The final chapter in this book discussed the importance of writing as a way to support the readings, lectures, and discussions. Writing gives students the opportunity to extend their learning beyond the boundaries of the course material and allows students to use their own language in order to better understand. Writing is certainly a meaning-making activity as students do not discover meaning, they make it.
In the past, writing has been used as a way to evaluate what students know, rather than to encourage critical engagement with the material. Using writing as a tool for learning aids in the shift from the transmission model of passive, teacher-centered learning, to the transactional model of active, student-centered learning.
According to Janet Emig, the act of writing incorporates all three modes of learning, enactive, iconic, and symbolic, at the same time. She also argues that writing makes use of both sides of the brain. The left side of the brain is engaged in the linear process of producing language and representing it on the page, while the right side of the brain contributes to creative and intuitive insights.
Writing also allows students the opportunity to express his/her own opinions by embracing prior knowledge, and individual schemas. Therefore, the way one writes will be unique and will aid in the understanding of the material. A study in the classroom, found that students who were given a few minutes to write on a topic before having to discuss it with the class were more willing to discuss. This is because the student had time to gather their thoughts on paper before having to orally commit to an answer.
Britton states that there are three modes of writing: expressive, transactional, and poetic. He states that transactional and poetic both stem from expressive, which involves writing to learn. This means that all writing is writing to learn. Expressive writing is "writing to think on paper." This includes writing in journals, jotting, notes, lists, observations, and early drafts. Transactional writing is "writing to get things done." Transactional writing includes expository essays, business letters, memos, editorials, and reports. On the other end of the spectrum is poetic writing, which is "writing as an art medium." This form of writing may involve poetry, stories, novels, and drama. Because all three stem from expressive writing, all three overlap and involve both writing to learn and writing to communicate. It is important for teachers to use a variety of writing assignments in class in order to appeal to multiple literacies.
The process of writing involves several stages: prewriting, writing & revising, editing & proofreading, and postwriting. The writing process in not linear and works in more of a "recursive" process. The writer is constantly revising as he/she writes and is adding and subtracting material from the finished product.
Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest that grading be done separately from evaluation. Students need lots of formative evaluation and response as they are learning. This feedback will help them grow as writers, readers, and learners. Grading is summative and falls at the end of the learning process. Grading should be kept to a minimum and should follow criterial in order to make it go faster. Dornan, et al., suggest two things in order to make grading papers easier: 1) have a clear set of criterial so you, and your students, know what you are looking for. 2) have grading guides, or rubrics, to make the actual grading process less labor-intesive.
Finally, have the students fill out a self-evaluation of their writing before the teacher gives out grades. It is important to have the student answer questions based on the following: What do you like best about your paper? How did you write this piece? What would you change if you could write one more draft? What problems did you have as you wrote this piece? When students evaluate their own writing, most are surprisingly honest and accurate at recognizing where they've done well and what needs improvement.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Lesson Designs for Text Comprehension
As we have seen, final determination of comprehension of texts is left up to the reader. This chapter discusses how teachers need to plan instruction and lessons with comprehension as the center theme. There are many versions of lesson plans and each discipline has its own favorite format. In general, lesson plans should contain the following criteria: 1) Title of the reading materials and other resources. 2) A clearly defined central concept or "main idea." 3) The goals of the unit, also called the objectives. 4) A list of key vocabulary needed to grasp the central concepts. 5) A sequence of pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading. 6) Critical thinking and/or problem solving that involves reading, writing, thinking, and speaking. 7) Some means for evaluating students. Good lesson plans include a variety of activities at all cognitive levels.
In order to choose a strong main idea, the teacher should first decide how much students already know about the text's content. A good main idea should be focused, yet productive for suggesting other lines of thinking. According to Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson, "the point of selecting a strong main idea is that the ideas of any body of writing should provide a way into the material, an avenue that helps the student bring the myriad of detail into focus, organize it, and see its relevance to other information" (169). In order to establish a common framework for identifying the main idea in teaching a unit or a lesson the teacher should ask herself a few questions. 1) What is the unit mostly about? 2) What concept(s) are most important to teach for future lessons? 3) What is the book trying to show us? 4) How directive should the teaching unit be? 5) How challenging should the unit be? 6) How many other topic should the unit include? 7) Is the generalization accurate? These questions were established by Moore and Cunningham (1986).
