Posts
10 years ago
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Day I Have Been Dreading
Today is a day that will live in infamy, at least up until now in my short teaching career. My MT was at a conference all day, and even though a sub was hired, the school had her helping out in other classrooms, under the ridiculously mistaken notion that as long as I was in the room, everything would be fine.
The day started out OK, but I hit a serious roadblock when it was time for math. The kids were extremely rowdy, and to make matters worse, halfway through the lesson I couldn't find the worksheets what I was supposed to pass out, and the entire class disintegrated into chaos.
Although I made a feeble recovery later in the afternoon, it was a day on which I was seriously questioning my career choice. Thankfully, I found comfort and solace in a fellow cohort member's blog entry dealing with a similarly trying day.
Her expert advice included the following:
My MT pulled me aside after class ended to talk things over. Among her suggestions were these:
1. I must nip inappropriate behaviors in the bud
2. Which means that I must develop my ability to engage my whole-class radar
3. Don't ever admit that a lesson is "dry" - must present it as fun, cool
4. Feel free to change course if it feels right
I will chalk today up to a test run, and hopefully do better next time.
The day started out OK, but I hit a serious roadblock when it was time for math. The kids were extremely rowdy, and to make matters worse, halfway through the lesson I couldn't find the worksheets what I was supposed to pass out, and the entire class disintegrated into chaos.
Although I made a feeble recovery later in the afternoon, it was a day on which I was seriously questioning my career choice. Thankfully, I found comfort and solace in a fellow cohort member's blog entry dealing with a similarly trying day.
Her expert advice included the following:
My MT pulled me aside after class ended to talk things over. Among her suggestions were these:
1. I must nip inappropriate behaviors in the bud
2. Which means that I must develop my ability to engage my whole-class radar
3. Don't ever admit that a lesson is "dry" - must present it as fun, cool
4. Feel free to change course if it feels right
I will chalk today up to a test run, and hopefully do better next time.
Social Studies Lesson: Japanese-American Internment During World War II
This is a voicethread I created that incorporates audio, video, text and images. It's a really cool tool and something I would definitely find ways to use in a classroom.
To comment go to:
http://voicethread.com/share/959062/
Monday, February 15, 2010
Literacy - C14 - Winter Quarter - Week 7
As you read the variety of articles for next time, focus on making connections between the Mesmer and Mesmer article on RTI and at least one of the other assigned readings. What conceptual similarities or differences do you see?
I thought that there were some interesting parallels between the Mesmers' article and Au's chapter on "Literary Instruction in Multicultural Settings." I found it noteworthy that the Mesmers noted that "learning disabilities cannot be diagnosed when appropriate instruction, socioeconomic status, culture, sensory issues, emotional oissues, or English as a second language may be of concern (p.281). This seems important in light of some of Au's findings, in particular with regard to a teacher's failure or inability to recognize or be aware of cultural differenences when ascertaining literacy. Although the Mesmers are primarily concerned with RTI's approach to increase the quantity and quality of instruction for struggling readers, one cannot help but wonder if many students are improperly or incorrectly diagnosed with a reading disability when in fact it may have more to do with what Au describes as the common mistake of some teachers to assume that students share mainstream assumptions about reading and literacy. This is why it is so important for assessments and other evaluation materials used in RTI to be valid and reliable without racial or cultural bias.
This issue is accentuated when one considers the ever increasing number of ELL students in our public schools, and the fact that very few teachers Very are trained to work with students who have diverse language backgrounds, let alone diverse cultural traditions. However, it does raise one troubling issue, sinc the RTI approach to identifying learning disabilities rests heavily on the ability of general educators to prevent serious learning difficulties by meeting the needs of the overwhelming majority of their students. Even though RTI is commonly considered to be a "general education" initiative, it seems that the Mesmers article is directed specifically to school psychologists and special educators. What is desperately needed is more directly relevant information, data and strategies to the needs and concerns of general educators. At the same time, the ever-present paradox of trying to implement some of Au's themes and practices into the general education classroom rears its ugly head. A good teacher has to make sure that he or she is not making any literacy assumptions and/or evaluations with any sort of cultural bias, lest a student is wrongly diagnosed with literacy problems, while at the same time implementing some of Au's ideas could in fact help delay or impede timely recogniztion of true literacy problems within students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, all of this has to take place in the context of a busy teacher attending to the literacy needs of all of his or her students.
