Hey Nick,
I focused my attentions on the website this week, so I'm glad to read about your impressions regarding the Weinstein/Mignano reading. I remember reading those statistics about gender participation in a book I read for TE 250. I had the same reaction - surprise. In this book that I read, it emphasized how loud, talkative boys were condoned by teachers, who often had a sort of "boys-will-be-boys" attitude, while talkative girls were punished for their behavior. What surprises me most is how this is contrary to what I've seen in the classroom. If anything, I've noticed girls getting favorable treatment for loudness in discussions; my CT will sometimes call on girls who do not wait patiently for a turn to speak, while I've noticed her intentionally pass over boys for the same impatience. This other book was written about 15 years ago, so the question that this gives me is, have things changed over these years? If not, is there evidence for this gender participation difference that I am not recognizing as such?
Dave Koch
Friday, February 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Good Assessments and Reliable Rubrics
I was intrigued to learn about Performance Assessments on the website we looked at for this week’s class. Though the pages of the website I looked at did not go into a justification for the superiority of Performance Assessments over standard multiple-choice type assessments, it didn’t take much to convince me. Multiple-choice assessments implicitly encourage “cramming,” or intense studying by way of rote memorization for a short period of time before the assessment, because information can be crammed and remembered for the purposes of recall in this method. After all, multiple-choice questions actually give students the answer; it is simply located among other possible responses. So, all someone needs is for their memory to be jogged to push them in the direction of the right answer – the one already provided for them. This is different from being able to write the content of the correct responses to these questions without in one’s own words without choosing from possible responses. Any student will tell you that the latter is more difficult. This is the case, however, because it requires a deeper, more integrated sort of knowledge – the sort that we should earnestly desire our students to attain.
I still remember the circumstances of the final exam in my freshman biology class. I was given a study guide that contained all of and only the questions that would be on the test; all I needed to do was remember what was on that sheet. I memorized it, got an A for my effort, and quickly forgot all of the material.
Contrast this with my Science for Elementary Teachers (SME 301) class last semester. The tests had mostly open-ended essay questions, like “explain the changes that occur in a melting ice cube on both a substance and molecular level.” Even later in the semester, when we were done with learning about changes of state, questions would be asked that would draw on this knowledge. Though the essay format was a bit scary at first, I had a fair opportunity of knowing what was expected in my answer: in the class prior to our essays, we would develop the rubric as a class for what knowledge would be tested.
As the Performance Assessment website indicates, having a rubric in SME made the essay scoring process fair and sound. We as students knew how to evaluate our own work. I even believe that a competent individual unfamiliar with the material could have used the rubric to score and produce very similar results as our professor. Thus, the website would call this a good assessment with a highly reliable scoring rubric. Being able to have a hand in the rubric’s development as a class gave me as the student a feeling of responsibility of learning the material. And this learning could only focus on getting a deep, integrated understanding of the material, since I would have to write about it using my own words and my own structure of understanding, and would have to hang on to that knowledge for the whole semester. As a result, I could still tell you a lot about what happens when an ice cube melts!
I must admit: before checking out this website, I thought I would be developing scores and scores of multiple-choice questions in my years as a teacher. My mind is now changed. I realize the great benefit to students’ learning of questions and tasks that are more open-ended. To evaluate these tasks, I realize that a scoring rubric that is made clear to students and that makes grading into simply applying the rubric is critical. The only thing I am missing is some practice in creating such activities and their corresponding rubrics. When do you (the reader of this blog) think I will have such an opportunity?
I still remember the circumstances of the final exam in my freshman biology class. I was given a study guide that contained all of and only the questions that would be on the test; all I needed to do was remember what was on that sheet. I memorized it, got an A for my effort, and quickly forgot all of the material.
Contrast this with my Science for Elementary Teachers (SME 301) class last semester. The tests had mostly open-ended essay questions, like “explain the changes that occur in a melting ice cube on both a substance and molecular level.” Even later in the semester, when we were done with learning about changes of state, questions would be asked that would draw on this knowledge. Though the essay format was a bit scary at first, I had a fair opportunity of knowing what was expected in my answer: in the class prior to our essays, we would develop the rubric as a class for what knowledge would be tested.