After choosing the main theme it is important to come up with objectives as well as daily objectives. These should involve pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading objectives. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest several ways to assess students prior knowledge. The suggestion that I liked the best was devised by Donna Ogle in 1986. This is called K-W-L, which stands for Know, Want to Know, and Learned. The teacher writes on the board what students already know by asking them questions about the subject. The teacher then asked them what they want to know. He/she copies this down and saves it until the end of the lesson when students fill in the Learned portion.
Post-reading comprehension can involve many different aspects. Some ideas of post-reading comprehension involve: having the students talk about what they read, having students write about what they read, having students read other books and articles on the subject, having students play games or see films that are applicable of the information, having students take tests on what they read, ect.
Whatever the theme of the lesson plan is, it is very important that the teachers think carefully about what they are trying to achieve with each lesson.
In order to choose a strong main idea, the teacher should first decide how much students already know about the text's content. A good main idea should be focused, yet productive for suggesting other lines of thinking. According to Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson, "the point of selecting a strong main idea is that the ideas of any body of writing should provide a way into the material, an avenue that helps the student bring the myriad of detail into focus, organize it, and see its relevance to other information" (169). In order to establish a common framework for identifying the main idea in teaching a unit or a lesson the teacher should ask herself a few questions. 1) What is the unit mostly about? 2) What concept(s) are most important to teach for future lessons? 3) What is the book trying to show us? 4) How directive should the teaching unit be? 5) How challenging should the unit be? 6) How many other topic should the unit include? 7) Is the generalization accurate? These questions were established by Moore and Cunningham (1986).
After choosing the main theme it is important to come up with objectives as well as daily objectives. These should involve pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading objectives. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest several ways to assess students prior knowledge. The suggestion that I liked the best was devised by Donna Ogle in 1986. This is called K-W-L, which stands for Know, Want to Know, and Learned. The teacher writes on the board what students already know by asking them questions about the subject. The teacher then asked them what they want to know. He/she copies this down and saves it until the end of the lesson when students fill in the Learned portion.
Post-reading comprehension can involve many different aspects. Some ideas of post-reading comprehension involve: having the students talk about what they read, having students write about what they read, having students read other books and articles on the subject, having students play games or see films that are applicable of the information, having students take tests on what they read, ect.
Whatever the theme of the lesson plan is, it is very important that the teachers think carefully about what they are trying to achieve with each lesson.
The Aesthetic Response and Its Role in Textbook Comprehension
Some teachers reject Bloom's taxonomy and the idea of cubing due to the fact that they consist of zealous question asking. These analytic series of questions may actually restrict, and narrow students responses, to one defined behavior. Critical thinking is not the only response to literature and the fine arts. This section deals with the aesthetic approach to these fields.
Sometimes the best teaching is no teaching at all. Observation of the process of learning has so much potential and can actually help the student draw his/her own conclusions. Michael Parsons (1987) presents a taxonomy that describes five stages of aesthetic development. These stages roughly follow the direction of development from the individualistic and unaware response of an inexperienced audience to the sophisticated. The first stage describes the delight that a young child may have with surface features. The second stage is one where students are drawn to artwork because it represents realistic resemblance of something in his/her life. In the third stage, children or teens are able to judge artwork based on it's ability to evoke emotions. Students at stage four realize that their opinion is just one among many. At this stage, they begin to compare their interpretation with others. Finally, in the fifth stage, evaluations are made based on set criteria, independent of or contiguous to those of tradition.
Parsons also helps us to understand that reading analysis has little or no meaning for children in the earliest stages of appreciation.
Here is the quote that I would like my former Shakespeare teacher to read. I worked hard and struggled through his class, and I think that I learned exactly what he wanted me to from each of the works we read. When I read this passage I thought immediately of his class and promised myself that I would remember this when I am a teacher.
