My Think-Writing; 6-14-10 Homework

I truly enjoyed reading both Reading and Writing Workshop and Watching and Listening to Children Read.

Because I have always been a firm believer in writing and reading workshops (thanks to USC’s master’s program and Nancy Atwell!!) a lot of School Talk’s Reading and Writing Workshop reaffirmed the way I already structure much of my 90 minute class. I actually take “status of the class” each day after my 20 ELA minutes (in which students can read or write independently while I conference with other students). Sometimes, we need to adjust due dates or I need to review material—such as research logistics like MLA format. Some days I learn that my students are procrastinating on a project I have assigned, and I need to listen to them in order to evaluate whether students are avoiding work or whether they don’t have the necessary skill set to get started or move on. In many places I wrote, “I do this” in sections of this article. And in many places I wrote, “I need to remember to do this.” The article was a nice refresher for me.

In Watching and Listening to Children Read I was fascinated by the many ways to judge what students know about treading. I particularly loved the philosophy behind kidwatching. Watson writes, “Good kidwatchers make it a point to see the student’s strengths first. This does not mean that problems are ignored. It simply indicates that teachers need to build their reading programs on what students are doing right, not on what they are doing wrong” (121). I like this because it allows the teacher and student to focus on the positive. I also like this technique because it is something I can do informally, every day, to get a view of how many students are conducting themselves as readers. It also gives a name to something I do instinctively—and it is yet another researched-based reason why I do not need to give several “pretests” to determine student’s reading ability. In fact, this article actually demonstrated exactly how such pretests can be faulty, and therefore detrimental to planning student instruction. Watson writes, “…when proficient readers are presented with interesting, well-written text they look like what they are—good readers reading good discourse. If these same readers are presented text that is unpredictable, lacks cohesion, is conceptually inappropriate, and holds no interest, the students will appear to be poor readers—their potential diminished by poor text” (116). Now, I can just say I am looking at a “transactional view” of reading to defend my methods of kidwatching and textwatching as I help students with reading instruction. It’s simply a matter of giving a researched-based name to what I am already doing in my classroom.

Finally, WOW to all of you who have always known about and conducted formal miscue analysis and ERRQ!!!! I was absolutely riveted by the section—I’ll admit to reading it twice. And I’m hoping to gain a better understanding of both tomorrow, but as of right now (if what I’m understanding is correct) the possibilities are endless for how I can utilize these methods in my classroom. I don’t want to write more on this subject because I don’t think I have a full grasp of how to fully analyze the results of miscue analysis, but I’m thinking along the lines of using these methods as a way to make students aware of their own reading processes—an activity in metacognition for my middle schoolers as readers. So, until I learn more, I’ll just say I’m pretty excited!