Peregoy and Boyle

I never thought about how much background knowledge of a genre of reading could affect reading comprehension. It makes sense to me though. I am in Ms Quest’s class for “Reading Hour” and students always ask me if the book they are reading is non-fiction or fiction. (They have to fill out worksheets about what they read that asks whether it is fiction or nonfiction). Although I answered this question at least once a day, I never realized that this question demonstrated a lack of background knowledge. For example, when reading a book titled “Margeret Meary”, a book about a woman who saved animals in Alaska, one student did not know if the book was fiction or nonfiction. Students with a background knowledge of non-fiction would probably be able to identify the title, the name of a specific woman, with the genre of non-fiction. I think background knowledge of a genre is achieved primarily through lots of exposure to reading. It can be explicitly taught but it doesn’t seem that it would be as effective as reading.

I also like the idea of Literature Response Groups (Peregoy and Boyle 290). I have been reading with a student, and at the end of every chapter is a series of questions about what the student just read. I like stopping to talk about the questions at the end because it forces the student to orally summarize what they read. As was noted elsewhere in text we read, there is never a communication with just one form of language (i.e. speaking, reading, etc). Encouraging students to both read and speak is great practice in becoming a well-rounded speaker/reader/ listener of the English language. Anyway, the questions at the end of the section are good scaffolding for literature response groups. As she learns to answer those questions at the end of a section, she will be able to move onto formulating her own questions for comprehension.

I have also noticed a complete lack of metacognition while reading. Students in the lower levels do not think about what they reading while they read. For example, students will stumble over a challenging word and just keep reading. I will ask them at the end of the section, do you know what the word “________” means? The student will have no idea what the word means but they will keep on reading. Would metacognition mean that they would stop, realize they don’t know the word, and then figure out the word before they kept going? It just seems like they just read without thinking about what they are reading or the meaning of it.

I have been thinking about how a student’s lack of vocabulary can influence their reading. You mentioned in class that sometimes one word could throw off a student’s whole comprehension of a section of text. I experienced this while reading the Herrera text. Herrera’s use of CLD rather than ELL drives me crazy. I couldn’t remember what CLD stood for and so everytime I came to that I was distracted from reading. Obviously I figured out what it meant in context, but if students do not have that ability to figure out words in context then their comprehension must be very limited.

I also agree with Peregoy and Boyle that students should pick out their own text. The student who picked out the Margeret Meary book excitedly told me about all that Margeret Meary did in Alaska. She loved wildlife and Meary’s work really resonated with her. Another student loves to read romantic works, especially when we answer questions in the end that ask her to make connections with her own life. I think it interesting to see what students choose to read. I like that LEAP has a lot of books that are age appropriate but also appropriate for their reading level. Something that frustrates me about the books is the fact that they are often for remedial readers and not for ELL students. One student and I were reading about all sorts of different drugs and euphemisms for drugs. (The character was addicted to different drugs). We both didn’t understand what we were reading. I was trying to explain to her what these drugs were but it was very challenging. I think these books can be kind of pointless for ELL students to read. Why confuse them with all sorts of unnecessary vocabulary?

Herrera

I like the table on p. 137. I have been reading a lot about the importance of making schematic connections for students but I never knew how exactly that was done. The teaching tips are very specific. I realize that LEAP is sort of an outlier in this regard, but I have difficulty with the concept of “using interactive grouping configurations among students to promote the sharing of multiple point of view and personal experiences” (137). Because LEAP is not like this at all, I forgot how hard it is to get students into interactive groups. For example, at Northfield High school the Hispanic kids are very segregated from the other students. They do not want to be in groups with other students, and maybe other students want to be with their friends as well. When is it important to allow students to choose their own groups for their own comfort? It seems like it is challenging to always push students out of the comfort zone if they are shy or used to being around other kids like them. Another teaching tip is to “highlight and make links across cultural experiences whenever possible” (137). I also like the idea of making connections with students cultural experiences. How do I make cultural connections in a sensitive way? It seems like it would be easy for me to generalize an entire culture and then make connections. I think this sort of generalization could be very offensive to students. For example, if a non-Swedish teacher tried to tell me that all Swedes are stoic and cold (which many of them are) I would be annoyed that she was making that generalization. Maybe ELL students are not raised to be sensitive to that kind of stereotyping, but I wonder if they too feel annoyed with the generalizations.

I have also been thinking about explicitly identifying and teaching cognitive strategies. The word “explicit” jumped out at me. How do I balance explicit and implicit instruction? It seems like there is no bridge between telling something someone explicitly and then teaching them implicitly. For example, sometimes Ms. Quest teaches a mini-lesson on a topic where she explicitly teaches the pronunciation of words, past tense verbs, etc. It seems forced even for her though to transition between the mini lesson and the activity.