Both of these topics have a lot of debate that surrounds them. I am going to focus on a few of the issues that I have internally when I think about these areas of literacy.
The main issue that I have surrounding miscues is the fact that it seems very hard to learn how to conduct the formal, and even informal, miscue assessments. It seems like it would take years of practice, and it could be detrimental to a student's progression in literacy if you "mess up" in your first years of miscue practice. I understand that this is what this cluster and field experience is for, but still, it's only a semester's worth of practice.
The bigger issue that I have surrounds the reading levels. While I do believe, to some extent, that they can be helpful when guiding students toward picking a "just right" book for them, I also think that reading levels can be very limiting. The story at the beginning of the article about the teacher not allowing her student to read a book at the "D" level because he was at the "C" level really frustrated me. Why would you, as a teacher, want to hold back your student if they were trying to move forward? I also think that with the help of guided reading or partner reading, it could be very beneficial for a student to read one level about their current level. With the help of others, I believe these books would be right in a student's ZPD and could actually help them progress to a higher reading level. I also agree with the article that it is quite hard to measure someone's reading ability level based on only a few characteristics that are able to be assessed. By labeling a student at a certain reading level, you may be hindering their chances to do great things with literacy. While every teacher should strive to help each student do what works best for them in order to succeed, I do not think that it necessarily needs to be done by labeling a child or books at certain reading levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment