Jennifer Jones
Chapter 7: Learning Log
Page 121: “Therefore, the diagnostic teacher establishes the highest difficulty level at which the student profits from instruction.”
A very interesting point is made in this section of chapter 7 when Walker talks about challenging students to read (and think) at a level that is both accessible and realistic for them. I think the author makes a good point in this passage about the importance of determining the level at which students “frustrate” out and then working at a level that will stretch them academically but not them give up. My question how ever in regarding how to do this in a large (or even average sized) classroom. How does a single teacher differentiate reading levels in a classroom that is 25-1? I know in the primary grades reading group and small group learning is essential but what does that look like at the middle and high school level with more difficult texts?
Page 123: “A third consideration is the amount of teacher investment necessary to engage the student in an active interpretation of text. As she teaches, the diagnostic teacher adjusts her instruction to the needs of the student.”
I think this passage speaks to the importance of spontaneous intervention in the constructivist classroom. Especially in my position as a novice teacher, I often have a hard time anticipating where my students will have difficulty before actually teaching the lesson. I think Walker’s syntax of “teacher investment” is so interesting here because I do feel as though it takes a commitment to growth and professional development to react and reflect to student needs. I think it is far easier to just accept the confused stares than try and do something about it which is why some (bad) teachers choose to not differentiate for different classes of learners.
Page 124: “The diagnostic teacher evaluates her investment or the changes she makes regarding her interaction with the student, which includes an array of interaction possibilities, such as prompting, rephrasing and feedback.”
I chose this passage because I think it does a good job at addressing the variety of interventions which maybe necessary for different students. I find that even in my own experience student confusion or frustration is often not regarding the mathematics we are doing but the directions of the task or confusion about how to get started. If I were Walker I think I would have divided the interaction possibility of “feedback” even a little further, differentiating along the lines of Fleming and Levie, in talking about confirmative feedback vs. corrective feedback
Page 127: “Prior to instruction, the diagnostic teacher selects a technique to promote active learning. She determines how she is going to promote active reading. She decides whether the reading task will be silent or oral and whether the story will be read as a whole or in segments. She decides whether she will introduce new vocabulary words and how to do it. As she teaches the lesson, the teacher modifies these original plans so that the students can construct meaning with text. It is these modifications that the teacher records and evaluates.”
I really liked this passage because of its reference to the many decisions teachers make not only in the course of a day but in the course of a single class period. I think this model shows teacher reflection in three distinct phases (1) before a lesson (2) during a lesson and (3) after a lesson (a model which Walker herself supported in an earlier chapter). I also liked the fact that Walker says the effective reading teacher “evaluates” the result of his/her decisions because as in my case, then I make changes to my worksheets and plans for when I use them next year. I think the author is pointing to the fact that not all interventions work, not all modifications help students reach a desired end, but that effective teachers consider the result of their decisions and act accordingly.
Page 127: “The teacher concluded that the passive reading behavior was due to a lack of experience with the task. It was evident that Luis had not transferred his active stance in other problem-solving situations to silent reading behavior.”
The reason I picked out this passage (and the reason I really like the way this book is written so far) is because of Walker’s intervention/solution based approach to identifying and solving reading problems. Perhaps it is my unique experience, but by the time students are at middle and high school levels I see less and less investigation into the root of avoidance behaviors (in this case passive reading) and more labeling of students as “illiterate”. I like how this text encourages teachers to ask questions, get to the root cause of reading problems, try interventions and even if they do not work learn from them. In this case, now that the reading teacher has identified Luis’ inability to transfer active reading to silent reading behaviors she can work to develop specific strategies for remediating this challenge.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Learning Log Chapters 5 and 6
Jennifer Jones
Chapter 5 and 6: Learning Log
Page 77: “The range of performance between frustration level reading and independent level reading is called the instructional level or more appropriately, the instructional range.”
I really liked Walker’s notion of instructional range as a more appropriate term than instructional level to describe the intensity students should be working at when under the watchful supervision of an adult. The Vygotskian notion (that what is done with others (including a teacher) today can be done alone tomorrow) rings very true in this instance. Though many novice reading teachers (myself included) could potentially fall into the trap of giving students in class lessons at a level they are already competent in to “boost their self esteem” or “perfect their skills”, Walker makes a compelling and intelligible argument for teaching at that level between independence and frustration. Also in regards to the use of the word range rather than level I think it is important to remember as educators that learning is not “all or nothing” and that differentiation means teaching at an appropriate level for each child (which is enviably a flexible and fluid).
Page 78: “While analyzing the student’s performance using the traditional criteria on the informal reading inventory, the diagnostic teacher can also evaluate the student’s fluency as she listens to him read orally. To do so, she asks herself three questions (1) Is the student’s reading fairly smooth? (2) Does the student read words in meaningful phrases? (3) Does the student’s pitch, stress and intonation convey the meaning of the text?”
While reading this passage, I was thinking about how critically important assessing (and improving) the fluency of a struggling reader is, whether that person be an adult non reader or a child. It was interesting to me the strong relationship between fluency and increased reading comprehension achievement, the fact that as choppy or delayed reading can hurt a students’ ability to make/ retain meaning. Though the book did not specifically say (yet) I think one of the best way to achieve fluency is probably to have students repeatedly read a passage aloud (a mastery learning model). I also think it is likely fluency would increase as students read more (even silently) as they will be exposed to more diverse vocabulary, sentence structures and writing styles.
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. Thus, spelling is closely linked to phonic knowledge.”