As the Performance Assessment website indicates, having a rubric in SME made the essay scoring process fair and sound. We as students knew how to evaluate our own work. I even believe that a competent individual unfamiliar with the material could have used the rubric to score and produce very similar results as our professor. Thus, the website would call this a good assessment with a highly reliable scoring rubric. Being able to have a hand in the rubric’s development as a class gave me as the student a feeling of responsibility of learning the material. And this learning could only focus on getting a deep, integrated understanding of the material, since I would have to write about it using my own words and my own structure of understanding, and would have to hang on to that knowledge for the whole semester. As a result, I could still tell you a lot about what happens when an ice cube melts!
I must admit: before checking out this website, I thought I would be developing scores and scores of multiple-choice questions in my years as a teacher. My mind is now changed. I realize the great benefit to students’ learning of questions and tasks that are more open-ended. To evaluate these tasks, I realize that a scoring rubric that is made clear to students and that makes grading into simply applying the rubric is critical. The only thing I am missing is some practice in creating such activities and their corresponding rubrics. When do you (the reader of this blog) think I will have such an opportunity?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Facilitating Student Participation
I thought that the Weinstein & Mignano chapter on Managing Recitations and Discussions was both enlightening and eye opening. There were a few specific areas that I would like to focus on as they were especially beneficial or informational to me.
First of all I was surprised to read the differences in gender participation and involvement within the average classroom. I was shocked to see the differences between the numbers of girls versus the number of boys getting called on and/or participating in group discussions or recitation. The fact that "boys called out answers eight times more often than girls did" was something that struck off guard (309). Additionally, it is really surprising to see that teachers tend to listen to the ideas of males more often, as well as provide more in depth and helpful feedback.
When thinking about running my own class discussions, specifically in regards to our upcoming language arts lesson, I tend to get a little nervous and wonder how I will structure my discussion so that I receive good feedback, and so that my students are involved and attentive throughout it. I find it even more overwhelming that it is important to call on a variety of students on order to work towards more equal participation within the classroom; I must try not to call only on those who are always participating, as well as try to avoid calling on those who are truly embarrassed or intimidated to speak (306).
The final aspect of this chapter that I really liked was the section about different strategies for distributing chances for participation. I especially thought that the "response cards" or dry-erase board strategy is one that would be very beneficial at least in including each student, as well as seemingly minimizing the sometimes chaotic waving of hands or excitement that some discussions can create (312). These response card/boards can be used to answer simple yes or no questions or for answering with one or two word responses; regardless, they will help to build and monitor comprehension (319). I felt that this suggestion, as well as some of the others, seem really helpful in facilitating effective discussions and inciting student participation, and are some different strategies that I will surely consider when planning my language arts lesson and instructional conversation.
First of all I was surprised to read the differences in gender participation and involvement within the average classroom. I was shocked to see the differences between the numbers of girls versus the number of boys getting called on and/or participating in group discussions or recitation. The fact that "boys called out answers eight times more often than girls did" was something that struck off guard (309). Additionally, it is really surprising to see that teachers tend to listen to the ideas of males more often, as well as provide more in depth and helpful feedback.
When thinking about running my own class discussions, specifically in regards to our upcoming language arts lesson, I tend to get a little nervous and wonder how I will structure my discussion so that I receive good feedback, and so that my students are involved and attentive throughout it. I find it even more overwhelming that it is important to call on a variety of students on order to work towards more equal participation within the classroom; I must try not to call only on those who are always participating, as well as try to avoid calling on those who are truly embarrassed or intimidated to speak (306).
The final aspect of this chapter that I really liked was the section about different strategies for distributing chances for participation. I especially thought that the "response cards" or dry-erase board strategy is one that would be very beneficial at least in including each student, as well as seemingly minimizing the sometimes chaotic waving of hands or excitement that some discussions can create (312). These response card/boards can be used to answer simple yes or no questions or for answering with one or two word responses; regardless, they will help to build and monitor comprehension (319). I felt that this suggestion, as well as some of the others, seem really helpful in facilitating effective discussions and inciting student participation, and are some different strategies that I will surely consider when planning my language arts lesson and instructional conversation.