"Literary analysis gives the teacher plenty to talk about, but means very little in appreciation of the works until students are intellectually prepared for it, and so it should be undertaken with caution. Language immersion is the best approach at the less sophisticated levels. Plenty of reading, writing, speaking, and listening with an emphasis on what the texts mean and what they signify on a personal level not only fosters a love of the works, but also enables students to supply a rationale for their preferences and communicate their choices." (160)
I will be students teaching at Albuquerque High School in the fall, and my master teacher has already informed me that I will be teaching a unit on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Although I just read this last semester, I feel that I need to re-read it because I was not reading it for its aesthetic appeal, however, I was reading it to be tested on intricate details and Northrup Frye's literary analysis.
Sometimes the best teaching is no teaching at all. Observation of the process of learning has so much potential and can actually help the student draw his/her own conclusions. Michael Parsons (1987) presents a taxonomy that describes five stages of aesthetic development. These stages roughly follow the direction of development from the individualistic and unaware response of an inexperienced audience to the sophisticated. The first stage describes the delight that a young child may have with surface features. The second stage is one where students are drawn to artwork because it represents realistic resemblance of something in his/her life. In the third stage, children or teens are able to judge artwork based on it's ability to evoke emotions. Students at stage four realize that their opinion is just one among many. At this stage, they begin to compare their interpretation with others. Finally, in the fifth stage, evaluations are made based on set criteria, independent of or contiguous to those of tradition.
Parsons also helps us to understand that reading analysis has little or no meaning for children in the earliest stages of appreciation.
Here is the quote that I would like my former Shakespeare teacher to read. I worked hard and struggled through his class, and I think that I learned exactly what he wanted me to from each of the works we read. When I read this passage I thought immediately of his class and promised myself that I would remember this when I am a teacher.
"Literary analysis gives the teacher plenty to talk about, but means very little in appreciation of the works until students are intellectually prepared for it, and so it should be undertaken with caution. Language immersion is the best approach at the less sophisticated levels. Plenty of reading, writing, speaking, and listening with an emphasis on what the texts mean and what they signify on a personal level not only fosters a love of the works, but also enables students to supply a rationale for their preferences and communicate their choices." (160)
I will be students teaching at Albuquerque High School in the fall, and my master teacher has already informed me that I will be teaching a unit on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Although I just read this last semester, I feel that I need to re-read it because I was not reading it for its aesthetic appeal, however, I was reading it to be tested on intricate details and Northrup Frye's literary analysis.
Principles of Comprehension and Learning: Processes That Enable Divergent Reading in the Text
Chapter Seven began by discussing the concept of a "third text." In the process of reading, the reader makes every attempt to understand the meaning behind the text. While doing this the reader brings a prediction to the printed page, and the text either confirms or resists the reader's expectations. From this encounter, the reader shapes a "third text" by negotiating the differences between individual response and the multiplicity of connections in the text. This chapter argues that teachers can accommodate and nurture a wide assortment of students with different backgrounds and perspectives through an interactive model of teaching. In this model, the teacher provides the content for classroom learning and the student grasps them on his/her own terms.
The chapter went on to discuss Howard Gardner's theory involving the complex assortment of multiple intelligences and talents. Howard Gardner's theories are usually seen as taboo in teacher education because they revolve around IQ and native talents as points of reference which can potentially cause destructive labeling and other abuses. In Gardner's theory multiple "intelligences" basically means one's ability to solve problems, or create products that are valued within a particular culture. His list of intelligences include: linguistics, music, logical-mathematic ability, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic skill, and talent in personal relations.
As we discussed in class, the transactional model of teaching proposes that control over subject matter is shared between the teacher and the student. In this process, the teacher guides the students toward independent learning and thinking through language immersion. To foster this reciprocal teaching and learning Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest: emphasis on challenging the facts and setting problems based on those facts, conscious integration of language use and development into all curricular content, focus on developing higher-level cognitive skills rather than factual skills, genuine dialogue between the students and teacher on all levels using written and oral dialogue, encouragement of student-teacher talk, encouragement of meaning making language by students rather than an emphasis on correctness of surface forms.
This chapter certainly contained a lot of information on critical thinking and discussed Blooms's taxonomy of educational objectives. According to Bloom, there are six levels of thinking beginning with the one that is intellectually least demanding and ending with the level that involves the most critical thinking. Starting from least difficult, Bloom's objectives for cognition are as follows: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Criticism of Bloom's taxonomy is that it overlooks equally rich possibilities for exploring an affective response. Also, too many analytical questions may ruin a student's love for the subject matter.
Cubing is a concept that parallels Bloom's Taxonomy and was created by Elizabeth Cowan Neeld in 1990. Cubing asks students to define an object or concept by using multiple perspectives. There are five steps involved in cubing: 1) Describe it. 2) Compare it. 3) Associate it. 4) Analyze it. 5) Apply it. 6) Argue for or against it.
Educators Harold Herber and his student Richard L. Vacca have collapsed Bloom's taxonomy in order to produce their own system. Their variation allows students to explore materials at a literal level and at three levels of questions. The first level is the literal level. This deals with facts and paraphrasing. At this level, students are called upon to recognize main ideas, identify stated sequences, stated instructions, and any stated fact that appears in the original text. The second level of questions is the interpretive, or comprehension level. Students must combine two or more explicit statements to make generalized statements. In other words, they must read between the lines. The final level of questions is the applied level, or evaluated level. In this level of questioning, students discover connections beyond the lines of the text. They link what they read in the text to their own experiences and ideas.
Basically, at the center of each principle is an emphasis on making meaning. Students grasp meaning from the text while attaching it to his or her background knowledge. This allows the student to establish a critical stance town their own learning and culture.
The chapter went on to discuss Howard Gardner's theory involving the complex assortment of multiple intelligences and talents. Howard Gardner's theories are usually seen as taboo in teacher education because they revolve around IQ and native talents as points of reference which can potentially cause destructive labeling and other abuses. In Gardner's theory multiple "intelligences" basically means one's ability to solve problems, or create products that are valued within a particular culture. His list of intelligences include: linguistics, music, logical-mathematic ability, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic skill, and talent in personal relations.
As we discussed in class, the transactional model of teaching proposes that control over subject matter is shared between the teacher and the student. In this process, the teacher guides the students toward independent learning and thinking through language immersion. To foster this reciprocal teaching and learning Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest: emphasis on challenging the facts and setting problems based on those facts, conscious integration of language use and development into all curricular content, focus on developing higher-level cognitive skills rather than factual skills, genuine dialogue between the students and teacher on all levels using written and oral dialogue, encouragement of student-teacher talk, encouragement of meaning making language by students rather than an emphasis on correctness of surface forms.
This chapter certainly contained a lot of information on critical thinking and discussed Blooms's taxonomy of educational objectives. According to Bloom, there are six levels of thinking beginning with the one that is intellectually least demanding and ending with the level that involves the most critical thinking. Starting from least difficult, Bloom's objectives for cognition are as follows: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Criticism of Bloom's taxonomy is that it overlooks equally rich possibilities for exploring an affective response. Also, too many analytical questions may ruin a student's love for the subject matter.
Cubing is a concept that parallels Bloom's Taxonomy and was created by Elizabeth Cowan Neeld in 1990. Cubing asks students to define an object or concept by using multiple perspectives. There are five steps involved in cubing: 1) Describe it. 2) Compare it. 3) Associate it. 4) Analyze it. 5) Apply it. 6) Argue for or against it.
Educators Harold Herber and his student Richard L. Vacca have collapsed Bloom's taxonomy in order to produce their own system. Their variation allows students to explore materials at a literal level and at three levels of questions. The first level is the literal level. This deals with facts and paraphrasing. At this level, students are called upon to recognize main ideas, identify stated sequences, stated instructions, and any stated fact that appears in the original text. The second level of questions is the interpretive, or comprehension level. Students must combine two or more explicit statements to make generalized statements. In other words, they must read between the lines. The final level of questions is the applied level, or evaluated level. In this level of questioning, students discover connections beyond the lines of the text. They link what they read in the text to their own experiences and ideas.
