convention. His voyage and subsequent intrepid explorers disproved this theory.  The theory of reading may not be as easy to debunk because a young less proficient reader would not be able to read and understand the passage, therefore, it does seem an exact process.

Disagreement

You can use contextual clues to understand a passage.  You could read a passage on particle physics and it would appear incomprehensible, but if you were able to pick out enough contextual clues you could get the general idea.  The same is true of the “Flat Earth” theory.  People never sailed past a certain point, maps were flat.  It took an around the world voyage by Magellan, beginning and ending at the same point, to finally disprove the “Flat Earth” theory completely.  Weaver gives many examples in the text relating to context, including the use of personal, situational, and sociolinguistic context as an inclusive process to determine meaning. She also points out, using a variety of studies to support her statement, that “…good readers read for meaning, not to identify words…” (Weaver, 2002, p. 52).  Young readers are not only able to rely on context clues but also on syntantic, semantic, graphic language cues while learning to construct meaning, as evident in the miscue analyses of Billy and Jay in Chapter 4.  She goes on to state that constructing meaning occurs beyond symbols, surface accuracy with all words, and the recollection of every word in a passage.  Thus, her examples and insight support her argument that, “…it is inappropriate and unproductive to conceptualize reading as involving accurate identification of all words” (Weaver, 2002, p. 80).

So, while a theory is developed to explain observed facts, consider that in the time of Columbus, people relied on their contextual clues and folklore to support the idea of the Earth being flat.  That theory was later disproved by one person.  Similarly, Weaver and others have gathered ample evidence to support the idea that reading is not an exact process, therefore disproving what the consuming public, legislatures, courts, and too many educators may believe. 

Module 1: Reading Reflection

A skills approach to literacy, in my opinion (and this is reflected in my Personal Model of Reading Theory), takes more of a traditional methodology reflected in public education from the past and current time.  Embedded in this practice is the notion that one must work his or her way from bottom to top, taking each small part and working up towards the whole.  Lost in this style is the student’s ability and interest to self-select texts based on current practices in schools today, such as Accelerated Reader.  The student must be deemed ready by the teacher to progress at a reading level, and only experiences higher level texts during read-alouds or outside of the school environment. 

            Conversely, a comprehensive approach to literacy recognizes meaning as an intricate and most important aspect of reading.  Using any type of text, students are encouraged to find their love and passion for reading without being bogged down from all the requirements imposed on them by those who value a skills approach.  This approach emphasizes a different style in that sounds and letters come after meaning, and experience with texts and sounds drive interest.  This approach reminds me of some strategies used in Montessori classrooms. 

            As the book suggests, how literacy is demonstrated in the classroom or outside of the classroom facilitates and fosters a child’s perspective and attitude towards the notion and future practice of reading.  Either approach has the potential to be effective, but it seems the comprehensive approach (accentuating schemas, contexts, and their relationships with meaning and phonemes/phonics combined) may be more valuable in terms of developing passion, comprehension, and critical thinking strategies.   

Module 1: Activity 2

a.       What is corandic? Corandic is an emurient grof with many fribs

b.      What does corandic grank from? it granks from corite, an olg which cargs like lange.

c.       How do garkers excarp the tarances from the corite? by glarcking the corite and starping it in tranker-clarped storbs

d.      What does the slorp finally frast? a pragety, blickant crankle

e.       What is coranda? Coranda is a cargurt, grinkling corandic and borigen.

f.        How is corandic nacerated from the borigen? by means of loracity.

g.       What do the garkers finally thrap? a glick, bracht, glupous grapant, corandic, which granks in many starps.

When I looked at this activity, I got insanely frustrated. I guess I was hoping for some sort of clue about one of the words like the author gave for the similar passage (a blonke is a horse).  I reread the passage several times, and I still came away with nothing. So, I answered the questions the best I could, by looking for the key words in the questions and finding the responses in the passage. This reminds me of a test taking strategy that I taught to a student whom I tutored who was not “mastering” reading comprehension passage quizzes. Unfortunately, I still struggled with some hidden definition of corandic as well as the other nonsense words in the passage for more than 20 minutes, started crying, and was told by my husband that I had done the activity correctly.

Therefore, I was able to answer the questions using some sort of context clues, but I was not able to determine any meaning from the passage to answer the questions using words that made sense.  My experience was challenging, and I can’t imagine how frustrating that would feel for a young beginning or struggling reader. 

Module 1: Activity 1

Module 1: Instructional Challenge

1. What are the hocked gems?  The hocked gems are goods that have been stolen by the hero.  He sold, or hocked, them in order to gain funds to finance whatever operation he is running.

2. What should we think of as an egg and not a table?  This is tricky.  I believe that this is referring to the goods our hero is trying to dispose of.  An egg, in this case, is referring to a new life.  By disposing of the table, the hero is providing the three sisters with a path to a new life. 

