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.