Blast from the Past: This timely piece is about time and how to spend it during language arts instruction. Many teachers spend too little time on some components of literacy--because they get wrapped up in doing particular activities rather than teaching particular things. The most effective classrooms have clear goals and they make sure the kids know what those are. If you really want kids to be fluent, having them read only a page or practicing with something that they can already read fluently won't help you to that goal. Likewise, a phonics lesson in which kids spend two minutes filling out a worksheet won't make them better decoders. Teachers need to devote enough time to the major goals of learning to read and write.
I am a 2nd year Kindergarten teacher, and I have really known nothing else but Common Core. I feel as though my understanding of the standards is good. My teaching style is workshop-based, with an equal amount of time spent on foundational skills as comprehension. I teach all five areas of literacy (phonics, phonemic awareness, oral language, fluency, comprehension) in our half-day program. My colleagues are veteran teachers, who teach mostly foundational skills with foundational skill-based centers. My Kindergarten colleagues frown on the workshop approach, although it is used in other grade levels (2-8). Our school and district has always been high-performing and considered exceptional. Our common assessments are all foundational skills, and our benchmarking assessment is all foundational skills. Because I teach in the workshop model, they continually tell me how 'I just don't understand Kindergarten' and I am shorting my kids on foundational skills. I am beginning to think that my efforts to pay equal time to comprehension are fruitless on an immediate basis, as they are not being assessed or valued. However, I personally feel that not teaching comprehension on a deep level has been a major mistake in the past. I want to learn and be a great teacher, but I just don't understand what I see to be the inequity in teaching/assessing/valuing comprehension. What are your thoughts on the comprehension standards for Kindergarten? How much time should be spent on comprehension vs. foundational skills in K, and why does it seem like comprehension is an afterthought with many early elementary teachers?
Phonics And Language 2 Answer Key Pdf Free Download
Download 🔥 https://tiurll.com/2yGbAi 🔥
This is an interesting question. The biggest decisions teachers make have to do with how much time to spend on literacy and language and how to divide this time up among the components of literacy. I have long emphasized 2-3 hours of literacy instruction per day in grades K-5 (if you are teaching in a half-day kindergarten, then 60-90 minutes per day).
Decoding is very important and needs to be mastered during these early years (preK through grade 2 or 3). Decoding includes phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, sight vocabulary, and phonics (and spelling).
And one more component that you do not mention: writing. It is critical that students be engaged in trying to express their ideas through written language. Initially, this might be done through dictation but very quickly should shift to kids trying to do their own technology.
When you say that you spend equal times on reading comprehension and the foundational skills (phonological awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency), I think you are making a big mistake. That is not enough time for kids to develop those foundational skills in my opinion, and I think you'll slow their growth in reading. If your colleagues are devoting all of the time to foundational skills (because those are benchmarked), they may be doing long-term damage; foundational skills are necessary, but insufficient to make students capable readers.
Russ Walsh said...
Tim,
You said, "reading comprehension refers to participating in reading text and answering questions and learning strategies for thinking about text." Would you consider an interactive read aloud, in which the teacher engages the students in discussion of the text and answering questions about the text, to be reading comprehension instruction or is it just listening comprehension? As I read the literature on this it is generally purported to be reading comprehension instruction and appropriate for emergent readers.
October 21, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Reading comprehension and listening comprehension are different but related processes. For kids through about 8th grade, reading comprehension is the tougher of the two. It is certainly sensible to emphasize listening comprehension instead of reading comprehension when children cannot yet read (this is even true with older students who can't read), but I see no benefit to pretending that oral language work is the same thing as reading comprehension instruction (perhaps this confusion is why so many primary grade teachers stop working with oral language as soon as reading comprehension work begins?). I would encourage preschool and kindergarten teachers to focus heavily on vocabulary development, extended conversation, oral presentation, sentence elaboration, and listening comprehension, but I would discourage them from labeling those as reading comprehension.\
October 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM
I am a full-day kindergarten teacher, and I agree that using half of one's instructional time to discuss read-alouds (and calling this comprehension instruction) falls far short of a quality emergent reading program. I spend lots of time on phonics and phonemic awareness, including teaching kids how to spell the 40+ sounds of English (using a program called Jolly Phonics). Kids are sounding out and spelling words on slates by the time we've been in school a month. At first I segment the CVC words for them, but soon kids get the hang of how to stretch out and listen for sounds, recording them on boards and sometimes illustrating words for fun. Kids sound out and spell words daily...I never miss this part of literacy.
These lessons lead into writer's workshop, where I expect kids to listen for sounds and write what they hear. Writing gives meaning to phonics lessons, because students soon understand that sounds can be set down using letters. Writing is fundamental for developing good readers!
Another component of our program includes guided reading groups, using decodable text, and the accompanying centers that kids work on when not with me.
The final components of our literacy program include independent reading, a daily read-aloud and discussion (usually in a content area), and shared reading, using a big book or other easy text.
We are a Title 1 school, and at the end of last year only five out of 96 of our kinder students were labeled below grade level in literacy by our district. We consider students ending up at a DRA-2 Level 3 "at risk", because many students end up at levels far beyond that.
I understand the severe time constraints of a half-day program, but I'd rank phonics (including PA), writing, and decodable text reading to be non-negotiables!
October 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM
I believe reading comprehension to be the ultimate goal for any reader. As Tim mentioned, however, listening comprehension is different than reading comprehension. I teach third grade and most, if not all, of my students can comprehend read alouds. Reading comprehension issues come to fruition with students who are not strong readers. I agree with Tim in that if you are teaching kindergarten, it is important to focus on the foundational skills children need to read later in life, more so than the reading comprehension aspect. With that being said, I still think this teacher should fit in reading comprehension activities with those students who can read, whenever possible. For those who cannot read, place a strong focus on listening comprehension, as these skills will allow for students to grasp comprehension more easily and effectively in the future.
Tim,
Do you still agree with your thoughts above now that 10 years has passed? Thank you!
Christina :)
P.S. I heard you present in Tampa, FL at the University of Tampa. I was the young lady with glasses asking all of the questions. Lol. I loved your presentation. Thank you!
"Whole language" is embraced by some, cursed by many. For whom is it appropriate and for whom is it inappropriate? (Is it possible to tell in advance for whom it will work or won't work?) - David E. Rubin, MD, Medical director of Laboratory, Saint Anthony Community Hospital
Learning to read is an extremely complicated process that requires many skills and abilities.
For example, kids need to understand the sounds of their language, how sounds (phonemes) link to the letters and letter patterns in written language (phonics), how to apply these skills accurately and rapidly and read with expression (fluency), how to develop vocabulary and world knowledge so that what they read can be linked to what they know about content, concepts, and the world, and how to actively deploy reading comprehension strategies to comprehend in an optimal fashion. For reading to develop, any program or approach must be comprehensive and to ensure instructional interactions of all these components.
Instruction must also be tailored so success is achieved and motivation to read continues and is enhanced.
The whole language question gives us an opportunity to examine the scientific evidence related to the philosophy under-girding whole language principles.
Whole Language is a Philosophy, Not a Teaching Method
Whole language is hard to define because different people view it in different ways. It is a philosophy of instruction and learning, not a teaching method or program.
Many tenets of the whole language philosophy do not seem to be scientifically accurate. For example, whole language espouses the notion that learning to read and spell is like learning to speak. Therefore, kids can glean the form and structure of written language through exposure to context meaning-making activities that do not require direct instruction. This idea flows from the notion that learning to read is natural and develops in a similar fashion to listening and speaking. These philosophical notions have not been supported by scientific evidence. 152ee80cbc
cinematic wedding invitation video templates free download