Comprehension

This week's reading and discussion definitely made me think more about my own comprehension strategies/styles and the way in which I will teach these strategies. The Applegate (et al.) piece provided a really great way to organize and differentiate between the types of comprehension troubles students have. In the field and in my own experiences as a student, I've observed just about all of the categories of comprehension problems outlined, as well as a lot of the strategies the piece mentioned, but I never really organized my own thoughts on this enough to fully understand which strategies would help which students. From my observations in the field, I know that I would be most thrown off by left-fielders and I admittedly spent more time thinking about how to gracefully bring a class discussion back on-topic than exactly which strategies would prevent the problem from happening in the first place. For my own learning, I definitely recognized myself as having literalist tendencies, at least until my sophomore year of high school when it seemed like the only question my teacher would ask was, "what is the significance of ____?" In later classes as well, we spent a lot of time discussing higher-order questions and I began to move away from this comprehension profile.

I found the Neufeld article extremely helpful when considering what types of questions and models I should be providing for my students. Unlike Erin's experience that she shared in class, although I have always been a good student, I'm not very metacognitively aware. While I do go through many of these processes (establishing a purpose, summarizing, questioning) it is probably not as deliberate as it should be, and I don't do a lot of pre-reading. Knowing this, it is that much more important for me to study these strategies and effective ways to model them for my students. Piper discussed the way in which our CT models these strategies for his students, and we saw a couple of lessons on inferences that stick out in my mind. Our CT often activates prior knowledge by summarizing the strategy, then models the strategy by making his own inference and explaining his thought process ("I think Bradley Chalkers is beginning to trust Carla because..."). I am curious though if he is providing enough scaffolding for the students to really think through the process on their own. He seems to include aspects of most of the instruction strategies discussed in Neufeld (direct instruction on the strategies, modeling, guided practice, independent practice) but I don't really think that they are prepared to use it as a helpful strategy on their own for the purpose of comprehension. The student responses I have often heard are not always very accurate (ex. predictions rather than inferences) and I think that some of his directions don't always make it clear that this is supposed to be a strategy used in reading, rather than an assignment. (He may stop at one point in the book and instruct the students to "make an inference" which, if done accurately, does provide insight into the book, but it isn't always presented that way.) While I plan to continue examining the depth of student responses during reading workshop, I do think I have gotten a lot out of being able to observe this modeling technique...I feel more prepared to use it in my own classroom in a very deliberate way.

Reading Comprehension-Christina

How do today's readings and discussion help you understand your own reading comprehension processes? What are you seeing in the field related to comprehension processes and literacy instruction? Make sure to reference the readings and our class discussions.

I definitely feel as if I can really see which reading comprehension profiles I matched with as a child. I do think that I was a literalist as Applegate explains-that all answers will be found in the text. I used to be certain that everything I could need to know about a book, came straight out of the book, however, I now know that is not necessarily the case. For example, when I am going to teach my ELA lesson, The Story of Ruby Bridges, not everything is clearly stated in this book. It never once says why people discriminate, and it never once goes into depth about the past ideas of segregation. My students will have to come to some conclusions on their own--why the people discriminated against Ruby, why schools were much different in the past. Coming from a literalist past, I will need to work with my students that display these same qualities, so they look much deeper and beyond the text. One way to go about this as Applegate explains, is to do pre-reading activities on the theme that one is about to explore. For example, if I was teaching The Story of Ruby Bridges to my classroom, I might consider teaching a unit on discrimination, or even racism, within my social studies lessons.
Another comprehension profile I felt like I could relate to was the dodger. Sometimes when I didn't like a question, I would think of something somewhat similar, but not exactly the same, in order to satisfy what I felt like was worth answering. When working with Dodgers, I can use strategies such as List-Group-Label, Teacher Predictions, etc.

Within my field I am seeing many different profiles in my students. There are plenty of literalists that look only at the text for answers, fuzzy thinkers that provide vague answers, left fielders that give ideas I, myself, have never considered, and dogders that dodge questions completely. In order to adapt to the many levels of thinkers, as well as their different profiles, it will be important for me in the future to implement a variety of different comprehension activities, so that students are looking deeper into their understandings, so that they can truly comprehend the texts.

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.