Reflection 11

In chapter eleven of the text, I found the first quote, “‘the more different ways I teach, the more children I reach’” to be an effortless way of describing the overall goal of differentiated instruction (Cunningham & Allington, 2011, p.218). Including different instructional strategies and employing the use of a wide array of materials and assessment measures allows for students to truly be engaged with the content because they are learning through a method that most suits their needs and talents and best allows them to display their understanding.

            Moreover, I found this portion of the textbook to be exceedingly helpful in that it supplied connections between this form of instruction and the previous activities in the book, revealing that there are simple and easy ways of diversifying class content into ways that are more understandable for students depending on their individual learning style. Specifically, I liked the repetition of the significance of developing a classroom that has a sense of “community” (Cunningham & Allington, 2011, p.219). This is a goal that I, as well as many other future teachers, likely have in mind for their later classrooms. The teachers and students should be entirely willing to support and assist one another through their learning, with the teachers furnishing differentiated instruction and students encouraging their peers and sharing their own perspectives when necessary.

            Additionally, it seems important that educators realize a basic way of differentiation is to allow students to choose their own book about whatever topics and subjects most interest them. As they chose the work, it is likely that they will remain engaged because the content is to their liking. Also, due to the fact that it is material that they find diverting, they might demonstrate an increased motivation to read and learn from the book, thus expanding their own literacy skills.

            The notion of having both reading and talking partners seemed an exceptionally beneficial one as it adds to the students' opportunities to learn from one another. When sharing with their classmates, students have the chance to not only check their own understanding, but also contribute to the comprehension of their peers. Furthermore, as not every single person will be capable of receiving excessive amounts of one-on-one focus from the teacher, this system imparts an extra level of support for when the student cannot always reach the instructor.

            Finally, I thought that the inclusion of a form of tutoring between older students with below grade level reading skills working with younger students was a brilliant manner in which to aid both individuals. The older pupils receive additional confidence by being allowed to assist those younger than themselves, while also receiving further practice and other skills that are sure to work to their benefit. The younger students, on the other hand, are being supplied with the extra backing they need to ensure they remain on track with where they should be. Overall, this section of the text issued a broad range of methods to differentiate instruction in the classroom and ways to assist all learners in advancing in school.

Reflection 10

            On the whole, I thought the method of reading assessment suggested by Marie M. Clay through the use of “Running Records” seemed an entirely viable manner of monitoring student’s reading capabilities and comprehension, as well as a good way in which to inform teacher instruction (Clay, 1972, p. 4). However, while at first the system appeared relatively straightforward and easily manageable, the number of rules and the actual documentation of behaviors and choices make the system slightly overwhelming, and, consequently, I can understand why it might take some time for an instructor new to this type of measurement to become fully comfortable with it.

Personally, although the actual recordings of errors and self-corrections were nearly effortlessly readable, I found myself getting faintly confused when arrows, especially when there was more than one, were put into use with repetitions. It was moderately difficult to figure out where and when the arrows were leading somewhere else within the line, though I expect it might not be so challenging for the person that did the documenting.  Moreover, it is not hard to envision how demanding this method would be when dealing with either an exceedingly talented reader or a rather poor reader, particularly if one is also forced to jot down the conduct, attitude, and vocalizations of the student. Therefore, while the benefits of the “Running Records” are certainly evident, copious amounts of practice might well be necessary to perfect its utilization (Clay, 1972, p. 3). On the other hand, despite its dictates it clearly has the potential to expand an instructor’s comprehension of the student’s thought process and understanding of the text being read. 

Notwithstanding the perplexing features of the aforementioned method, I liked the structure that it provided, as opposed to the more seemingly open format depicted in the textbook. Nevertheless, even though there were not as many strict guidelines, I appreciated the emphasis on questioning the student in the aftermath of listening to his or her passage reading. Thus, not only can the teacher gain insight into the student’s reading abilities and thinking activity during their read aloud, but afterwards, he or she has the opportunity to truly examine the student’s overall comprehension.

Additionally, I thought the concept of the checklist to monitor individual’s skill and interest levels in regard to certain reading aspects could be a relatively useful tool. If one is to do as the book recommends and assess a couple of students per day, there would be consistent checkups on each persons progress and their areas of strength and weakness. However, this should not be the only manner of evaluation, as I think it does not supply enough detail unless the teacher specifically makes an effort to write down notes after determining the basic standing of the student in relation to the components being studied. Furthermore, the checklist process is probably highly subjective; therefore, it is likely that this system is not as precise as one might prefer.