Basically, at the center of each principle is an emphasis on making meaning. Students grasp meaning from the text while attaching it to his or her background knowledge. This allows the student to establish a critical stance town their own learning and culture.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Assessing Students' Reading Abilities, Needs, Attitudes, and Interests in the Content Classroom
Chapter Six is entitled "Assessing Students' Reading Abilities, Needs, Attitudes, and Interests in the Content Classroom." This chapter was very interesting and discussed the different kids of assessment, as well as their implications, in the classroom. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest using a variety of methods to gather data about their students' reading comprehension and learning. Some of these suggestions include: observation, checklists, surveys, tests, conferences, written responses, interviews, and formal test results. I agree that it is important to have many different ways to "test" students. Not everyone excels at "normal" testing due to anxiety associated with tests. It is important to have various ways to evaluate students.
There are basically three purposes for assessing students: 1) program evaluation, 2) student evaluation, 3) instructional planning. Most school districts rely on standardized tests to evaluate the effectiveness of district or state programs. Standardized tests are known as formal assessments. Test results can identify strengths and weaknesses in instructional programs. They have been criticized in the past for perpetuating the existing socioeconomic class systems in America. They unfairly penalize non-mainstream students and the poor, who regularly score lower than middle-class white students, who usually make up the "norming group."
I remember hearing about a question on a formal assessment, which gave a jumbled up word that the students were supposed to decode. The letters of the word were: O T C A. The "correct" answer was supposed to be "coat", although many students wrote "taco" instead. This shows how these tests do not account for multicultural backgrounds.
Standardized tests may be easy to use, easy for teachers, and give the schools a general idea of how their students compare to other groups of students; however, they must be used and interpreted cautiously. There are numerous problems with standardized tests. First of all, reading tests are not based on our current understanding of how readers use language and make meaning, but instead on a series of short isolated skills that distort the reading process. They have inappropriate norms, are ambiguous, irrelevant, poorly written, and have purposely hard questions. Standardized tests are designed so that everyone but the weakest students get some items right, everyone but the best students get some wrong, and everyone else fall somewhere in the middle.
Because every classroom has a wide spectrum of students with multiple intelligences, interests, background knowledge, learning styles, and personal attitudes it is important to use informal assessment measures. One teacher, in this book, had a suggestion of having each student write a subject-specific autobiography at the beginning of the school year of his/her feeling about the subject. It is a great way to see what the student likes, dislikes, and already knows about the subject before the semester begins.
According to "Best Practice" (1993), Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde, across subject areas it is important to: provide assessments that are formative, not summative, descriptive or narrative, not scored or numerical, student centered, approached from different angles, and part of everyday instruction. It is also very important for teachers to observe students and make assessments of their progress based on informal evaluations.
There are basically three purposes for assessing students: 1) program evaluation, 2) student evaluation, 3) instructional planning. Most school districts rely on standardized tests to evaluate the effectiveness of district or state programs. Standardized tests are known as formal assessments. Test results can identify strengths and weaknesses in instructional programs. They have been criticized in the past for perpetuating the existing socioeconomic class systems in America. They unfairly penalize non-mainstream students and the poor, who regularly score lower than middle-class white students, who usually make up the "norming group."
I remember hearing about a question on a formal assessment, which gave a jumbled up word that the students were supposed to decode. The letters of the word were: O T C A. The "correct" answer was supposed to be "coat", although many students wrote "taco" instead. This shows how these tests do not account for multicultural backgrounds.
Standardized tests may be easy to use, easy for teachers, and give the schools a general idea of how their students compare to other groups of students; however, they must be used and interpreted cautiously. There are numerous problems with standardized tests. First of all, reading tests are not based on our current understanding of how readers use language and make meaning, but instead on a series of short isolated skills that distort the reading process. They have inappropriate norms, are ambiguous, irrelevant, poorly written, and have purposely hard questions. Standardized tests are designed so that everyone but the weakest students get some items right, everyone but the best students get some wrong, and everyone else fall somewhere in the middle.
