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.
My placement students have had a lot of experience with independent reading and Read Aloud, as described in the Tompkins text on pages 44 and 46. These reading sessions in my classroom are traditionally followed by the type of discussion that is considered “gentle inquisition” according to Tompkins or “recitation” according to Applegate. This means that the teacher asks the students a variety of factual questions about what they read and the students are expected to respond, the purpose of which is to indicate whether or not the student understood the reading (Tompkins, 47). It seems like such a pity that these students do not get much opportunity to discuss openly with each other and their teacher their responses to the reading because they always seem to want to discuss the text further in their own way, but aren’t allowed. I am really looking forward to teaching my lesson plan because it will be an opportunity for the students to lead the discussion and I am very interested in how the students will respond to this.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I have also noticed that my students are encouraged to practice inferential comprehension while reading. This means that “Readers use clues in the text, implied information, and their background knowledge to draw inferences” (Tompkins, 258). I have noticed my C.T. discuss aspects of the book like the type of font used, what they know about the time period, or what is going on in the background of pictures that is not easy to notice. This means that he is using Inference items that require students to link their personal experiences to the text (Applegate, 3). He also encourages students to use what they know about their own lives and understandings in order to better understand the context and interworking of the text.
In regard to my own learning regarding literature growing up, I would have classified myself as a politician and a quiz contestant as described in the Applegate article. This is because I used to focus only on answering the question correctly and to the extent that pleased the teacher (Applegate, 6 & 7). I would often use my own knowledge about the subject to answer the question without making any reference to the text that was read. At times, I still do this. In comparison, the students in my placement classroom are a mixture of minimalists and politicians. I know this because my C.T. has complained many times about the lack of descriptive language and reluctance to expand their ideas in his students’ answers. I have also noticed that those who do answer questions elaboratively, it is usually repeating something the teacher has already told them or is some form of common expression of “life lesson” that they think teachers like to hear about (Applegate, 7).
The most important thing I have learned from these readings, especially from the concluding paragraph of Applegate and the Cahill article, is that it is important to both design your texts and instructions around the learning level of your students and to challenge your students to do more. What I mean by “do more” is that students should be expected not only to make connections, share experiences, and discuss questions related to the text, they should also be able to classify, explain and elaborate on these as well (Cahill, 2).
Like Maggie, I agree that I very rarely see literature used in my classroom (besides basal readers). My teacher reads a chapter book out loud to the class, but there is not any critical thinking involved. She only asks questions before she starts reading each day to remind the students about what they read about the day before. However, I definitely think that the students would thrive with critical questions. I can’t wait to use them in my lesson and see how it goes.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the piece about profiles in comprehension, I definitely feel that I am a literalist. I am always looking for the answer in the text and don’t like to stretch my mind beyond what the text explicitly tells me. I think I use this process because rote memorization was all that was required of me for most of my school career. I really struggled when I got into AP Literature classes in high school because I wasn’t comfortable with making inferences and thinking critically about the text. Over time though, I have been able to become more comfortable answering “thinking” questions about the texts I read. However, if I had my choice, I would only want to answer questions that were specifically laid out in the text!
After reading this article, I have begun to see how some of the students in my placement fit into the different profiles. This information will be really helpful when I start my lesson. If I know the different ways that my students will try to “avoid” answering critical thinking questions, then I will be able to design activities that will encourage them to step out of their box and answer questions in ways they are not comfortable with. This will provide them with a more enriching learning experience.