Does any of the information presented in
Chapter 15 influence your personal philosophy of reading? In what ways? How has
your perspective changed since you took the DeFord TORP a few weeks ago?
I believe that all of Weaver’s text (especially Chapter 15) has influenced and molded my personal philosophy of reading throughout this semester. I strongly agree with Weaver (2002) when she stated that “[I]n today’s Information Age, our individual and collective success depends on universal literacy” (p. 365). I’ve always believed that reading and writing should be enjoyable and engaging for all students. And as teachers, we should meet the needs of every single individual student in our classrooms.
Weaver presented information throughout her text and specifically in Chapter 15, which reaffirmed my belief that reading is a holistic approach where the main purpose is to gain meaning from texts. This was validating for me because the reading assessments I administer focus on the children’s fluency skills and then their comprehension skills. Weaver (2002) also stated that proficient readers often miscue more than other readers because of their engagement within the texts. Also, she wrote that children better understand text in context of a story than in isolation.
The studies that Weaver presented in Chapter 15 focused on students who were low-achieving and low socio-economic status. These studies demonstrated that teachers should teach a contemporary instruction with components from the comprehensive literacy program. One of the studies stated that children in the lowest reading groups gained the most in word reading in the classroom “where they experienced the fewest phonic worksheets, used choral reading, and were taught letter-onset and letter-rime correspondences” (pp. 370-371). I strongly believe in conferences and small group work to focus on students’ weaknesses and strengths. All students need guidance from their teachers in order to succeed in reading, writing, and throughout their lives.
I did not fully understand the DeFord TORP inventory when I initially took it. However, I have a better understanding and schema about the questions and statements after this semester. One statement (number four) caught my eye because I had answered “strongly agree” and now I think I “strongly disagree” with it. Number four states that “Fluency and expression are necessary components of reading that indicate good comprehension” and after reading Weaver’s text I know that teachers need to truly analyze students’ miscues. The purpose of reading is to gain understanding from the texts. I do not think this inventory is completely accurate because I believe in a mixture of using phonics, skills, and whole language within the literacy instructions. Weaver (2002) wrote that all of the literacy skills should not be taught in isolation but rather integrated within the curriculum. As teachers, I believe we should teach literacy skills to all of our students using the comprehensive literacy program because this allows for differentiation.
Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteSome of my initial scores on the DeFord Inventory changed as well. I don't think I understood what it was asking at first, but as a result of the readings and activities this semester, I better understand what it meant. My views on miscues have changed as a result of this class. I now better understand the different cuing systems that readers use when attempting to construct meaning from text. I also see the need to teach more reading skills in context, rather than in isolation. Like you, I also believe that a mixture of strategies and skills must be taught/acquired in order for students to become proficient readers. Thanks for sharing your ideas!