Comprehension Strategies

I would have to say that after doing this week's readings and participating in the class discussions, I found out a little more about my own reading comprehension processes and strategies. In the past, I have had a tendency to fall into the pattern of being a Literalist, as defined by Applegate et. al., because my language arts instruction in middle school and high school was based on the assumption that all of the answers to the questions posed can be found in the text. Furthermore, many of my classes in high school were focused on written criticism of text we had recently read, so I was also taught that if I couldn't find the answer to a question posed by my teacher in the text itself, then the answer would be available in a critique of the story. I don't think this is necessarily a bad approach to literature, but it is if it's used exclusively. For example, I think it's a good idea to have students look for facts within literature, but I also think it's a good idea for teachers to encourage students to look for their own interpretations as well. By doing this, teachers would show students the vivacity of the written word and that there is more than one interpretation to the story.

I also connected my comprehension style with what Miller characterized, making connections to the text. I find that as I read, I will make connections from the text to something that happened in my own personal life or something that I have seen on the news or read about before. I know Erin mentioned that she does this as well, and almost automatically as she is reading. I just find it easier to relate to a piece of literature or a text if I can make these connections, because by doing this, the text becomes more relevant and meaningful to me.

In the field, my teacher teaches comprehension processes through a variety of activities and modeling during reading workshop time. During this time, the students gather on the carpet area while the teacher reads a text. Each week, or every two weeks, the teacher focuses on a certain area of comprehension or a way to analyze a story and he models it with his class. For example, as he was reading Mr. Lincoln's Way, with his class, they were focused on making inferences and predictions, so every once in a while, he would stop in the story and say "Hmmm, I know that Mr. Lincoln is doing this, so I need to think that he is feeling that," or "Well Mr. Lincoln just did this, so I wonder how his student will react." This is a form of guided modeling that the teacher is showing his students. He frequently goes into much more detail than I listed above, but it's more meaningful within the context of the story. Neufeld sited the importance of this type of modeling. He discussed that by modeling thinking processes to students, they can come to internalize the thought process and develop their own successful comprehension strategies. I agree with Neufeld's ideas, and I would strive to model thinking strategies during my upcoming language arts lesson, and in my future classroom as well.

Entertainment or Learning Tool?

I find it encouraging that the three of you do feel fairly comfortable in the world of technology. I wonder if you feel as comfortable using it purposefully in a teaching/learning objective?  I, myself, have to continue to force myself to bring these technologies into my own teaching repertoire.  The new literacies assignment and my own creation of our class wiki are an example of exactly this.  I find it interesting to consider the entertainment/learning issue with technology. It reminds me of television... Too much TV isn't educative, but TV can and should be used to inform. Is the same thing true with the Internet and other technologies available. Is too much of a good thing negative?  How can we purposefully create units or assignments or performance assessments that allow our students to use and display their technological knowledge/skill? Do you also wonder about the inequities in technology availability?  When I worked in DC I was part of a group that worked on something called the "E-Rate" which provided high-speed internet to ALL schools... is this something we should, as teachers, be advocates for?  Can we bring technology to our students if it isn't in our schools?

Digital Literacy-Christina

After taking the Digital Natives Quiz I have come to the conclusion that I am a digital immigrant, as truly could not answer what more than half of the literacies were. Yes, I do use a variety of digital programs like Facebook, MySpace, wikis, etc from time to time, however I very rarely use these type of sites for learning. Rather, I use them more for enjoyment and entertainment value.

Although I may be an "immigrant," I definitely feel that I am definitely at the emergent stage of learning. I feel this way, because according to Tompkins, she classifies emergent as showing interest, using sites with predictable patterns, making connections from technology to myself, and I know about 5-10 types of digital programs. I definitely have shown an interest in digital programs, as I use networking sites like Facebook, and I have also used sites like googledocs to work on group projects. While I have used a couple of different programs, I tend to stick toward the networking sites, like Facebook and MySpace, as I feel they are more entertaining to me. I have also gone ahead and made connections to the technologies, as I have seen many of these different technologies used in classrooms, by peers, etc. Finally, I have discovered and played around with at least 5-10 literacies, much like young children's use of high-frequency words.

All in all, I do not believe I am the most undigital person there is out there, but I definitely need help toward becoming a Native. While this may seem somewhat scary, it will be imperative that I keep up on technologies, as my students will, and thus they will want to learn in new ways.

Digital Literacy Level

After thinking about my level of digital literacy for a while and reflecting about the article regarding digital literacy online, I would have to say I am a digital immigrant in the process of applying for "digital citizenship." I say this, because I feel as though I am comfortable with many different types of technologies such as Facebook, e-mail, Microsoft Office programs, and texting. At the same time, I think that my knowledge of other areas of technologies such as blogs, wikis, and website design is developing, but, after looking at the options for our New Literacies Project, I realize that there are many other types of technologies that I have yet to discover and master. So, there are some types of technology where I feel comfortable, and others I feel completely incompetent. I also thought it was interesting that Culligan's online article makes reference to the fact that my generation, since we have been exposed to Nintendo games, are technologically proficient. I think that some video games may help hand-eye coordination when using "computer-screen-like" technology, but with others games, such as "Call of Duty," I fail to see the technological connections. I think it's a huge leap to connecting mastery of video games to mastery of technology in general.