Because every classroom has a wide spectrum of students with multiple intelligences, interests, background knowledge, learning styles, and personal attitudes it is important to use informal assessment measures. One teacher, in this book, had a suggestion of having each student write a subject-specific autobiography at the beginning of the school year of his/her feeling about the subject. It is a great way to see what the student likes, dislikes, and already knows about the subject before the semester begins.
According to "Best Practice" (1993), Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde, across subject areas it is important to: provide assessments that are formative, not summative, descriptive or narrative, not scored or numerical, student centered, approached from different angles, and part of everyday instruction. It is also very important for teachers to observe students and make assessments of their progress based on informal evaluations.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Selecting, Assessing, and Introducing Texts and Materials
As I was reading this chapter I was amazed how much the book coincided with this class for a number of reasons. The most prevalent was the selecting of texts. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson are discouraged that most classrooms center around one text. They stress the importance of helping students to find books that they really connect with. After all, as educators we want to help encourage the passion of reading. I think that Penny allowing each of us each to choose a text that interested us was a great idea. It was exactly what the authors of this book were suggesting. I know that it is not always going to be attainable in the classroom setting to have students choose his/her own text book, however, it is certainly possible that they could choose their own supplemental reading.
This chapter then discussed taking these self selected texts and using them to prompt class discussion. This way each person in the class has something a little different to contribute. (Now this is really starting to sound like collective knowledge)
I totally agree with the authors when they write their recommended list of texts to have available in the classroom. I've been collecting books for awhile now, which I want to include in my classroom library someday. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest incorporating multiple works into the classroom and lesson plans including: fiction, nonfiction, poetry, biographies, autobiographies, memoirs, works by and about women, and multicultural readings.
They then go on to suggest that supplemental reading works so much better when they are incorporated into the course structure as an integral part of the information load. They suggest many ways to do this such as: assigned readings, independent readings combined with performance, presentation, or report, projects, collaborative work, and reading workshop.
For anybody planning on teaching mathematics, there were some great lesson plans for incorporating reading and writing into this content area. One suggestion is having students research famous mathematicians and having them write a "biopoem" about them. Another suggestion was having students research a math concept and then write a short paper on the concept informing the rest of the class. I remember someone asking in last week's ellumination session about what math teachers could do to increase reading and writing in class. Hope this helps. I thought these two ideas were great.
This chapter then discussed taking these self selected texts and using them to prompt class discussion. This way each person in the class has something a little different to contribute. (Now this is really starting to sound like collective knowledge)
I totally agree with the authors when they write their recommended list of texts to have available in the classroom. I've been collecting books for awhile now, which I want to include in my classroom library someday. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson suggest incorporating multiple works into the classroom and lesson plans including: fiction, nonfiction, poetry, biographies, autobiographies, memoirs, works by and about women, and multicultural readings.
They then go on to suggest that supplemental reading works so much better when they are incorporated into the course structure as an integral part of the information load. They suggest many ways to do this such as: assigned readings, independent readings combined with performance, presentation, or report, projects, collaborative work, and reading workshop.
For anybody planning on teaching mathematics, there were some great lesson plans for incorporating reading and writing into this content area. One suggestion is having students research famous mathematicians and having them write a "biopoem" about them. Another suggestion was having students research a math concept and then write a short paper on the concept informing the rest of the class. I remember someone asking in last week's ellumination session about what math teachers could do to increase reading and writing in class. Hope this helps. I thought these two ideas were great.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Influences on Language and Literacy Development
I was finishing up my other two summer semester classes, so I didn't have time to read my book for this class for about a week. I finally had a chance to pick up my book this morning and continue reading it. Chapter Four is entitled, Influences on Language and Literacy Development and the Teaching of Reading. This chapter was very interesting and discussed that a child learns to read in the same ways he/she learns to speak and comprehend oral language.
To begin with, the chapter discusses dialects. It was interesting to read that there is a negative impact of differentiated instruction which is based on social class and dialect in school. I thought about this for a moment and it made perfect sense. An example from the book discussed this man who moved from Kentucky to attend graduate school in Wisconsin. Some of his fellow students in Wisconsin automatically thought that he was less intelligent because of the way he talked.
