Page 59: "Familiar text time provides time for students to flexibly use their reading strategies and skills while reading easy material. It provides balance between easy reading and the challenging tasks that lie ahead."
I connect with the idea of balance suggested in this statement. Reading can be such a frustrating task for students that I try to balance challenging material with high-interest and engaging material. If the material I know that I must teach is out of their realm of personal connection, I will create an activity that provides them with the necessary background knowledge to help them gain a toe-hold on the material. For example, I created a web quest (pleasure) and combined it with the short story (challenge). The web quest gave students a way to investigate one of the largest cases of racial profiling in US history (the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII) and read a letter of apology from the US government (a rarity, as the government seldom apologizes for anything). Their reading was a personal account, an expert from the long work, From Farewell to Manzanar.
Page 61: "Taken together, the elements provide a vehicle for monitoring the effect of instructional adjustments and the balance of instruction using strengths and instruction in areas of need, of contextual reading and strategy lessons, of implicit and explicit instruction, of challenging and familiar reading tasks, of self-selected and teacher-selected materials, and of assessment and instruction."
How do you handle and assess the paperwork associated with this multifaceted approach? How is this laid out? What comes first? What is the end goal? How does one assess the level of progress? What if that is not achieved? How will individual students be accountable?
Page 65: "Task analysis of reading performance pinpoints specific strategies or skills that could increase students' reading."
This seems like an intense process. It also appears to be something that would be constantly reassessed and reevaluated. Do the students practice these strategies on their own? How can one tell if they are using them? I really like that there is a self-assessment component built in. One of the best ways students learn is through self-reflection. This will give them a sense of personal accountability.
Page 69: "The focus is communication between students and teacher; therefore, the teacher should not correct any spelling or grammatical errors."
This could be difficult, especially if they are repeated errors. However, I think it is important for students to feel that they are able to express themselves without red pen worry. Besides, reluctant readers are often reluctant writers and having these types of students practice writing for enjoyment will give them a toe-hold into developing their ideas on paper.
Page 71: "He uses charts to encourage self-assessment and continues the discussion about strategy use. Therefore, he builds responsibility within the students by gradually giving them the control to monitor their own reading behavior."
I wish I could convince all students to buy into this form of self-monitoring. Some students will find success and grow through the process, while others will decide to rely on coping skills.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Chapter 5 and 6
Chapter 5
Page 78: "Sometimes the informal reading inventory does not reveal a problem with oral reading."
Being able to read aloud fluently seems like almost entirely separate issue. I often find when a student reads aloud, they are (and rightfully so) much too concerned with pronunciation, smoothness, voice projection, etc., that it makes it difficult to have a solid grasp of the material. But it makes me wonder...will they need this skill in life? When are people ever asked to read something aloud and then demonstrate comprehension besides in a school setting? If I were to put all my eggs in the comprehension basket, I would focus on what a student is able to comprehend during silent reading. Reading, really is thinking, isn't it? Thinking (like concentrated, engaged thinking) requires silence, right? So wouldn't it make sense to not correlate oral fluency with comprehension?
Page 87: "One of the best ways to evaluate phonic knowledge is to analyze children's spelling. As they spell words, children must think about each letter and its sound and then synthesize these sounds into words."
Really? What about the who consistently spell words phonetically, but incorrectly. Our language rules (specifically vocabulary here) and really very confusing for some learners. We have rules, many of them, and all the rules have exceptions. Why? Craziness.
Page 93-94 & Figure 5-15 & 16 "Strategy Self-Report: When I read, I..." and "Metacognative Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory"
I think these two informal self assessments cause students to reflect upon their participation in the reading process. Struggling readers have a difficult time buying into the fact that they must participate in the reading process. It seems like too much work. If only by doing this assessment, they might be able to realize how crucial active engagement with the text really is. The action of rereading is emphasised here. This is so important. Teens are less patient with this process. Hearing it from a different source might be effective.
Chapter 6
Page 108: "Analysis of a think-aloud, therefore, is a tool for evaluating the reader's comprehension strategies in the context of the entire passage."
