Hesitating a moment, I finally click “post” and watch as my final blog entry appears on the screen. Leaning back in the chair that has all but molded to my body, the tears begin to well up. Blinking them back, I check again the assignment list. Sure enough, each assignment is complete and crossed off. Again, the tears well up and I stubbornly blink them back again. Unable or unwilling to leave the computer desk still littered with worn spiral notebooks, marked up research articles and pictures of my students whose voices still echo within my mind, I begin scrolling through my blog entries. Tears again flow, spilling over my lids and slipping down my cheeks refusing to be held back. My mind slips back to the first day of class, sitting at the cold, hard lab tables listening to Shannon describe the seemingly unfathomable journey, insisting we will be researchers and reassuring us that we will walk out of here with a master’s degree. Staring down at the thick book filled with tiny print as her words wash over me, I could not bring myself to believe her words. Even that first night spent agonizing over the tiny print, trying to make sense of the first research article, I could not see two steps in front of me let alone the grandiose ending Shannon described.
Scrolling down through the blog entries, the journey that has taken me leagues from that first day unfolds before me. Pushing away from the dock proved to be the most difficult part of the journey. Finally cutting free of the line that tied me securely to the defining dimensions of land, I allowed myself to be caught up in the current, free to carve my own dimensions into the land. Having conquered the rapids, I’ve navigated the river and now hover at its mouth. Currently, the challenge awaiting me requires the courage to push away from the river and into the open sea. Waves of possibility, depths of understanding, new waters to chart all await a nudge away from the comfort of the river I once feared. Armed with confidence, knowledge, and experience I never imagined for myself to be possible, I refrain. For now, I fold my hands behind my head, leaning back and bask in the glory of my achievement, confident in the knowledge that, when the time is right, I will push myself forth into the open waters of possibility.
References
Brown, S. A. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse surrounding partner reading. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 29-36.
Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174-188.
Davis, P. (2007). Discourses about reading among seven- and eight-year-old children in classroom pedagogic cultures. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(2), 219-252.
Evans, M. A., Fox, M., Cremaso, L., & McKinnon, L. (2004). Beginning reading: The views of parents and teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 130-141.
Henry, G. T., Mashburn, A. J., & Konold, T. (2007). Developing and evaluating a measure of young children's attitudes toward school and learning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(3), 271-284.
Kendrick, M., & McKay, R. (2004). Drawings as an alternative way of understanding young children's constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4(1), 109-128.
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199-214.
Lynch, J., Anderson, J., Anderson, A., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Parents' beliefs about young children's literacy development and parents' literacy behaviors. Reading Psychology, 27(1), 1-20.
Meisinger, E. B., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Bradley, B. A., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Interaction quality during partner reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 111-140.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477-488.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25-60.
Tisdale, K. (2001). Dissention and distress in a cognitive apprenticeship in reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(1), 51-82.
Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2007). First-grade students' motivation and achievement for reading, writing, and spelling. Reading Psychology, 28(3), 257-282.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Free-Choice Reading Dance
“We’ll find out what happens to Ralph and his motorcycle tomorrow,” I add after a dramatic pause; carefully placing the handmade bookmark into the book, I close the worn paperback. I can’t help but smile when the pleas for one more chapter to be read begin and the small hands reach out petitioning for the chance to read it. Handing off the book, I begin my “Free-Choice Reading” chant. “You can get a book from the book corner, a book from your desk, a book from home or a library book.” After adding their eager voices to the chant, the class falls silent awaiting their table number to be called, signaling their chance to find a book and also a friend or two with whom to read. Soon, there are pairs and small groups of children scattered about the room: some at desks, many others on the floor and a few sitting around one child in the teacher’s chair patiently awaiting the story at the reading table. A buzz of voices settles over the room which is often interrupted by sudden shrieks of discovery or fits of giggles as children engage in their books.
Strolling about the room, eavesdropping on conversations, I suddenly notice Hunter and Alex intently focused on a book about ants. Huddled so closely their cheeks often brush together, their fingers follow the same route across the page. I settle myself in a corner gazing across the room and scratching in my notebook desperate that my observation doesn’t disturb the scene unfolding in front of me. Astonished that this most unlikely couple has found each other, I quickly become dumbfounded as I watch a perfectly performed dance presented before me. Hunter, by far the stronger reader, leads as Alex follows a half breath behind her as they move rhythmically through the text. Coming up to an unknown word, Hunter is silenced and I am sure the couple will stumble breaking the enchanting rhythm they’ve created. Without missing a beat however, Alex provides the word and they carry on undeterred. Continuing in the same manner, cheek to cheek the couple waltzes over page after glorious page filling in words for each other when needed, fingers sweeping across the pages together. Amazingly, the book they chose was beyond Alex’s reading level and perhaps just above instructional reading level for Hunter. Puzzled as to how the couple managed, I realize my face must have betrayed my astonishment because feeling my gaze they look up at me, disappointingly ending the ballet.