I guess for me the biggest question left unanswered is how compatible are "Response to Intervention" and "Culturally Responsive Instruction," and assuming that they can both, in fact, be implemented, are we targeting a relatively narrow demographic of students in order to address literacy problems in the classroom. I wish I had the answer.
Just as a side note, one other problem I had with the Au article is when she extols the virtues of talk-story-like reading lessons, stating that its main purpose is for the "group to come to a shared understanding of the story being read." (p. 116) I guess I understand this approach in the younger grades and ages, but I am always fearful when there is a "consensus result" to literacy, since I can envision minority views or opinions of a literary work being either alienated, intimidated or overridden in such a setting. I am sure Au did not intend that, but I think sometimes there is a tendency, especially among children, to pick up on what the majority of students are thinking or saying, and are either unable or unwilling to give voice to a minority opinion or interpretation.
I thought that there were some interesting parallels between the Mesmers' article and Au's chapter on "Literary Instruction in Multicultural Settings." I found it noteworthy that the Mesmers noted that "learning disabilities cannot be diagnosed when appropriate instruction, socioeconomic status, culture, sensory issues, emotional oissues, or English as a second language may be of concern (p.281). This seems important in light of some of Au's findings, in particular with regard to a teacher's failure or inability to recognize or be aware of cultural differenences when ascertaining literacy. Although the Mesmers are primarily concerned with RTI's approach to increase the quantity and quality of instruction for struggling readers, one cannot help but wonder if many students are improperly or incorrectly diagnosed with a reading disability when in fact it may have more to do with what Au describes as the common mistake of some teachers to assume that students share mainstream assumptions about reading and literacy. This is why it is so important for assessments and other evaluation materials used in RTI to be valid and reliable without racial or cultural bias.
This issue is accentuated when one considers the ever increasing number of ELL students in our public schools, and the fact that very few teachers Very are trained to work with students who have diverse language backgrounds, let alone diverse cultural traditions. However, it does raise one troubling issue, sinc the RTI approach to identifying learning disabilities rests heavily on the ability of general educators to prevent serious learning difficulties by meeting the needs of the overwhelming majority of their students. Even though RTI is commonly considered to be a "general education" initiative, it seems that the Mesmers article is directed specifically to school psychologists and special educators. What is desperately needed is more directly relevant information, data and strategies to the needs and concerns of general educators. At the same time, the ever-present paradox of trying to implement some of Au's themes and practices into the general education classroom rears its ugly head. A good teacher has to make sure that he or she is not making any literacy assumptions and/or evaluations with any sort of cultural bias, lest a student is wrongly diagnosed with literacy problems, while at the same time implementing some of Au's ideas could in fact help delay or impede timely recogniztion of true literacy problems within students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, all of this has to take place in the context of a busy teacher attending to the literacy needs of all of his or her students.
I guess for me the biggest question left unanswered is how compatible are "Response to Intervention" and "Culturally Responsive Instruction," and assuming that they can both, in fact, be implemented, are we targeting a relatively narrow demographic of students in order to address literacy problems in the classroom. I wish I had the answer.
Just as a side note, one other problem I had with the Au article is when she extols the virtues of talk-story-like reading lessons, stating that its main purpose is for the "group to come to a shared understanding of the story being read." (p. 116) I guess I understand this approach in the younger grades and ages, but I am always fearful when there is a "consensus result" to literacy, since I can envision minority views or opinions of a literary work being either alienated, intimidated or overridden in such a setting. I am sure Au did not intend that, but I think sometimes there is a tendency, especially among children, to pick up on what the majority of students are thinking or saying, and are either unable or unwilling to give voice to a minority opinion or interpretation.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Literacy - C14 - Winter Quarter - Week 6
Tovani is concerned about the comprehension abilities of adolescent readers. Why does Tovani talk about "fake reading"? How does this relate to the expectations and purposes for reading that he goes on to discuss? What do these have to do with comprehension?
There is probably not a literate person alive who has never engaged in the art of "fake reading," and that certainly includes me. If we are going to be completely honest, I have occasionally engaged in the practice during the Teacher Certification Program (but of course, not in either of my brilliantly taught literacy courses). But I can't really claim that this is a holdover from any practices learned in my adolescence. Sometimes it is as simple a matter as being unengaged and/or uninspired by an assigned reading (if somebody is engaging in fake reading for non-assigned reading then that may be indicative of a more serious social problem; it would be like reading Cliff Notes for pleasure, rather than reading actual literary works).
I know from experience that the first times (in junior high or high school) that I was assigned books that (at that point in time) really didn't connect with me (e.g. The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick) I ran right for the Cliff Notes. Could those books have been taught in a way that would have made me want to read the actual books instead of a synopsis? Perhaps, although I tend to doubt it. I had no trouble with the vocabulary, or even the diverse literary devices Melville employs. It just bored the crap out of me, and the effort of teachers to portray it as some sort of adventure novel about whaling didn't help matters. Sometimes it is simply a matter of age and readiness. When I eventually did read Moby Dick, in graduate school, I was mesmerized and fascinated by it, but only because I then possessed the knowledge and experience to appreciate the vastness and complexity of the book.
What I liked about Tovani is that she confronts the issue of "fake reading" head on, and has an open and honest discussion about it with her students, rather than just telling them that she knows all the so-called tricks and dodges. As she implies, it is in the choice of powerful and meaningful texts that we can begin to break students of this habit. Thankfully, many school districts no longer REQUIRE that third or sixth or eighth graders read a specific book, and that the discretion can often rest with the teacher, and, even more importantly, with the students themselves.
For instance, if a class is about to read Jack London's Call of the Wild, it may be a great strategy to introduce the book through an interesting newspaper or magazine article, or perhaps even a music video(!), and then to have a class discussion about it. Reading the first chapter out loud, as a group read, with lots of pauses for questions and discussion would also help. I think many of the strategies that Tovani puts forward, such as thinking aloud or annotating a text makes wonderful sense (mere highlighting, in my experience, can often be either a distraction or yet another way of shortcutting, i.e., skimming a text until you find something that you think is important - this may be OK in a history textbook, but would really hinder the enjoyment of a novel).
Part of the issue, for me, is that in my main placement, because it is a class of gifted children, nearly all of whom not only are above-average readers, but who, for the most part, also genuinely love to read, I don't have much day to day experience observing fake reading in practice. That is why it is so refreshing to read other people's experiences, especially those in lower grades, where fake reading is undoubedly more prevalent.
In the final analysis, comprehension has to do with deep, thoughtful thinking, and while it may seem counterintuitive to "teach" somebody how to think (which is another way of saying "comprehend"), Tovani's strategies allow students to connect their already active thinking processes into reading and comprehending a text. In other words, they need to be made aware of the thinking process itself, rather than to merely be told or admonished that they "need to think."
There is probably not a literate person alive who has never engaged in the art of "fake reading," and that certainly includes me. If we are going to be completely honest, I have occasionally engaged in the practice during the Teacher Certification Program (but of course, not in either of my brilliantly taught literacy courses). But I can't really claim that this is a holdover from any practices learned in my adolescence. Sometimes it is as simple a matter as being unengaged and/or uninspired by an assigned reading (if somebody is engaging in fake reading for non-assigned reading then that may be indicative of a more serious social problem; it would be like reading Cliff Notes for pleasure, rather than reading actual literary works).