Lastly, from the textbook reading for this week I felt that it was a brilliant idea to have students create writing samples at the beginning, middle, and end of each year to judge their improvement or lack thereof. Not only would this highlight their strengths and weaknesses, but it could also serve to encourage students if they see that their efforts are not for naught.

               In reference to the Edwards article, I thought it key that the question answerer pointed out the possible ineffectiveness of assessments due to teachers instructing their students with the goal of the test in mind. As Patricia A. Edwards stated, “Testing compels teachers to spend precious time preparing children to take tests, which undermines the value of assessments as a means to inform instruction” (Edwards, 2010, p. 285).

Finally, as I feel I have mentioned in near every post this semester, though regarding different portions of reading education, it is entirely necessary to have a balance when assessing students reading abilities. As stated in Jim Rubin’s “Organizing and Evaluating Results From Multiple Reading Assessments”, “The mandated tests tend to give a snapshot of a child’s ability whereas use of a variety of assessments gives teachers a more comprehensive portrait” (Rubin, 2011, p. 606). Educators should employ a range of appraisal methods in order truly discover student needs and then use the knowledge garnered to inform their future instruction.

Reflection 9

I absolutely loved the concept of using actual texts to not only demonstrate the proper traits of writing, but also to support and influence students’ own writings and perspectives. While I can recall reading throughout my earlier years of education for content and to discuss the various devices that might have been employed by the author, it was never quite spoken of, especially before the last couple of years of high school, as to how the novels and other books I was reading could and, probably should, whether as a deterrent or encouragement, sculpt my own writing.  This, I think, is a tremendous lapse in the education of many a youth, if they are not receiving the opportunity to see the manners in which these two processes build and expound upon one another.

When I read the quote, “‘There’s a big difference between a five-paragraph essay and an essay that has five paragraphs” I immediately underlined it, as the formulaic style of writing portrayed in this one phrase speaks to the methods that I, as well as many others, I am certain, grew up with (Culham, 2014, p. 33). Still today, frequently when some piece of writing is required in a college classroom, I often hear the question, how long should it be? Rather than being taught to write what is necessary to convey message properly, numerous individuals have been taught to follow a stringent structure and are fairly familiar with being told the precise bounds of our writing. Though such a framework may be necessary and even required when first learning, it should not be emphasized to the extent that it is viewed as the only possible way of communicating in the written form. Writing should be a creative outlet, through which individuals may express their points of view in the fashion that is most befitting of their purpose. Thus, an excellent method of exposing students to the unlimited number of ways to express themselves through writing is by allowing them to read, as a foundation and source of growth.

Finally, from this one chapter I thought it beneficial that the author stressed the fact that these “mentor texts” could be found nearly anywhere (Culham, 2014, p. 34). Whether a teacher has the adequate resources at school, through a classroom or school library or not, these bits of writing can be discovered in any number of forms and not solely in the shape of an academic text.

Although still informative, I was not as affected by the second set of articles, “Reading and Writing With Understanding” and “Reciprocity Between Reading and Writing: Strategic Processing as Common Ground”. In the first portion, it seemed beneficial for the audience to understand how interconnected reading and writing are, and the statement, “just as readers can get lost in the world of a book, writers can get lost in the language of their ideas”, seemed to highlight just that (Hampton & Resnick, 2009, p. 130). Moreover, it appears key to realize that, although it may originally seem to be, reading is not the uninvolved activity while writing, on the other hand, is the opposite. Both should include constant thinking and processing in order to be done to their fullest potential. Overall, the apparent intention of these articles was to indicate that these distinct activities could be used as systems of support for each other, and the same tools utilized in one operation are likely to find uses in the other.

Reflection 8

In the first article I read for this week, Laura Pardo’s “What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Comprehension”, I found that, just as when we were discussing fluency in our previous class, I truly like the idea of incorporating small performances or pieces of theater into the classroom in order to encourage overall fluency. Such activities provide students not only the opportunity to work on their own fluency, but also the chance to listen to their peers our their teacher as they speak. Additionally, I found that the appropriate amount of emphasis was placed upon how critical it is for students to be able to associate the words and meanings they gain during and for school to events, people, and times outside of the classroom. Students need to be capable of utilizing the words gained for tests and quizzes in daily life outside of school hours. Lastly, the idea that teachers will gradually relinquish responsibility of the application of strategies to the students seemed a beneficial method of slowly allowing the students to demonstrate and employ what they have learned. Though, once again, I think it is necessary to remember what Pardo stated about the process, “Teachers and students do not always progress in a linear way, but often slip back and forth between more and less responsibility depending on the task, the text, and the strategy” (Pardo, 2004, p. 278).