After weeks of observations, I would come to realize that Hunter and Alex were the norm rather than the exception. All around the room I would witness variations of the same dance. Sometimes, crowds of children with varying degrees of reading ability would form around favorite books, often the Eyewitness animal books, pointing and reading captions, diagrams and headings they often skipped when reading with me at small group reading lessons. Bewildered, I watched these groups of children reading, understanding and discussing books well beyond their supposed reading ability, and I began to realize that it was the collective knowledge and ability of the group that made these books accessible. Reading for young children does not seem to be the solitary, silent activity that it is for adults. I question, then, the insistence upon continuing the common practice of silent reading, at least with very young readers. In all the research I have come across, not once has a study cited silent reading as an effective strategy for improving reading skills or attitudes. On the contrary, much of the research I have read has described various forms of partner reading as a particularly effective means of improving reading fluency and attitudes. One study even suggested children choose their own partners stating, “Children who were allowed to choose their own partners exhibited higher levels of social cooperation than children who were paired by their teacher” (Meisinger et al 2004). Certainly, this was demonstrated in my experience within the unlikely pairing of Hunter and Alex. Also, one study I found calls into question the common practice of providing children with reading material at their instructional levels rather than allowing them free choice. During this study, “children read material that was well above their instructional levels, with a great deal of scaffolding, and appeared to benefit greatly” (Stahl and Heuback 2005). While observing children during Free-Choice Reading time, I found this to be true as well. Silent reading experiences we recall from childhood may not have a place in the classrooms of young children. Research seems to support a more social approach.
Reading seems to be a very social activity and reading skills are, my experience suggests, socially constructed. Among other changes that I have incurred this school year in hopes of improving reading ability and attitudes, re-inventing silent reading time into social reading time has been, I believe, the most beneficial change. How much of an impact it had on the superb reading scores my students achieved is still to be determined instead but I believe it to be significant. Encouraged by research and my own observations, I will continue to provide Free-Choice reading time for young readers.
Meisinger, E. B., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Bradley, B. A., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Interaction quality during partner reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 111-140.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25-60.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477-488.
Strolling about the room, eavesdropping on conversations, I suddenly notice Hunter and Alex intently focused on a book about ants. Huddled so closely their cheeks often brush together, their fingers follow the same route across the page. I settle myself in a corner gazing across the room and scratching in my notebook desperate that my observation doesn’t disturb the scene unfolding in front of me. Astonished that this most unlikely couple has found each other, I quickly become dumbfounded as I watch a perfectly performed dance presented before me. Hunter, by far the stronger reader, leads as Alex follows a half breath behind her as they move rhythmically through the text. Coming up to an unknown word, Hunter is silenced and I am sure the couple will stumble breaking the enchanting rhythm they’ve created. Without missing a beat however, Alex provides the word and they carry on undeterred. Continuing in the same manner, cheek to cheek the couple waltzes over page after glorious page filling in words for each other when needed, fingers sweeping across the pages together. Amazingly, the book they chose was beyond Alex’s reading level and perhaps just above instructional reading level for Hunter. Puzzled as to how the couple managed, I realize my face must have betrayed my astonishment because feeling my gaze they look up at me, disappointingly ending the ballet.
After weeks of observations, I would come to realize that Hunter and Alex were the norm rather than the exception. All around the room I would witness variations of the same dance. Sometimes, crowds of children with varying degrees of reading ability would form around favorite books, often the Eyewitness animal books, pointing and reading captions, diagrams and headings they often skipped when reading with me at small group reading lessons. Bewildered, I watched these groups of children reading, understanding and discussing books well beyond their supposed reading ability, and I began to realize that it was the collective knowledge and ability of the group that made these books accessible. Reading for young children does not seem to be the solitary, silent activity that it is for adults. I question, then, the insistence upon continuing the common practice of silent reading, at least with very young readers. In all the research I have come across, not once has a study cited silent reading as an effective strategy for improving reading skills or attitudes. On the contrary, much of the research I have read has described various forms of partner reading as a particularly effective means of improving reading fluency and attitudes. One study even suggested children choose their own partners stating, “Children who were allowed to choose their own partners exhibited higher levels of social cooperation than children who were paired by their teacher” (Meisinger et al 2004). Certainly, this was demonstrated in my experience within the unlikely pairing of Hunter and Alex. Also, one study I found calls into question the common practice of providing children with reading material at their instructional levels rather than allowing them free choice. During this study, “children read material that was well above their instructional levels, with a great deal of scaffolding, and appeared to benefit greatly” (Stahl and Heuback 2005). While observing children during Free-Choice Reading time, I found this to be true as well. Silent reading experiences we recall from childhood may not have a place in the classrooms of young children. Research seems to support a more social approach.
Reading seems to be a very social activity and reading skills are, my experience suggests, socially constructed. Among other changes that I have incurred this school year in hopes of improving reading ability and attitudes, re-inventing silent reading time into social reading time has been, I believe, the most beneficial change. How much of an impact it had on the superb reading scores my students achieved is still to be determined instead but I believe it to be significant. Encouraged by research and my own observations, I will continue to provide Free-Choice reading time for young readers.
Meisinger, E. B., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Bradley, B. A., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Interaction quality during partner reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 111-140.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. M. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 25-60.
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477-488.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)