This is a solid idea. I have modeled think-aloud sessions in the past, but never entertained the thought of having the student share a think-aloud as a form of (informal or self) assessment. I do, however, do something similar when reading sonnets: I ask the students to read through the poem and rate their comprehension on a scale of 1-10 (10 meaning they could read it, recite it, and explain it; while a 1 would mean that they do not know any of the words). Some will know more than others, but all can identify at least a third of the words. The students share what they know, and with guidance, work together to construct meaning and ultimately reach the goal of all 10s for the class (along with visualization techniques to aid in comprehension).
Page 111: "Some students refuse to predict because they don't want to be wrong."
I agree. Unless the text follows an identifiable pattern, their insecurity is somewhat justified. How does predicting help process meaning? I have been challenged on this one with the question: Why should we predict when we are going to be wrong anyway? What is the sense? I created a "Reading for Meaning" sheet this week which challenged student's thoughts about video games. I created several statements and asked them to agree or disagree. They predicted what the article was going to be about (the article was for video game use, they assumed it was against). Unfortunately, their predictions were wrong, again. Most of the reading strategies seem very helpful, but I am not sold on predicting.
Page 78: "Sometimes the informal reading inventory does not reveal a problem with oral reading."
Being able to read aloud fluently seems like almost entirely separate issue. I often find when a student reads aloud, they are (and rightfully so) much too concerned with pronunciation, smoothness, voice projection, etc., that it makes it difficult to have a solid grasp of the material. But it makes me wonder...will they need this skill in life? When are people ever asked to read something aloud and then demonstrate comprehension besides in a school setting? If I were to put all my eggs in the comprehension basket, I would focus on what a student is able to comprehend during silent reading. Reading, really is thinking, isn't it? Thinking (like concentrated, engaged thinking) requires silence, right? So wouldn't it make sense to not correlate oral fluency with comprehension?
Page 87: "One of the best ways to evaluate phonic knowledge is to analyze children's spelling. As they spell words, children must think about each letter and its sound and then synthesize these sounds into words."
Really? What about the who consistently spell words phonetically, but incorrectly. Our language rules (specifically vocabulary here) and really very confusing for some learners. We have rules, many of them, and all the rules have exceptions. Why? Craziness.
Page 93-94 & Figure 5-15 & 16 "Strategy Self-Report: When I read, I..." and "Metacognative Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory"
I think these two informal self assessments cause students to reflect upon their participation in the reading process. Struggling readers have a difficult time buying into the fact that they must participate in the reading process. It seems like too much work. If only by doing this assessment, they might be able to realize how crucial active engagement with the text really is. The action of rereading is emphasised here. This is so important. Teens are less patient with this process. Hearing it from a different source might be effective.
Chapter 6
Page 108: "Analysis of a think-aloud, therefore, is a tool for evaluating the reader's comprehension strategies in the context of the entire passage."
This is a solid idea. I have modeled think-aloud sessions in the past, but never entertained the thought of having the student share a think-aloud as a form of (informal or self) assessment. I do, however, do something similar when reading sonnets: I ask the students to read through the poem and rate their comprehension on a scale of 1-10 (10 meaning they could read it, recite it, and explain it; while a 1 would mean that they do not know any of the words). Some will know more than others, but all can identify at least a third of the words. The students share what they know, and with guidance, work together to construct meaning and ultimately reach the goal of all 10s for the class (along with visualization techniques to aid in comprehension).
Page 111: "Some students refuse to predict because they don't want to be wrong."
I agree. Unless the text follows an identifiable pattern, their insecurity is somewhat justified. How does predicting help process meaning? I have been challenged on this one with the question: Why should we predict when we are going to be wrong anyway? What is the sense? I created a "Reading for Meaning" sheet this week which challenged student's thoughts about video games. I created several statements and asked them to agree or disagree. They predicted what the article was going to be about (the article was for video game use, they assumed it was against). Unfortunately, their predictions were wrong, again. Most of the reading strategies seem very helpful, but I am not sold on predicting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