I know from experience that the first times (in junior high or high school) that I was assigned books that (at that point in time) really didn't connect with me (e.g. The Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick) I ran right for the Cliff Notes. Could those books have been taught in a way that would have made me want to read the actual books instead of a synopsis? Perhaps, although I tend to doubt it. I had no trouble with the vocabulary, or even the diverse literary devices Melville employs. It just bored the crap out of me, and the effort of teachers to portray it as some sort of adventure novel about whaling didn't help matters. Sometimes it is simply a matter of age and readiness. When I eventually did read Moby Dick, in graduate school, I was mesmerized and fascinated by it, but only because I then possessed the knowledge and experience to appreciate the vastness and complexity of the book.
What I liked about Tovani is that she confronts the issue of "fake reading" head on, and has an open and honest discussion about it with her students, rather than just telling them that she knows all the so-called tricks and dodges. As she implies, it is in the choice of powerful and meaningful texts that we can begin to break students of this habit. Thankfully, many school districts no longer REQUIRE that third or sixth or eighth graders read a specific book, and that the discretion can often rest with the teacher, and, even more importantly, with the students themselves.
For instance, if a class is about to read Jack London's Call of the Wild, it may be a great strategy to introduce the book through an interesting newspaper or magazine article, or perhaps even a music video(!), and then to have a class discussion about it. Reading the first chapter out loud, as a group read, with lots of pauses for questions and discussion would also help. I think many of the strategies that Tovani puts forward, such as thinking aloud or annotating a text makes wonderful sense (mere highlighting, in my experience, can often be either a distraction or yet another way of shortcutting, i.e., skimming a text until you find something that you think is important - this may be OK in a history textbook, but would really hinder the enjoyment of a novel).
Part of the issue, for me, is that in my main placement, because it is a class of gifted children, nearly all of whom not only are above-average readers, but who, for the most part, also genuinely love to read, I don't have much day to day experience observing fake reading in practice. That is why it is so refreshing to read other people's experiences, especially those in lower grades, where fake reading is undoubedly more prevalent.
In the final analysis, comprehension has to do with deep, thoughtful thinking, and while it may seem counterintuitive to "teach" somebody how to think (which is another way of saying "comprehend"), Tovani's strategies allow students to connect their already active thinking processes into reading and comprehending a text. In other words, they need to be made aware of the thinking process itself, rather than to merely be told or admonished that they "need to think."
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Literacy - C14 - Winter Quarter - Week 5
Cooper and Routman 8 (both chapters are required reading):
How are these two readings similar to each other and how are they different? You might explore this question in a global sense or you might consider a few specific points of comparison. Additionally, what aspects of the Optimal Learning Model are evident in the readings? Why are think alouds so important in comprehension strategy instruction? Have you seen this type of instruction in your placement? What is similar or dissimilar? Please consider these questions and focus on an element of the readings that is of particular interest to you.
The obvious similarity in these two readings is that they both deal with constructing meaning and reading comprehension, but interestingly, Cooper talks a lot about the various strategies that teachers use in order to get students to construct meaning, while Routman's chapter emphasizes that comprehension strategies and exercises, in isolation, can have a negative effect and that, in fact, the strategies often become synonomous with comprehension, something I doubt Cooper would disagree with, although there did seem to be a difference in emphasis.
I found some of Cooper's enumerated strategies to be of interest (particularly those that I have seen being utilized in my placements), although by the end of the chapter I couldn't help but remember Routman's cautionary words that "so much emphasis on comprehension strategies can actually make reading harder." I think there are some really valid and exciting strategies, such as "Making Connections," which both my main placement teacher and DYAD teachers put a lot of stock in, but I have also seen this strategy, like others, become rather laborious and boring to students. A student who is struggling in reading for comprehension is likely to struggle when utilizing the various strategies, so ironically, I guess what is needed is a strategy for teaching strategies for teaching comprehension!