In this passage Walker makes the argument that phonics knowledge can be assessed by analysis of a learner’s spelling, but my question is “Can strengthening spelling skills (through use of spelling tests) be valuable in strengthening phonic knowledge?” It seems to me that spelling is very much tied to writing competency since students who are restricted to a limited vocabulary are limited in the words they can write. This means students face aggravation and frustration when they get stuck trying to spell a word, however my question is, does the same relationship hold true for spelling/reading competency?
Page 111: “Some students refuse to predict because they don’t want to be wrong. Often their instruction has focused on getting the correct answers.”
I think this passage regarding prediction making and perfectionism speaks wonders to the nature of American schooling- the right or wrong, black or white mentality school age children are brought up in. I think it is so interesting that the author would publish this disclaimer because I can have definitely could see some of my students being very concerned about a “wrong” prediction. Though I didn’t see it at the beginning of the course, I am seeing more and more similarities between reading and math instruction, since, as a math teacher we also make predictions as a pre-calculating strategy. It is the same “I don’t know”, “I can’t make a guess” avoidance technique that I have to teach my students to overcome in the beginning of the year (mainly though practice and praise).
Page 117: “Returning to the extended passages, the diagnostic teacher uses the answers to the first question “How close is the reader’s interpretation” to assess general knowledge. He must judge whether the reader changes the meaning of the selection because she has no similar experience.”
The idea that students will struggle at making meaning from ideas that are not culturally relevant (familiar) to them is a tremendously important idea for teacher and pre-service teachers. Walker’s discussion of the importance of considering a students “general knowledge” reminded me of the work by Gloria Ladson-Billings in her text “The Dreamkeepers”. Her general thesis is that African American children learn best when their new ideas are connected to what they already know and/or have experienced. It is no wonder to me that (in the case of reading comprehension) students can not remember information they have no schema for. I think it is important teacher pick reading material that is both age and culturally appropriate when assessing student’s reading comprehension as to insure difficulty is not due to lack of prior general knowledge but an actual reading disability.
Chapter 5 and 6: Learning Log
Page 77: “The range of performance between frustration level reading and independent level reading is called the instructional level or more appropriately, the instructional range.”
I really liked Walker’s notion of instructional range as a more appropriate term than instructional level to describe the intensity students should be working at when under the watchful supervision of an adult. The Vygotskian notion (that what is done with others (including a teacher) today can be done alone tomorrow) rings very true in this instance. Though many novice reading teachers (myself included) could potentially fall into the trap of giving students in class lessons at a level they are already competent in to “boost their self esteem” or “perfect their skills”, Walker makes a compelling and intelligible argument for teaching at that level between independence and frustration. Also in regards to the use of the word range rather than level I think it is important to remember as educators that learning is not “all or nothing” and that differentiation means teaching at an appropriate level for each child (which is enviably a flexible and fluid).
Page 78: “While analyzing the student’s performance using the traditional criteria on the informal reading inventory, the diagnostic teacher can also evaluate the student’s fluency as she listens to him read orally. To do so, she asks herself three questions (1) Is the student’s reading fairly smooth? (2) Does the student read words in meaningful phrases? (3) Does the student’s pitch, stress and intonation convey the meaning of the text?”
While reading this passage, I was thinking about how critically important assessing (and improving) the fluency of a struggling reader is, whether that person be an adult non reader or a child. It was interesting to me the strong relationship between fluency and increased reading comprehension achievement, the fact that as choppy or delayed reading can hurt a students’ ability to make/ retain meaning. Though the book did not specifically say (yet) I think one of the best way to achieve fluency is probably to have students repeatedly read a passage aloud (a mastery learning model). I also think it is likely fluency would increase as students read more (even silently) as they will be exposed to more diverse vocabulary, sentence structures and writing styles.
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. Thus, spelling is closely linked to phonic knowledge.”
In this passage Walker makes the argument that phonics knowledge can be assessed by analysis of a learner’s spelling, but my question is “Can strengthening spelling skills (through use of spelling tests) be valuable in strengthening phonic knowledge?” It seems to me that spelling is very much tied to writing competency since students who are restricted to a limited vocabulary are limited in the words they can write. This means students face aggravation and frustration when they get stuck trying to spell a word, however my question is, does the same relationship hold true for spelling/reading competency?
Page 111: “Some students refuse to predict because they don’t want to be wrong. Often their instruction has focused on getting the correct answers.”
I think this passage regarding prediction making and perfectionism speaks wonders to the nature of American schooling- the right or wrong, black or white mentality school age children are brought up in. I think it is so interesting that the author would publish this disclaimer because I can have definitely could see some of my students being very concerned about a “wrong” prediction. Though I didn’t see it at the beginning of the course, I am seeing more and more similarities between reading and math instruction, since, as a math teacher we also make predictions as a pre-calculating strategy. It is the same “I don’t know”, “I can’t make a guess” avoidance technique that I have to teach my students to overcome in the beginning of the year (mainly though practice and praise).
Page 117: “Returning to the extended passages, the diagnostic teacher uses the answers to the first question “How close is the reader’s interpretation” to assess general knowledge. He must judge whether the reader changes the meaning of the selection because she has no similar experience.”
The idea that students will struggle at making meaning from ideas that are not culturally relevant (familiar) to them is a tremendously important idea for teacher and pre-service teachers. Walker’s discussion of the importance of considering a students “general knowledge” reminded me of the work by Gloria Ladson-Billings in her text “The Dreamkeepers”. Her general thesis is that African American children learn best when their new ideas are connected to what they already know and/or have experienced. It is no wonder to me that (in the case of reading comprehension) students can not remember information they have no schema for. I think it is important teacher pick reading material that is both age and culturally appropriate when assessing student’s reading comprehension as to insure difficulty is not due to lack of prior general knowledge but an actual reading disability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)