DK's Comment on Rachel's Post (2/8)
(The word verification for posting my comment on Rachel's post from last week kept getting messed up, so here it is in new-post form:)
Hey Rachel,
I'm glad you chose to focus your discussion on Langer's four stances. I also wrote about the article, but I took a different approach, so it's great to read what you have to say about it. I particularly appreciate your insight with Being In and Stepping Out. You are right that personal connections are important, even when they seem simple to us as adults. Making connections help students identify with the characters in the story, giving them a greater interest to and attentiveness to what they are reading. I'm also glad you mentioned the non-linear nature of the stances. I think it is important to realize that different children will be at different stages of their understanding of a text. However, I wasn't clear after reading the article whether or not the author meant that each individual child can move through the steps in a non-linear order. Do you know if that's what she meant? Regardless, you are right: remembering that children are at different stages is key, as it broadens our instruction to incorporate multiple stages of student interpretation.
- David Koch
Hey Rachel,
I'm glad you chose to focus your discussion on Langer's four stances. I also wrote about the article, but I took a different approach, so it's great to read what you have to say about it. I particularly appreciate your insight with Being In and Stepping Out. You are right that personal connections are important, even when they seem simple to us as adults. Making connections help students identify with the characters in the story, giving them a greater interest to and attentiveness to what they are reading. I'm also glad you mentioned the non-linear nature of the stances. I think it is important to realize that different children will be at different stages of their understanding of a text. However, I wasn't clear after reading the article whether or not the author meant that each individual child can move through the steps in a non-linear order. Do you know if that's what she meant? Regardless, you are right: remembering that children are at different stages is key, as it broadens our instruction to incorporate multiple stages of student interpretation.
- David Koch
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Quiz Show Classroom
In chapter 10 of Weinstein and Mignano's "Elementary Classroom Management" we further see the importance of classroom discussions versus the standard I-R-E protocol that teachers have seem to have adopted. I thought the opening of this chapter put it brilliantly, "the interaction is more like a quiz show than a true conversation" (p. 299). I had never had thought about it this way but when you think about it, I-R-E and quiz shows are pretty similar. Upon further consideration, I definitely do not want to be the Bob Barker of my classroom.
The text continues by giving us the example of Barbara's classroom recitation. I also thought this was useful because it showed a teacher-directed lesson that at first glance might seem like your typical I-R-E quiz show but also, as the text explains, is a functional tool. The text states "five useful functions of classroom recitations" (p. 302). First, it was important that Barbara knew that her students were understanding the text they were reading. It was also important that she asked somewhat higher level thinking questions instead of "who is the main character?" Next, Barbara was able to "prod" her students into thinking about the answers. Also, she was able to interact with most of her students during this recitation. Lastly, most of the students were able to keep up with Barbara's questions. I thought it was also useful that Barbara explained her reasoning for using this recitation, teacher-guided lesson.
I think discussions in the classroom are hard to come by, especially in the lower grades. Although I do think to some point the I-R-E has its advantages (Such as in Barbara's example), many I-R-E lessons come off as a quiz show and as teachers we need to strive to get away from this.
The text continues by giving us the example of Barbara's classroom recitation. I also thought this was useful because it showed a teacher-directed lesson that at first glance might seem like your typical I-R-E quiz show but also, as the text explains, is a functional tool. The text states "five useful functions of classroom recitations" (p. 302). First, it was important that Barbara knew that her students were understanding the text they were reading. It was also important that she asked somewhat higher level thinking questions instead of "who is the main character?" Next, Barbara was able to "prod" her students into thinking about the answers. Also, she was able to interact with most of her students during this recitation. Lastly, most of the students were able to keep up with Barbara's questions. I thought it was also useful that Barbara explained her reasoning for using this recitation, teacher-guided lesson.
I think discussions in the classroom are hard to come by, especially in the lower grades. Although I do think to some point the I-R-E has its advantages (Such as in Barbara's example), many I-R-E lessons come off as a quiz show and as teachers we need to strive to get away from this.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Langer's Literary Interpretation
I'm glad that Langer wrote about a better way to do literature instruction. In my high school experience of reading and analyzing literature, I think it was about learning the "right" way of looking at a text. Rather than discussing my own impressions as I read, my instructors would guide me and my classmates to particular places where they, or some consensus of people, saw important things in the text. And rather than letting us give our thoughts first, we were immediately bombarded with the "correct" thoughts of someone else. It's as if these teachers were saying, What good things could measily high school students such as yourselves find in the text that a scholar couldn't?