As I understand it, comprehension relies on mastery of decoding and that students who struggle to decode find it difficult to understand and remember what has been read. Because these efforts to grasp individual words prove so exhausting, they have few if any resources left for constructing meaning. These problems can ran the gamut, from confusion about the meaning of words and sentences or the inability to connect ideas in a passage to glossing over detail or a lack of concentration during reading. The first challenge facing a teacher who is dealing with a student with reading comprehension problems is to diagonese the specific problem(s), or else any or all of those strategies could be a collosal waste of time. And yet I have found, in my observations, that this is not such an easy problem to diagnose, and certainly by the time students get into the later elementary or middle school grades, it will become even more difficult, because of the resulting frustration and disappointment that the student is probably feeling.
The guided practice that Routman recommends seems vital and necessary. My only concern (as always) is the amount of time and patience it takes to zero in on a particular student's comprehension problems, both in terms of its roots, and then, by extension, the strategy necessary to correct the problem, and finally, the strategy needed to put the needed strategy into play. Not only can this be exhausting, but I wonder, realistically, how a single teacher deals with this, assuming that there are several readers in a class struggling with this issue. Without trying to be too cynical, I find that while Routman and Cooper expertly diagnose problems, strategies, and yes, even solutions, they seeem to operate in a neverneverland of one-on-one teacher/student instruction. Even in my experiences at Juanita, working with a sixth grader who has some comprehension issues (thankfully not major) demonstrates how much time a teacher needs to analyze and strategize a solution to comprehension problems.
In any event, there is much good information in these articles. I just worry how much individualized attention can be paid to those students who most desperately need to read for meaning, while at the same time not leveling your assigned readings to the point where it no longer proves challenging to students who have mastered the necessary skills of proficient reading.
How are these two readings similar to each other and how are they different? You might explore this question in a global sense or you might consider a few specific points of comparison. Additionally, what aspects of the Optimal Learning Model are evident in the readings? Why are think alouds so important in comprehension strategy instruction? Have you seen this type of instruction in your placement? What is similar or dissimilar? Please consider these questions and focus on an element of the readings that is of particular interest to you.
The obvious similarity in these two readings is that they both deal with constructing meaning and reading comprehension, but interestingly, Cooper talks a lot about the various strategies that teachers use in order to get students to construct meaning, while Routman's chapter emphasizes that comprehension strategies and exercises, in isolation, can have a negative effect and that, in fact, the strategies often become synonomous with comprehension, something I doubt Cooper would disagree with, although there did seem to be a difference in emphasis.
I found some of Cooper's enumerated strategies to be of interest (particularly those that I have seen being utilized in my placements), although by the end of the chapter I couldn't help but remember Routman's cautionary words that "so much emphasis on comprehension strategies can actually make reading harder." I think there are some really valid and exciting strategies, such as "Making Connections," which both my main placement teacher and DYAD teachers put a lot of stock in, but I have also seen this strategy, like others, become rather laborious and boring to students. A student who is struggling in reading for comprehension is likely to struggle when utilizing the various strategies, so ironically, I guess what is needed is a strategy for teaching strategies for teaching comprehension!
As I understand it, comprehension relies on mastery of decoding and that students who struggle to decode find it difficult to understand and remember what has been read. Because these efforts to grasp individual words prove so exhausting, they have few if any resources left for constructing meaning. These problems can ran the gamut, from confusion about the meaning of words and sentences or the inability to connect ideas in a passage to glossing over detail or a lack of concentration during reading. The first challenge facing a teacher who is dealing with a student with reading comprehension problems is to diagonese the specific problem(s), or else any or all of those strategies could be a collosal waste of time. And yet I have found, in my observations, that this is not such an easy problem to diagnose, and certainly by the time students get into the later elementary or middle school grades, it will become even more difficult, because of the resulting frustration and disappointment that the student is probably feeling.
