Does any of the
information presented in Chapter 15 influence your personal philosophy of
reading? In what ways? How has your perspective this changed since you took the
DeFord TORP a few weeks ago?
The
information presented in Chapter 15 of the Weaver text does influence my
personal philosophy of reading. Weaver starts by discussing decodable texts
verses predictable texts. I have always
found decodable texts somewhat awkward to read but assumed they must be an
effective way to teach a child to read since they are available. However, Weaver discusses how the language and
flow of decodable texts is unnatural, which makes predictable texts a better resource
to use when teaching reading. The language in books should be familiar to
children unlike the language in decodable texts. Traditional parts-to-whole reading
instruction supports decodable texts, while contemporary whole-to-parts reading
instruction supports predictable texts. In the past I’ve thought teaching
reading from parts-to-whole was the logical order, but now I completely believe
in and support teaching reading with the contemporary whole-to-parts approach.
Based on what I’ve read and learned this semester it now seems to be the more
logical approach.
Chapter 15 also discussed reading
words in context verses reading words in lists. Before I’ve really seen nothing
wrong with testing students using sight word lists and spelling lists, but I now
question that approach. Reading isn’t about isolated words, so it seems more appropriate
to expose students to new words in context rather than a list. Weaver also
points out that children learn how to separate words into onsets and rimes
before phonemes, which seems to be more beneficial for developing an
understanding of words and to make words.
Throughout Chapter 15 Weaver
provided several examples of studies with groups of children being taught with
a comprehensive literacy approach verses a traditional parts-to-whole reading
approach. The comprehensive approach repeatedly produced better results. This,
along with everything else I’ve learned throughout this course, proves to me
that a comprehensive literacy approach is how I should teach reading and
writing in my classroom.
My perspective hasn’t changed that
much since I took the DeFord TORP a few weeks ago, but my scores show that my theoretical
orientation is closer to a whole language approach now than a skills approach.
I appreciate everything I have learned this semester, and I think the knowledge
I have gained will help me be a more productive reading teacher in the future.
I agree with what you wrote about about Weaver's decodable text. It is very hard and unnatural to read those text, as I think predictable text makes much more sense to practice sight words and even fluency. I also agree with your point that sight words might be better tested in context rather than separated. My scores also did not change very much from the beginning of the year, but I do feel as though I have gained a lot of information for teaching reading throughout the course.
ReplyDelete