The problem with this approach (as Langer assumes in her article) is that children don't learn best that way, and literature doesn't work that way. Children are not mere receptacles where knowledge can be dumped. They have minds that must be engaged in their learning, and this can only fully happen when they are given time to think, to try out ideas, to make hypotheses, and to test these hypotheses before hearing what a teacher or a scholar has to say. Besides, the varied and continuing debate that goes on in most literary circles about most literature is proof that no one has really settled upon the "right" way of interpreting it. With instruction focused on teaching children to do their own analysis, they will learn to be critical thinkers (even "scholars") in their own right.
Yet I think there is something missing (or at least not explicitly stated) in Langer's approach to literature instruction: children should always be taught to reference the text when making any interpretive statements. She is right - our goal should not be to put forth "the teacher's perception of the right response" (Langer 1990: 816). But we should always lead children to finding the place in the text from which they are drawing their interpretation, whether it be in the form of a question, a conclusion, or connection. While we are not looking for some specific correct response, we are and should be looking for a response that finds its basis in the text. Interpretation cannot be an anything-goes activity. We must train students to look for things that are most supported in a text, and to evaluate responses based on their textual support. This way, children can interpret something in conflicting ways, and both can be good - yet both student and teacher can evaluate interpretations, and even speak in terms of "more supported" or "less supported," on the basis of what the text says. Langer says that this evaluation should happen "only after the students have worked through their understandings" (815), but the basis for it - textual references - should be pushed from the very beginning of the student response time.
The addition of this point gives teachers more direction in how to engage their students in critical thinking. First, they do it by modelling. If a student says, Janie is really mean!, then the teacher can help everyone (including the student herself) by asking, Where do you see Janie being really mean?, and to follow up if needed, What page are you looking at?, or, What words make her sound mean to you? Of course, it is important for teachers to use open-ended responses to students' thoughts, such as, Tell me more about that. But one important characteristic of critical thinking is precision, so students' critical thinking will be greatly benefited by locating exactly where and what is leading them to their interpretations.
David Koch
The problem with this approach (as Langer assumes in her article) is that children don't learn best that way, and literature doesn't work that way. Children are not mere receptacles where knowledge can be dumped. They have minds that must be engaged in their learning, and this can only fully happen when they are given time to think, to try out ideas, to make hypotheses, and to test these hypotheses before hearing what a teacher or a scholar has to say. Besides, the varied and continuing debate that goes on in most literary circles about most literature is proof that no one has really settled upon the "right" way of interpreting it. With instruction focused on teaching children to do their own analysis, they will learn to be critical thinkers (even "scholars") in their own right.
Yet I think there is something missing (or at least not explicitly stated) in Langer's approach to literature instruction: children should always be taught to reference the text when making any interpretive statements. She is right - our goal should not be to put forth "the teacher's perception of the right response" (Langer 1990: 816). But we should always lead children to finding the place in the text from which they are drawing their interpretation, whether it be in the form of a question, a conclusion, or connection. While we are not looking for some specific correct response, we are and should be looking for a response that finds its basis in the text. Interpretation cannot be an anything-goes activity. We must train students to look for things that are most supported in a text, and to evaluate responses based on their textual support. This way, children can interpret something in conflicting ways, and both can be good - yet both student and teacher can evaluate interpretations, and even speak in terms of "more supported" or "less supported," on the basis of what the text says. Langer says that this evaluation should happen "only after the students have worked through their understandings" (815), but the basis for it - textual references - should be pushed from the very beginning of the student response time.
The addition of this point gives teachers more direction in how to engage their students in critical thinking. First, they do it by modelling. If a student says, Janie is really mean!, then the teacher can help everyone (including the student herself) by asking, Where do you see Janie being really mean?, and to follow up if needed, What page are you looking at?, or, What words make her sound mean to you? Of course, it is important for teachers to use open-ended responses to students' thoughts, such as, Tell me more about that. But one important characteristic of critical thinking is precision, so students' critical thinking will be greatly benefited by locating exactly where and what is leading them to their interpretations.
David Koch
Monday, February 9, 2009
IC How It's Done!
I thought that this week's articles were all very valuable pieces of literature in regards to building up my attitudes and beliefs about how to effectively run a classroom. I liked the specific focus on the utilization of conversation, discussion, and student talk within the classroom and found the content of the articles to be very useful.