The guided practice that Routman recommends seems vital and necessary. My only concern (as always) is the amount of time and patience it takes to zero in on a particular student's comprehension problems, both in terms of its roots, and then, by extension, the strategy necessary to correct the problem, and finally, the strategy needed to put the needed strategy into play. Not only can this be exhausting, but I wonder, realistically, how a single teacher deals with this, assuming that there are several readers in a class struggling with this issue. Without trying to be too cynical, I find that while Routman and Cooper expertly diagnose problems, strategies, and yes, even solutions, they seeem to operate in a neverneverland of one-on-one teacher/student instruction. Even in my experiences at Juanita, working with a sixth grader who has some comprehension issues (thankfully not major) demonstrates how much time a teacher needs to analyze and strategize a solution to comprehension problems.
In any event, there is much good information in these articles. I just worry how much individualized attention can be paid to those students who most desperately need to read for meaning, while at the same time not leveling your assigned readings to the point where it no longer proves challenging to students who have mastered the necessary skills of proficient reading.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Literacy - C14 - Winter Quarter - Week 3
Routman lists five things she does to ensure students become excellent readers (p. 43). Choose one of these five. Support it with examples from Routman chapters 1-4, the optimal learning model, Cambourne?s conditions of learning, and/or examples from your placement (or non-examples if applicable). In other words, make a case for this point's importance.
Of the five things Routman lists as important to ensure students become excellent readers, I was most struck by #3: "Let students choose books they want to read and give them time to read them." For the most part I wholeheartedly concur with this point (with a couple of caveats mentioned below) because I think anything that fosters a child's sense of independence and freedom, especially when it comes to choosing reading matter, yields great results. When I was "interviewing" my sixth grader at Juanita last week, I asked him what his least favorite part of reading was, and he quickly said "the Houghton book," referring to the literature anthology that serves as the class' textbook for reading. He found most of the selections in the book to be boring and uninspiring, and much preferred to make his own reading list. This seems to fit in perfectly with Routman's emphasis on working towards independence and promoting a joy in learning (p. 48).
Having said that, I think it is important to stress that allowing students to choose the books they want to read becomes much more important in the higher elementary grades (4th grade and above), since my own observations have led me to believe that younger students require a bit more structure and guidance, both in reading skills AND reading choices (which is not to say that younger kids should also have some say in what they want to read). However, for example, last quarter, I was a bit bothered by my Juanita's second grader's choice of books, specifically, DIARY OF A WIMPY KID, which I think she was reading because of their popularity more than their appropriateness for her own interests (I was not only NOT convinced that she got much of the humor or substance of the book, or that she was retaining much of anything, but I also thought she was way too young for some of the book's dicier adolescent situations).
I was somewhat surprised in my DYAD placement, which was an 8th/9th grade language arts class at a junior high school, how little "choice" the students were given in terms of what was being read as a "class," and that most of the literature work were books that were being read by the class as a whole, rather than allow students to write about and explore the books they were reading on their own. While I understand it on a "practical" basis (imagine trying to assess 300 book reports on 300 different books), it seemed that the kids detested the literature anthology textbook as much as the Juanita sixth grader. As for myself, I have no recollection of being able to read books of my own choosing for any English course until perhaps being a senior in high school.
I think in the younger grades, a "structured" list of reading choices may be more appropriate, which is not to say that even a sixth grade teacher shouldn't "approve" selected books. I have noticed in my main placement that some kids will also choose inappropriate books, as well as books that are too easy or juvenile for them. A teacher has to walk a difficult path in granting kids freedom of choice while at the same time ensuring that they are making good and productive choices.
I also think that letting students "choose" their books is an excellent way of getting to know your students as readers (Routman, p. 20), since you can tell so much about a child based on those choices, and the interests that they reflect. Sometimes, even if they are making ill-informed or inappropriate choices, you can at least ascertain subject matter interests, and possibly steer the student to similar yet more appropriate books that would grab their interest, as well as helping students to become more diverse and well-rounded readers. For instance, in my main placement, there are still a few students obsessed with either Calvin & Hobbes or Pokemon, neither of which are really acceptable choices for book reports or "literature circles," but both of which can be used as springboards to try and lead the kids to more "literary" choices that they may be likely to respond to.
