To begin -- After reading Kindergarteners Can Do It, Too! Comprehension Strategies for Early Readers, I really need to go back to my lesson plan and change it. I assumed that they would not be able to have deeper discussion about literature, but I was wrong. I could not get my mind out of my own adult mind and understanding. The discussion kindergarteners could generate is very simple, but they are still involved in deeper-level thinking. I can see my CT's students greatly benefiting from the strategies Mrs. Hope used. In turn, I hope my CT adopts these new ideas and starts using them with her students. Whenever she reads a story to them, she does it because she can't start another activity before they have to go to gym or something. I've rarely seen my CT try to provoke discussions or use literature as a core lesson where there is a clear goal in what she wants students to get out of the text. Since I do not hear students responses to texts, I can't really comment on their reading behaviors with literature.
Nevertheless, in another instance, my CT had a discussion about shapes. She asked the students to tell her what the differences were between a rectangle and a circle. They pointed out the obvious. The circle was yellow, thin and round; the rectangle was green and thick. What the CT was trying to get them to notice was that the rectangle had sides and points. However, they had trouble with this because they did not know how to explain without having the knowledge of the vocabulary used to describe that feature of a rectangle. If I was relating this to what a student would have trouble doing in comprehending and discussing a literary text, I could say, for example, that this student is a "Fuzzy Thinker", in regards to the reading Profiles in Comprehension. This because "fuzzy thinkers" usually have a hard time elaborating on responses because they may not have the words to explain their thinking.
As for my own reading comprehension processes, I find that I can relate to a few of the eight profiles listed in Profiles in Comprehension, in certain aspects. The reading states that students can exhibit characteristics of more that one profile. This is important to mention because the point in the profiles is not to label the students as one particular profile, but to understand that there are all these different types of ways of thinking. Then they list various strategies to use to help the students get on track.
Nevertheless, in another instance, my CT had a discussion about shapes. She asked the students to tell her what the differences were between a rectangle and a circle. They pointed out the obvious. The circle was yellow, thin and round; the rectangle was green and thick. What the CT was trying to get them to notice was that the rectangle had sides and points. However, they had trouble with this because they did not know how to explain without having the knowledge of the vocabulary used to describe that feature of a rectangle. If I was relating this to what a student would have trouble doing in comprehending and discussing a literary text, I could say, for example, that this student is a "Fuzzy Thinker", in regards to the reading Profiles in Comprehension. This because "fuzzy thinkers" usually have a hard time elaborating on responses because they may not have the words to explain their thinking.
As for my own reading comprehension processes, I find that I can relate to a few of the eight profiles listed in Profiles in Comprehension, in certain aspects. The reading states that students can exhibit characteristics of more that one profile. This is important to mention because the point in the profiles is not to label the students as one particular profile, but to understand that there are all these different types of ways of thinking. Then they list various strategies to use to help the students get on track.