I especially like the Goldenberg article, "Instructional Conversations". In this article, Goldenberg stresses the important role that ICs play in molding students into critical thinkers and in stimulating their "conceptual and linguistic development" (Goldenberg 317). Group-based discussions help students to comprehensibly build meaning in regards to a specific topic as well as requiring them to construct their own knowledge and understanding" rather than just receiving knowledge or learning material in a rote manner (324). One specific aspect of the article that I liked was the set of structural elements Goldenberg laid out for formatting an instructional conversation or group discussion. I found the break down of the different elements into two categories (instructional and conversational)and further into five specific elements within each subcategory, not only beneficial to the teacher in regards to actually formatting the discussion, but also to the students in that it helps to focus the discussion so that they are able to build their own understanding in a more effective and encouraging manner (319). I think that the "weaving" metaphor was one which worked perfectly when considering the role of the teacher in guiding an IC and when considering the many elements which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the IC (319).
In addition to the clearly defined structural elements of the IC, I really found the suggestions towards the end of the article for planning an IC to be very beneficial and certainly plan on using these tips when structuring my language arts lesson for my group of first graders. Goldenberg states that ICs are typically "used to guide reading comprehension lessons and activities with small groups" so I see this as a perfect too in creating an effective language arts lesson which focuses around a short piece of literature and an IC centered around some thematic issue within the text(324).
I especially like the Goldenberg article, "Instructional Conversations". In this article, Goldenberg stresses the important role that ICs play in molding students into critical thinkers and in stimulating their "conceptual and linguistic development" (Goldenberg 317). Group-based discussions help students to comprehensibly build meaning in regards to a specific topic as well as requiring them to construct their own knowledge and understanding" rather than just receiving knowledge or learning material in a rote manner (324). One specific aspect of the article that I liked was the set of structural elements Goldenberg laid out for formatting an instructional conversation or group discussion. I found the break down of the different elements into two categories (instructional and conversational)and further into five specific elements within each subcategory, not only beneficial to the teacher in regards to actually formatting the discussion, but also to the students in that it helps to focus the discussion so that they are able to build their own understanding in a more effective and encouraging manner (319). I think that the "weaving" metaphor was one which worked perfectly when considering the role of the teacher in guiding an IC and when considering the many elements which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the IC (319).
In addition to the clearly defined structural elements of the IC, I really found the suggestions towards the end of the article for planning an IC to be very beneficial and certainly plan on using these tips when structuring my language arts lesson for my group of first graders. Goldenberg states that ICs are typically "used to guide reading comprehension lessons and activities with small groups" so I see this as a perfect too in creating an effective language arts lesson which focuses around a short piece of literature and an IC centered around some thematic issue within the text(324).
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Literature and Discussions
For this week we read a few separate articles that mainly talked about the importance of discussion when reading literature. There were many great points and examples given but I found Judith A. Langer's four stances in interpreting literature to be one of the most interesting tidbits. After reading through the four stances and the examples from a seventh grade classroom I realized that these stances (or most of them) can also be related to younger elementary grades such as kindergarten and first grade. Here are the four stances and a short description of each.
1. Being Out and Stepping In: Here, students "make initial contacts." They do this using their prior knowledge and "surface features" (Langer, p. 813). I feel like this is one of the things that is very important for beginning readers. Looking at things such as the title and pictures gives the reader the opportunity to ibegin to ask question on what the text is going to be about and even make predictions (like we discussed last week with Gibbons).
2. Being In and Moving Through: This stance is where students begin to "develop meaning" (Langer, p 813). They do this by using both the "text knowledge and background knowledge." I feel as though I have not seen a whole lot of this in my classroom but it is still somewhat there.
3. Being In and Stepping Out: This is when readers use the text and relate/"reflect on their own lives." I also think this is an importance stance to learn and use early on. In my classroom I see the students making connections to their own lives after reading a story quite a bit. It might be something as simple as, "My sister and I once built a snowman just like they did in the story!" This may not seem very though provoking but it is giving this student the foundation to continue to make connections whenever he reads.