Of course the challenge remains for the teacher to be as well-informed and well-versed in an extraordinary number of books if they are to give thoughtful and productive assessments of the students' comprehension and choice of reading matter, and this is no easy task, as I discovered while trying to grade 30 book reports on 30different books, none of which I had the least familiarity with.
Of the five things Routman lists as important to ensure students become excellent readers, I was most struck by #3: "Let students choose books they want to read and give them time to read them." For the most part I wholeheartedly concur with this point (with a couple of caveats mentioned below) because I think anything that fosters a child's sense of independence and freedom, especially when it comes to choosing reading matter, yields great results. When I was "interviewing" my sixth grader at Juanita last week, I asked him what his least favorite part of reading was, and he quickly said "the Houghton book," referring to the literature anthology that serves as the class' textbook for reading. He found most of the selections in the book to be boring and uninspiring, and much preferred to make his own reading list. This seems to fit in perfectly with Routman's emphasis on working towards independence and promoting a joy in learning (p. 48).
Having said that, I think it is important to stress that allowing students to choose the books they want to read becomes much more important in the higher elementary grades (4th grade and above), since my own observations have led me to believe that younger students require a bit more structure and guidance, both in reading skills AND reading choices (which is not to say that younger kids should also have some say in what they want to read). However, for example, last quarter, I was a bit bothered by my Juanita's second grader's choice of books, specifically, DIARY OF A WIMPY KID, which I think she was reading because of their popularity more than their appropriateness for her own interests (I was not only NOT convinced that she got much of the humor or substance of the book, or that she was retaining much of anything, but I also thought she was way too young for some of the book's dicier adolescent situations).
I was somewhat surprised in my DYAD placement, which was an 8th/9th grade language arts class at a junior high school, how little "choice" the students were given in terms of what was being read as a "class," and that most of the literature work were books that were being read by the class as a whole, rather than allow students to write about and explore the books they were reading on their own. While I understand it on a "practical" basis (imagine trying to assess 300 book reports on 300 different books), it seemed that the kids detested the literature anthology textbook as much as the Juanita sixth grader. As for myself, I have no recollection of being able to read books of my own choosing for any English course until perhaps being a senior in high school.
I think in the younger grades, a "structured" list of reading choices may be more appropriate, which is not to say that even a sixth grade teacher shouldn't "approve" selected books. I have noticed in my main placement that some kids will also choose inappropriate books, as well as books that are too easy or juvenile for them. A teacher has to walk a difficult path in granting kids freedom of choice while at the same time ensuring that they are making good and productive choices.
I also think that letting students "choose" their books is an excellent way of getting to know your students as readers (Routman, p. 20), since you can tell so much about a child based on those choices, and the interests that they reflect. Sometimes, even if they are making ill-informed or inappropriate choices, you can at least ascertain subject matter interests, and possibly steer the student to similar yet more appropriate books that would grab their interest, as well as helping students to become more diverse and well-rounded readers. For instance, in my main placement, there are still a few students obsessed with either Calvin & Hobbes or Pokemon, neither of which are really acceptable choices for book reports or "literature circles," but both of which can be used as springboards to try and lead the kids to more "literary" choices that they may be likely to respond to.
Of course the challenge remains for the teacher to be as well-informed and well-versed in an extraordinary number of books if they are to give thoughtful and productive assessments of the students' comprehension and choice of reading matter, and this is no easy task, as I discovered while trying to grade 30 book reports on 30different books, none of which I had the least familiarity with.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Literacy - C14 - Winter Quarter - Week 2
Templeton and Morris: What aspects of spelling instruction mentioned in this article do you see playing out in your placement? Pick one aspect to describe and discuss how it works with kids.
