Week 1 Blog # 3 Reading and Oral Language

 

 

Blog # 3 Reading and Oral Language

 

            The relationship between oral language and the reading process is a hot-button issue for me right now!  I teach a reading intervention to third, fourth, and fifth graders to help students decode multisyllabic words efficiently.  The students were selected for the intervention because they are ELL’s identified as not making adequate growth in reading, based on DIBELS data.  (DIBELS is a measure of their oral reading fluency.) It’s a good program.  I don’t mind teaching it.  I have seen that it does help kids read multisyllabic words accurately.  What I do mind is what I am being asked to do after the intervention lesson. 

Kids are asked to apply their decoding skills in self-selected texts.  This sounds great!  After several years at my school when there was very little time for students to read books of their choice, this is exciting!  However, kids must select texts that are at their instructional level so they get several opportunities to apply the decoding skills they are learning during the intervention lesson.  Unfortunately, students are not understanding what they are reading because too many of the words they are decoding are not part of their oral language.

I agree with the sociolinguistic view that reading is a process of constructing meaning, just like speaking.  As explained by Freeman and Freeman (2004), “When people read texts that are comprehensible and interesting, they become more proficient readers and writers” (p. 25).  My difficulty is finding texts at the instructional level that are comprehensible for my English language learners.  The level at which they can decode is above the level at which they can comprehend.

 

Resource:

 

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics, what you need to know to teach reading, esl, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Heinemann Educational Books. 

 

 

 

Week 1 Blog # 2 Writing Instruction

Blog # 2 Writing Instruction

 

The writing instruction I deliver to students more closely matches the acquisition view, as outlined on page 29 in the Freeman text (Freeman & Freeman, p. 29).  Students use the writing process to produce authentic writing.  Topics are selected by the student, although there are often some guidelines from the teacher.  Students’ messages are valued over the correctness of writing conventions.  Peer conferencing and student led teacher-student conferences occur routinely.  Standard writing conventions, however, are not ignored.  Mini-lessons are guided by student work.  Students are held accountable in their published writing for conventions taught.

 

As a student, my early memories of receiving writing instruction are hazy.  I remember enjoying writing and feeling I had the freedom to be creative, without much worry about correctness. Therefore, I think the instruction I received more closely resembles the acquisition view of writing.  During junior high and high school, I recall more instruction that was intended to help me to produce correct, if formulaic writing. 

 

Resource:

 

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics, what you need to know to teach reading, esl, spelling, phonics, and grammar. Heinemann Educational Books. 

 

 

Week 1 Blog 1 Literacy Philosophy

Blog # 1    Teaching Literacy:  A Shift in Philosophy

 

I spoke with a teacher who has taught at my school for about twenty years.  She has seen literacy instruction move from being developed almost completely by the teacher to being tightly scheduled and often times scripted.  She has adopted elements of both in her philosophy of teaching literacy.   

When she began, there were no curricula used for literacy.  Teachers used the reader’s workshop and writer’s workshop formats and created their own lesson plans based on students’ needs.  Literacy instruction was also heavily integrated into other content areas.  There was no schedule to follow, beyond arriving to lunch and specials at an appointed time.  There was even recess!

By seven years ago, instruction had changed tremendously.  Reading was taught in a ninety minute block.  A detailed schedule, developed by a consultant of the district, outlined what was to be taught from the reading curriculum each day.  Students also received an additional forty-five minute reading intervention.  All of these were scripted programs, to be followed exactly. 

Teachers, including the teacher with whom I spoke, balked at the restrictive nature of the new schedule.  They disliked and disagreed with the absence of teacher-made decisions, the constant data meetings, and lack of freedom to focus on student interests…But our CSAP scores went up.  Dramatically.  We went from a school on the brink of being closed down or taken over by a charter to being considered a school of average performance in three years.

  Both of these teaching experiences have influenced her philosophy of teaching literacy.  Our students are almost all English language learners and over ninety-five percent come from a background of poverty.  They start school at a disadvantage.  It is essential that we utilize the time we have with them effectively.  She has come to appreciate the scope and sequences used to ensure teachers are meeting the state standards for each grade level.  The scripted interventions have been successful.  The scripted, consistent, language helps our English language learners more easily focus on the content of the lessons.  Instruction that is guided more by student interests and observed student needs is used during writer’s workshop.  This is when teachers and students get to show their creativity.  The teacher I spoke with believes in doing what works for children.  The children she works with are more successful in a highly structured environment.