4. Stepping Out and Objectifying the Experience: Finally, stance four refers to the readers distancing themselves from the text and reflect on the content as well as the experience. Here, students also judge the text as well as relate it to other texts they have read. I would say that in my classroom there is quite a bit of this going on. Again, it might be at a beginning level but the experiences they have early on will make it easier for them in the future.
Another thing that really stood out to me while reading about the four stances is that they are not linear. I feel like as we are preparing to be teachers, we have been taught a lot about linear processes. In math, students need to do this before they can do that, in science they need to learn this concept before they understand the next one...and so on. I really like the fact that these stances can occur at any time during the students' reading of the text. It is still a organized structure but has some wiggle room at the same time.
1. Being Out and Stepping In: Here, students "make initial contacts." They do this using their prior knowledge and "surface features" (Langer, p. 813). I feel like this is one of the things that is very important for beginning readers. Looking at things such as the title and pictures gives the reader the opportunity to ibegin to ask question on what the text is going to be about and even make predictions (like we discussed last week with Gibbons).
2. Being In and Moving Through: This stance is where students begin to "develop meaning" (Langer, p 813). They do this by using both the "text knowledge and background knowledge." I feel as though I have not seen a whole lot of this in my classroom but it is still somewhat there.
3. Being In and Stepping Out: This is when readers use the text and relate/"reflect on their own lives." I also think this is an importance stance to learn and use early on. In my classroom I see the students making connections to their own lives after reading a story quite a bit. It might be something as simple as, "My sister and I once built a snowman just like they did in the story!" This may not seem very though provoking but it is giving this student the foundation to continue to make connections whenever he reads.
4. Stepping Out and Objectifying the Experience: Finally, stance four refers to the readers distancing themselves from the text and reflect on the content as well as the experience. Here, students also judge the text as well as relate it to other texts they have read. I would say that in my classroom there is quite a bit of this going on. Again, it might be at a beginning level but the experiences they have early on will make it easier for them in the future.
Another thing that really stood out to me while reading about the four stances is that they are not linear. I feel like as we are preparing to be teachers, we have been taught a lot about linear processes. In math, students need to do this before they can do that, in science they need to learn this concept before they understand the next one...and so on. I really like the fact that these stances can occur at any time during the students' reading of the text. It is still a organized structure but has some wiggle room at the same time.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Building a Classroom of Comprehensive Readers
I found Pauline Gibbons' chapter "Reading in a Second Language" to be probably the must useful portion of reading that I have engaged in so far throughout this semester. I found it to be very informative in regards to how I as a future teacher can better meet the needs of students who are learning English as a second language. In addition to this I found the suggestions for activities and strategies to incorporate in your lessons before, during, and after reading to be very helpful.
Many of the activities and strategies mentioned within the text are ones that I deem to be very useful in the classroom as they are wonderful suggestions for building comprehension and deriving meaning from the text. After reading this chapter I realized how many of these strategies my CT uses when reading with her students, or when preparing her students to read a text. Always before diving into a book with her students she is sure to get students thinking about the text either by having students predict what the text could be about and by relating the text to students' prior knowledge, to name a couple. During reading she is sure to be enthusiastic, "bringing the text to life" and getting the students attention, as well as their approval (Gibbons 87). Post-reading activities commonly include reflecting on, and summarizing the text to check for students' comprehension or by providing the students with a prompt related to the text in which they write and support their writing with a drawing. These are just a few of the strategies i had been subconsciously taking for granted as i observed my CT reading with students and assisting student reading.
Another aspect of this chapter that I really liked was Gibbons' talk about incorporating the illustrations of the text both before and during reading. Many times the illustrations within the text can be overlooked by teachers, while to the students this is one of the most important aspects of the book. It is true that students use the illustrations to help make meaning from the text; this can be one of the most effective meaning-building strategies that is often not linked to the text. This can especially be helpful when considering ESL students and the difficulty they experience when trying to make meaning from an unfamiliar language (86).
One of my favorite quotes from the chapter is "Good readers read for pleasure, to extend their worldview, to read more about what interests them, or to find out things they want or need to know about" (98). I think that this one excerpt can really help when trying to help my students' (ESL or native speaker) abilities to read. I think that this needs to be the goal of each teacher. If you are capable of structuring/scaffolding a learning environment where students are reading because they want to then you are doing your role as an educator.
