Graphic Organizers and Teaching

     I strongly believe in using graphic organizers to enhance one's teaching to make learning accessible for all learning styles. After last week's class and receiving all of the MANY organizers, I was reminded of their many different purposes. During student teaching, we had an inservice day that was designed entirely around concept maps and how they can be used for multiple ages and in a variety of settings. Whether they be used in reading to keep track of characters or in social studies to compare and contrast cultures, they can be useful tools for students, and they ultimately bring literacy into every lesson since they involve reading, writing, and communicating ideas. 

     When it comes to graphic organizers and comprehension, I think they greatly enhance a student's ability to put together information in a way they can easily understand it. Because understanding is the ultimate goal during reading, it makes sense to use these organizers often. However, I do think that they must be carefully introduced to the students. Because so many teachers just give out pointless worksheets, it would be easy for students to miss the true purpose of these organizers. 

     In the lesson I taught on character theories, the students drew their own theories, therefore basically creating their own graphic organizers. Because they were asked to translate their thoughts into a drawing, they were forced to transfer their information through multiple modalities and in doing so clarified their ideas. Teaching the students about reading has been such a joy since they seem to have a thoroughly developed love of reading, and I am anxious to see how writing goes this week since they will just be beginning a new piece. There will hopefully be many opportunities for me to try out graphic organizers with the students.

Word Work and Lesson 1

This week proved to be an interesting week in my practicum. I was finally able to observe the students working on their word work, which is supposed to occur daily, and they seemed to be very engaged. They were working on prefixes, sorting words, and they then wrote words in sentences to show their meaning. I am glad that I was able to finally see them work on their vocabulary, but I am not sure how effective it truly is. After this week's class, I understand now more than ever the importance of using words in context. In many of the readings regarding the various literacy theories, the authors emphasize the importance of interaction between reader and the text. When students sit quietly and cut out words at their desks, are they getting the full benefit from their work? I think not.

I taught my first lesson at practicum this week as well. It had to be planned fairly last minute since Dona had to restructure the lesson schedule due to an impromptu visit from "Abe Lincoln" on Monday. However, I am pleased with its result. After teaching on theory charts, a subject which I am not very familiar with, the students seemed to internalize the idea of making theories about characters in their books. Many of them made charts like the one I demonstrated in their Reader's Notebooks, and Dona used scaffolding with one of the groups, which is slightly lower than the rest, to produce a compare/contrast character theory chart. The students seemed to do well with this type of activity. The students surprise me more and more with what they internalize, the words they use, and their familiarity with literacy concepts. It is such a joy to see such success in a Nashville school. 

Assessment

Assessment is the core of education today, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Many educators solely focus on the outcomes of assessment, as much instruction is to "teach to the test" so that schools and classes will pass or perform well enough to stay in existence. Whether or not we agree with the implementation of assessment, it is not going anywhere. Thus, I agree with the four purposes of reading assessment: outcome assessments, screening assessments, diagnostic assessments, and progress-monitoring assessments.

It is a balance of these four types of assessment that will lead to a full picture of a student's ability to read as well as provide a standardized comparison by which one can be leveled accordingly. It is necessary to understand where each student is according to their reading ability, and to do so, they must be assessed both as a whole group and by individualized, specified tests. Teachers need to address both students' needs AND strengths. If you do not build upon their strengths, students start to think they are only struggling readers. Students need to be assessed regularly to address their current capabilities as learners. 

With all of the different types of assessment that lurk the hallways of schools these days, it is a constant battle to determine which is best to meet the needs of both the students and the school as a whole. After learning about the DIBELS assessment in class, I cannot see how it is the best determiner of a student's abilities. There are many qualms about it, and there is clearly not a verdict as to its proficiency as an assessment. The one minute time limit does not mirror a realistic reading situation, and it might as well just teach students that speed is all that matters in learning. Also, it is not an effective measure for older students as a whole. Is there an outcome assessment that is sufficient for upper elementary students?

Edmondson is using AIMSweb, and I am curious as to the school's reception to the test. Dona was less than thrilled to administer it as she feels that a typical DRA would be a better measure. If reading specialists are not behind these tests and instead back more thorough assessments, why do the districts not listen? Shouldn't the authorities have a say in the measure?