The chapter went on farther to discuss where the standards of dialect come from. There is no one true correct dialect, although there are many assumptions based around those that are considered to be subpar. We may laugh at pronunciation of someone who's from Boston, or someone of African American decent and claim that their dialect is not correct.
This chapter also helped affirm what was discussed in the last chapter on phonics based teaching. Students who are constantly corrected on their mistakes begin to only focus on not making a mistake while they read. They are no longer thinking about the meaning of the text. An interesting example from the book is one that I can certainly relate to. This example asked the reader to remember a time when they had to read out loud from complicated text in front of the class. (For me this was reading Shakespeare out loud last semester). The book then asked if I understood the meaning of the text that I read out loud. The answer for me was, no. I had been focusing so hard on not making a mistake that I didn't even understand the meaning behind what I was reading. When my turn passed from reading out loud I even had to re-read it because I had no idea what I just verbally conveyed to the class. Apparently, it is a fact of information-processing that people can not focus on meaning and correctness at the same time.
It was interesting to read about "ability grouping" in this chapter as well. I remember being in elementary school and being put into groups based on if we were reading the "bluebird books" or the "sunshine books". Ability grouping is often determined based on standardized testing. Once students are placed into these lower groups it is hard for them to get out of them. Research shows that teachers interrupt students in lower groups for their miscues two to five times as often as they do for kids in high ability groups. This affirms for the student in the lower group that they are a "bad reader".
In an attempt to change the pattern of student-teacher interaction to accommodate different cultural expectations the book gives many great suggestions including: integrating multicultural literature, discussing inventions by women and minorities, and affirming differences rather than ignoring them. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson also suggest having reading/writing workshops, as well as allowing children to self-select their books when possible.
This chapter showed that literacy is all too often defined in terms of phonics mastery and oral fluency, yet in reality it should be meaning centered.
To begin with, the chapter discusses dialects. It was interesting to read that there is a negative impact of differentiated instruction which is based on social class and dialect in school. I thought about this for a moment and it made perfect sense. An example from the book discussed this man who moved from Kentucky to attend graduate school in Wisconsin. Some of his fellow students in Wisconsin automatically thought that he was less intelligent because of the way he talked.
The chapter went on farther to discuss where the standards of dialect come from. There is no one true correct dialect, although there are many assumptions based around those that are considered to be subpar. We may laugh at pronunciation of someone who's from Boston, or someone of African American decent and claim that their dialect is not correct.
This chapter also helped affirm what was discussed in the last chapter on phonics based teaching. Students who are constantly corrected on their mistakes begin to only focus on not making a mistake while they read. They are no longer thinking about the meaning of the text. An interesting example from the book is one that I can certainly relate to. This example asked the reader to remember a time when they had to read out loud from complicated text in front of the class. (For me this was reading Shakespeare out loud last semester). The book then asked if I understood the meaning of the text that I read out loud. The answer for me was, no. I had been focusing so hard on not making a mistake that I didn't even understand the meaning behind what I was reading. When my turn passed from reading out loud I even had to re-read it because I had no idea what I just verbally conveyed to the class. Apparently, it is a fact of information-processing that people can not focus on meaning and correctness at the same time.
It was interesting to read about "ability grouping" in this chapter as well. I remember being in elementary school and being put into groups based on if we were reading the "bluebird books" or the "sunshine books". Ability grouping is often determined based on standardized testing. Once students are placed into these lower groups it is hard for them to get out of them. Research shows that teachers interrupt students in lower groups for their miscues two to five times as often as they do for kids in high ability groups. This affirms for the student in the lower group that they are a "bad reader".
In an attempt to change the pattern of student-teacher interaction to accommodate different cultural expectations the book gives many great suggestions including: integrating multicultural literature, discussing inventions by women and minorities, and affirming differences rather than ignoring them. Dornan, Rosen, and Wilson also suggest having reading/writing workshops, as well as allowing children to self-select their books when possible.
This chapter showed that literacy is all too often defined in terms of phonics mastery and oral fluency, yet in reality it should be meaning centered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)