To answer the second part of the blog prompt, I do see definite connections between emerging technological literacy and basic literacy for children. Tompkins discusses the three stages of literacy learning. The first stage is emergent, then beginning, and finally fluent. In the emergent stage, however, Tompkins mentions that students learn many different concepts of print and the alphabetic principle to move them toward beginning literacy. Similarly, there are concepts of technology and alphabetic principles, such as keyboarding skills, that students of technology must learn before they move onto the beginning stage.

Therefore, the emergent stage of basic literacy and digital literacy includes the basic understandings of communication and technology. On page 91 of Tompkins, there is a list of traits that characterize all of the three levels of literacy learning. The emergent stage includes aspects such as noticing, showing interest, and pretending to read, or in the digital literacy this would mean pretending to use a computer or technological device. For this reason, I think that I would be past the basic emergent stage of digital literacy, because I do possess a functional level of technology. This would place me into the beginning level of digital literacy. The beginning stage is characterized by ideas of being able to identify basic concepts, applying prior knowledge, and decoding. I do hope one day to be in the fluent stage of my digital literacy, but I think there is one major challenge to this goal. With book and language literacy, there are some variations, but words, letters, and sounds generally remain constant. With technology, on the other hand, one can never be completely proficient, because there are always new programs or ideas on the horizon that need to be mastered. Therefore, digital literacy is more of a lifelong process to acquiring even a basic temporary level of fluency, because one must continually be aware of new updates to digital systems.

Post 5-Ashleigh

I would say that I’m closer to a digital “native” than “immigrant” but am not, by any means, an expert. I feel comfortably past the emergent phase in my digital literacy because I am pretty confident in my ability to use different technologies, I have been exposed to computer applications, internet resources, blogs, wikis, website creation, making movies, working with photos, etc. in my K-12 education and during college and have moved beyond trying to “decode” the tools and simply understand how to use them. Thompson includes a progression for literacy learners on pg. 84 that discusses a transition from students learning to read and write and observing the ways that literacy is used, to developing the ability to read and write through experiences, and finally students become more active in their literacy progress and develop their own understanding of literacy. I would probably place myself at the second stage because I’m able to use most of the common forms of technology and can easily apply prior knowledge to new and unfamiliar types of technology, but I do not yet feel that confident in my ability to envision effective ways to incorporate technology in my own classroom.

Continuing the comparison to literacy learning, I can decode and comprehend the material, but perhaps not make deeper connections to the text. I do feel comfortable with the “basics,” but the technology presentation in class demonstrated a ton of new programs and tools that I have never seen before and would like to explore…I think the biggest lesson is that technologies change so much and so frequently that one cannot become complacent and think that learning is complete, we must always make a concerted effort to keep up to date and consider new ways to incorporate technology into our lessons.

Post 4-Ashleigh

Like Piper mentioned, we have been mostly noticing recitation in our field placement and although I think our CT usually poses good questions, it is more of a teacher-controlled dialogue. I also agree with Piper that our students are not in the necessary mindset for a real discussion because it's not what they're used to and they aren't usually concerned with listening to other students' opinions. I think the best way to try to encourage a change in the discussion style would be first to set expectations (explain what we want to see), model the behavior by thinking out loud, then give positive feedback when students do build off of others' ideas and/or encourage the behavior by asking leading questions, like we discussed in class (can anyone respond to what x just said? Does anyone agree/disagree?) . Hopefully, if students hear models, see desired responses encouraged, and hear probing questions, they will begin to internalize the thought process and begin to provide these types of responses independently. While I think the I-R-E format is very familiar to most of us and may be tempting to use especially when we want students to focus on the content of a story, the readings and class discussion helped me see why and how I should try to incorporate more discussion into my classroom.

Classroom Talk

In my placement classroom, I mostly see recitation talks. At times, it seems that discussions could develop, but unfortunately, for one reason or another, they do not. Some of the reason for a lack of discussion in my classroom, that I mentioned in class, is that the students seem too wrapped up in their own answers to listen to other answers that students are giving. In other words, there is no collaboration. Additionally, it seems that time constraints can also be an issue in the classroom that squashes out potential discussion. Sometimes, there just is not enough time built into the schedule for the teacher to allow discussion to develop.

In order for more discussion and, specifically, response-centered talk to take place, I think that the teacher would need to provide scaffolding on many different levels. Firstly, the teacher needs to negotiate rules of discussion talk with his students. These rules need to provide the framework for cooperative and collaborative efforts in discussions. For example, a good rule might be to require a student to link his thought with the thought of a student who previously talked before sharing. This would require all students to pay attention, possibly decrease repeated answers, and increase collaborative efforts, or at least linking, like we discussed in class.

Also, in order to have response-centered talk, as discussed in McGee, the teacher will need to carefully select an age appropriate book with gaps of understanding that students can work to fill or make different interpretations from. The teacher could ask guiding questions during the task, for students who are in need of more scaffolding, but overall, he must act as the facilitator. There are some students in my class that would need extra scaffolding and guidance, but mostly because they are prone to being off-task, or easily distracted, not because they have mental deficiencies. Additionally, some students are not liked by others, because they can be a bit socially awkward, so it would be imperative for the teacher to ensure that not only were their opinions heard, but also that they were respected. Finally, some students tend to dominate the conversation more than others, and as Weinstein suggests, these students must be reigned-in, so to speak, so that all students have an equal chance at participation in the discussion.