Many of the activities and strategies mentioned within the text are ones that I deem to be very useful in the classroom as they are wonderful suggestions for building comprehension and deriving meaning from the text. After reading this chapter I realized how many of these strategies my CT uses when reading with her students, or when preparing her students to read a text. Always before diving into a book with her students she is sure to get students thinking about the text either by having students predict what the text could be about and by relating the text to students' prior knowledge, to name a couple. During reading she is sure to be enthusiastic, "bringing the text to life" and getting the students attention, as well as their approval (Gibbons 87). Post-reading activities commonly include reflecting on, and summarizing the text to check for students' comprehension or by providing the students with a prompt related to the text in which they write and support their writing with a drawing. These are just a few of the strategies i had been subconsciously taking for granted as i observed my CT reading with students and assisting student reading.
Another aspect of this chapter that I really liked was Gibbons' talk about incorporating the illustrations of the text both before and during reading. Many times the illustrations within the text can be overlooked by teachers, while to the students this is one of the most important aspects of the book. It is true that students use the illustrations to help make meaning from the text; this can be one of the most effective meaning-building strategies that is often not linked to the text. This can especially be helpful when considering ESL students and the difficulty they experience when trying to make meaning from an unfamiliar language (86).
One of my favorite quotes from the chapter is "Good readers read for pleasure, to extend their worldview, to read more about what interests them, or to find out things they want or need to know about" (98). I think that this one excerpt can really help when trying to help my students' (ESL or native speaker) abilities to read. I think that this needs to be the goal of each teacher. If you are capable of structuring/scaffolding a learning environment where students are reading because they want to then you are doing your role as an educator.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Activities and Reading
Overall, I found the chapter in the Gibbon's book really helpful and insightful. I feel that for the most part I am in my classroom during times of literacy. My CT tends to do a variety of the before-reading activities, during-reading activities, and after-reading activities.
The before-reading activity that I have noticed her using is predicting from words. For example, the other day she was going to read a book about penguins to the class and before the story she drew a picture of a penguin on the easel and asked the students to think of things that they already know about the animal. I like that my CT does this a lot because it gives all of the students an opportunity to say what they think as well as activate their prior knowledge that Gibbons discusses. The students seem to get really excited when we do the webs so I think this is another reason why my CT continues to use this method.
The During-reading activity that my CT seems to use the most is "pause and predict." She will frequently stop reading a particular story and ask the class what they think will happen. The students always have a variety of ideas and suggestions which helps them to become better readers. Another during reading activity that my CT appears to use is summarizing the text, although she doesn't really use the strategies shown in the Gibbons text. She usually just has a couple students retell what has happened in the story.
One of the after-reading activities that I have recently seem my CT use is the innovating of the ending. After reading a story called "The Gingerbread Baby" she asked the students what else might have happened if the little boy in the story hadn't taken the gingerbread baby. Some of the students responded with a variety of ideas which I believe also improves their prediction skills.
Before reading this chapter I hadn't thought about the the different types of activities that can be used before, during, and after reading. In the future I hope to use a variety of these activities to better my student's reading comprehension and strategies.
The before-reading activity that I have noticed her using is predicting from words. For example, the other day she was going to read a book about penguins to the class and before the story she drew a picture of a penguin on the easel and asked the students to think of things that they already know about the animal. I like that my CT does this a lot because it gives all of the students an opportunity to say what they think as well as activate their prior knowledge that Gibbons discusses. The students seem to get really excited when we do the webs so I think this is another reason why my CT continues to use this method.
The During-reading activity that my CT seems to use the most is "pause and predict." She will frequently stop reading a particular story and ask the class what they think will happen. The students always have a variety of ideas and suggestions which helps them to become better readers. Another during reading activity that my CT appears to use is summarizing the text, although she doesn't really use the strategies shown in the Gibbons text. She usually just has a couple students retell what has happened in the story.
One of the after-reading activities that I have recently seem my CT use is the innovating of the ending. After reading a story called "The Gingerbread Baby" she asked the students what else might have happened if the little boy in the story hadn't taken the gingerbread baby. Some of the students responded with a variety of ideas which I believe also improves their prediction skills.
Before reading this chapter I hadn't thought about the the different types of activities that can be used before, during, and after reading. In the future I hope to use a variety of these activities to better my student's reading comprehension and strategies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)