3. Who are the three sturdy sisters? They are the buyers of the table.  The authenticity of the table is in question.  The sisters know what characteristic would make the table unique and important.  Their journey through “vast calmness, and sometimes over turbulent peaks and valleys,” is their emotional turmoil while searching for the identifying characteristic. 

4. What kind of winged creatures appeared? In many cases, angels blowing trumpets signify the end of a quest (a satisfactory ending).  In this case, the three sisters found what they were looking for and were both relieved and excited.

In order for the students to use this passage, I believe the most important schema to activate would be schematic context and situational, pragmatic context.  I think that this is a passage geared more towards older children, and as such they would have seen or heard many of these words in different contexts.  They would need to draw on these experiences in order to interpret the passage correctly.  While some of these words may be unfamiliar to students, understanding and using the context of the paragraph would help in answering any comprehension questions about the passage. 

To help children in a case where their schema and the text’s content don’t match, I would discuss this with them.  Try to get the students to recreate the passage in a context that they would understand.  While doing so, I would have a dictionary handy to aid in the students’ understanding.  Another way is to recommend activities outside the classroom.  Many of the concepts in the passage above can be learned by reading more advanced books.  As children’s reading abilities grow, the range of books for them to read will grow ever wider and the subject matter expands exponentially.

A student needs to devote a good bit of time on a text that doesn’t match their interests or schema.  In a testing environment, the student needs to take the time necessary to determine whether or not they can answer the questions given their schema.  If not, they need to make an educated guess and move on.  In a normal reading environment (book), the student should take the time to expand their knowledge.  The more you know about more things, the more interesting life is. 

Personal Reading Theory Model One

Personal Reading Theory Model

Elizabeth G. Hill

EDRD 7715

Dr. Scott Ritchie

Summer 2012

 

            Joan Wink (2011) perfectly summarized one of Paulo Freire’s greatest statements by writing, “Before reading the words, kids already read the world” (p. 103).  This notion captures the underlying foundation of my personal reading theory by addressing what young students are already capable of, despite being what some would label as being illiterate.  During my background experiences and previous preparation as an early childhood educator, I have come to witness several techniques and theories of reading, yet I hesitate to definitively state a one, correct procedural manner resulting in a guaranteed outcome of student reading proficiency.

            I took my methods courses years ago, and since 2003, I have had more than seven years of teaching experience with kindergarten and second grade students.  I agree with Freire (1985) that literacy, as I have been trained to impart as a public school educator, “is reduced to the mechanical act of “depositing” words, syllables, and letters into illiterates” (p. 7, 8).  This technique was not one that I fully understood or supported, yet there were results of student progress which validated what I thought was correct.  However, the more I began to work with students who were significantly behind their peers in grade level reading, I was concerned that I lacked in real experience with laying a foundation for reading.  In these courses I was introduced to popular terms such as phonemes, phonic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, and over time I developed a better understanding of how to incorporate these ideas into functional and tangible lessons.  And, at this point in my educational career, I could probably lay out several options of effective strategies based on my experiences in public education settings.  I must admit that being in a second grade classroom setting required minimal teaching of the basics of reading, thus diminishing my recollection of those processes.  So, what I am left with is a small amount of memory and experience in really teaching students how to read.  Therefore, with what I have expressed, I believe children learn to read by communicating with others verbally and are eventually exposed to print and sound materials as their growth progresses.  Whether parents take an active role in this foundation is uncontrollable from an academic perspective, as they may receive reading exposure through home, preschool or daycare settings, and eventually in a kindergarten setting.  Their awareness of alphabet sounds and letters combined with sight word cards and small practice sentences are in my opinion, effective, yet supportive examples of teaching reading or literacy as a mechanical act.  

            Conversely, these strategies that are taught to educators and used in public schooling, along with supplementary programs for struggling students, are just a few of the plethora of literacy teaching strategies available to educators.  I am inspired by Sylvia Ashton-Warner’s (1963) concept of organic reading in which her students owned their own words and used them to create sentences and stories within the Maori culture, therefore relating any literacy instruction to what was relevant to student life.  I am captivated by Vivian Maria Vasquez’s (2008) negotiation of space within the curriculum to make room for critical literacy in which she and her students used tools in the classroom fueled by their own interests to create audit trails, pose problems, and analyze information thereby taking social action as a form of solution.  I am reminded by Lisa Delpit (2006) to appreciate the linguistic diversity brought to the classroom by students without focusing on correction or the imposition of Standard English.  These are also just a few of many practices that have been researched and implemented by educators, but they differ in their approach and meaning. 

While the question lingers of effective teaching practices, I believe the focus should always remain on what inspires and sustains student reading thereby extending that appreciation toward a lifelong love and curiosity of literacy in any context. 

References

Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.

Vasquez, V. M. (2008). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. New York: Routledge.

Wink, J. (2011). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.