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.