In Greenwood and Flanigan’s work “Overlapping Vocabulary and Comprehension: Context Clues Complement Semantic Gradients”, it was interesting to read how many words individuals will learn in a more incidental fashion rather than when they are explicitly taught. Moreover, it seemed appropriate that the author’s stressed the concept of “gradually becom[ing] aware that authors choose their words carefully. Writers are at times subtle and economical in their word choices, leaking information on to the page carefully, purposefully–yet at other times gushing information in a torrent of words” (Greenwood & Flanigan, 2007, p. 249). While sometimes a, perhaps, difficult notion to adequately convey, it is highly important that readers realize the significance of the diction used by the author. A slightly different word has the capacity to change the meaning and interpretation of a portion of text. Finally, the use of the semantic gradient appears an entirely apt manner of communicating the aforementioned idea.

From classrooms that work, I found two different activities that I might use, in particular, the first of which was the KWL chart. With this table, students can attempt to exhibit what knowledge they already have and what they hope to discover. Furthermore, it provides the teacher the opportunity to see whether or not students are gleaning from the text or topic being discussed what they should be. Also, writing out various questions on the beach ball in order to create a smidge of enthusiasm as it is passed about, while still permitting the students to display their comprehension, seemed, to me, to be a unique learning venture.

Reflection 7

As has become standard, I was once more surprised both by what was included and what was not incorporated into reading education and, specifically, fluency instruction. I found that, on this occasion, I agreed with the information Allington proffered in his article about the significance of merely providing students, especially those that are lagging behind their peers, the opportunity to read. While explicit instruction of key reading skills is exceedingly useful and necessary to learning how to read, it is not all that is required. And thus, yet again, it all comes back to finding a balance between the differing dimensions of reading and ensuring they all have their place in the curriculum. Moreover, I thought it was important that there was an emphasis on letting these struggling read and not consistently interrupting with questions and minor assistances. Allowing them the chance to explore a work and attempt words on their own should, for most, go a long way in aiding them in self-sufficient reading. Finally, critical instruction methods to note, that actually also trended through the other readings this week, were encouraging students to reread the same material multiple times, and supplying them time to listen to other fluent readers read. I particularly liked the thought of recording readings of text in order for students to be able listen to it and practice on their own.

From Rasinski’s “Creating Fluent Readers”, I appreciated being presented with an actual definition of fluency and having it stated that it does not simply speak to how fast you are capable of skimming through a bit of text. Rather it encompasses the ability to read accurately, both in reference to the words and the punctuation, as well as interpret and assign meaning to what has been read. I was, personally, drawn to the statement, “‘Tell the story with your voice as well as with your words,’” because I found this to be an essential aspect of truly comprehending what being fluent entails (Rasinski, T., 2004, p. 49). It does not simply regard one’s capacity to read the words, but also whether they are adept at communicating and understanding the purpose lurking behind the letters they decipher as they flip through the pages of a book. Lastly, it seemed worthwhile to remember that reading fluency, just as all of the other aspects of literacy, plays an enormous role in overall reading competency. As a result, if a student does not gain the skill when they are young, it will be a plight that will plague them through the rest of their years in school.

The textbook, to begin, caught my attention straight off by including the mashed-up, all-caps, and no spaces paragraph at the start of the chapter. This example gave a realistic, if quite minute, depiction of what a lack of reading fluency is like. The frustration and absence of reading enjoyment found in students currently incapable of this skill would be easy to understand after experiencing the struggle of reading the introductory sentences. Most similarly to the first of this week’s resources, the text, furthermore, highlighted activities that would utilize such tactics as frequent rereading and reading together to provide a good example of fluency. However, what my focus was actually captured by was the word wall. In the past I recall commenting positively on the book wall and so, too, did I find this classroom addition to be a beneficial one. Having these effortlessly mixed-up, but immensely important terms listed in an easy to glimpse area on the wall permits continuous exposure and a simple way of double-checking one’s work. Likewise, it furnishes a consistent, and routine form of practice if new vocabulary words are added each week and old ones are re-introduced. Generally, I think wall activities or exhibits produce a both a recurring form of review, while also enabling whole class participation.