One of the disadvantages of having my main placement in an upper elementary class (5th/6th), as well as in a gifted student program, is that I see relatively little spelling being taught in the classroom, since the assumption is that gifted kids at that level already should be pretty good spellers, and for the most part this assumption is true. However, I do notice that there are several students who could use some of the instruction set forth in the Templeton/Morris article.
One of the problems I have noticed is that some of the more gifted kids seem to rely more heavily on computers to do their assignments, and of course they have grown accustomed to defaulting to spellcheck on their word documents. This becomes most evident in a comparison to students' handwritten work and their "typed" work. What I find interesting is that many of the more difficult words are spelled correctly on their typed work, but that certain "easy" words are misspelled or misapplied, mainly because the words themselves aren't technically misspelled, but are used incorrectly (e.g., there for their). Also words that get spelled correctly on the computer-generated work are routinely misspelled in handwritten work for some students.
Again, the problem is that the curriculum for a 5th/6th grade advanced class doesn't really have room for spelling, and my mentor teacher has neither the time nor inclination to teach spelling (since, admittedly, it is only a fraction of the students that require it). What I would love to see happen is to have a small breakout group of the inferior spellers be given explicit teacher-directed instruction, as recommended in the article on p. 108-109, with the emphasis on
pattern, and the exploration of derivational patterns. The kids in my class generally have good vocabulary, but are constantly trying to expand and improve it, and some of the instructional activities associated with patterns, as set forth in the article, would undoubtedly prove most useful. The strategy of reasoning by analogy would also work extremely well for the majority of the class when it comes to spelling unfamiliar words, which many of them encounter daily in their readings (although they are very well trained in looking up words in a dictionary, which only gets you so far if you understand patterns in the first place).
Also, as a side note, my DYAD placement was in a language arts class at a junior high school, and by and large, their spelling was atrocious! However, they were even more reliant on computer spell checks then elementary school kids, and attempting to teach spelling after sixth grade seems to be an abandoned cause.
One of the disadvantages of having my main placement in an upper elementary class (5th/6th), as well as in a gifted student program, is that I see relatively little spelling being taught in the classroom, since the assumption is that gifted kids at that level already should be pretty good spellers, and for the most part this assumption is true. However, I do notice that there are several students who could use some of the instruction set forth in the Templeton/Morris article.
One of the problems I have noticed is that some of the more gifted kids seem to rely more heavily on computers to do their assignments, and of course they have grown accustomed to defaulting to spellcheck on their word documents. This becomes most evident in a comparison to students' handwritten work and their "typed" work. What I find interesting is that many of the more difficult words are spelled correctly on their typed work, but that certain "easy" words are misspelled or misapplied, mainly because the words themselves aren't technically misspelled, but are used incorrectly (e.g., there for their). Also words that get spelled correctly on the computer-generated work are routinely misspelled in handwritten work for some students.
Again, the problem is that the curriculum for a 5th/6th grade advanced class doesn't really have room for spelling, and my mentor teacher has neither the time nor inclination to teach spelling (since, admittedly, it is only a fraction of the students that require it). What I would love to see happen is to have a small breakout group of the inferior spellers be given explicit teacher-directed instruction, as recommended in the article on p. 108-109, with the emphasis on
pattern, and the exploration of derivational patterns. The kids in my class generally have good vocabulary, but are constantly trying to expand and improve it, and some of the instructional activities associated with patterns, as set forth in the article, would undoubtedly prove most useful. The strategy of reasoning by analogy would also work extremely well for the majority of the class when it comes to spelling unfamiliar words, which many of them encounter daily in their readings (although they are very well trained in looking up words in a dictionary, which only gets you so far if you understand patterns in the first place).
Also, as a side note, my DYAD placement was in a language arts class at a junior high school, and by and large, their spelling was atrocious! However, they were even more reliant on computer spell checks then elementary school kids, and attempting to teach spelling after sixth grade seems to be an abandoned cause.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
