Module 3: Reading Reflection

Do you agree with Marilyn Adams (1990, p. 108) who argued that rather than relying on context, “Skillful readers of English thoroughly process the individual letters of words in their texts?” Why or why not?


I do not agree with this statement made my Marilyn Adams. When proficient readers are reading a text, they are not reading the letters, and then sounding out the words, and then giving meaning to the words. They are reading the words as a whole and giving meaning to them. It was interesting when completing the activities on pages 91-93 in Weaver's text. I never realized that certain parts of words are actually more important when it comes to visually seeing them. We learn that the consonants are more important than the vowels because there are more of them. It is much easier to read a paragraph with missing consonants than missing vowels. Needless to say, we don't need all of the letters to gain meaning from a text. Proficient readers do not identify letters to create meaning, they create meaning from the context of words. 


Today, I was tutoring a former student of mine in reading comprehension. He came across the word minutely. He first pronounced it like minute (60 seconds) and added the -ly. He became quite confused when he said it because he didn't understand the meaning. I told him to finish reading the sentence and he was able to grasp that the author was using a synonym for slightly. He was able to pick up on the context of the word instead of using letter-by-letter identification. Even when we do not recognize a word right away, we group the letters together to make familiar sounds. 

Module 2: Instructional Challenge

I believe that these children’s miscues are evidence of proficient readers. I recognize that the children did not read every single word correctly, however they did show a comprehension of the text for the most part. If we were having a conversation with these children and they used these phrases then we would be able to comprehend what they are saying even though it might be not correct English, and vice versa. Some children’s dialect might be rooted from home, which is why they may read in this way. The grammar in several of these sentences is incorrect and a student who uses correct grammar is usually a proficient reader. However, I still feel that these children were still able to gain meaning from the text because the purpose of the sentence was not changed or altered in a different way.

If I was teaching children with similar miscues, I would definitely keep an eye on them and make sure they are fully comprehending the text. I could ask the child to answer some questions about the text that would show comprehension. The ultimate goal of reading is to gain meaning from a text. If a student is able to do that and sometimes incorrectly read function words, I think that is still okay. If the meaning of the text has been altered because of the miscues, then that is definitely something that requires extra assistance.   

Module 2: Activities 1 & 2

Activity 1

-creech: screech
-droogs: drugs
-glazzies: glasses
-goloss: gloss
-malenky: melancholy
-messel: muscle
-millicents: millenium
-poogly: poorly
-razrez: razors
-skorry: scurry
-spatted: spit
-zoobies: zombies

When I was trying to figure out what these words meant, I was just looking at the letters and sounding out the word as best I could and then trying to think of an English word that could maybe be somewhat similar to the spelling or the word sounded out. The words were in a list, so I was not able to look at the context of the words.


After reading A Clockwork Orange:

-droogs: friends or brothers
-skorry: quickly
-spatted: fought with
-glazzies: eyes
-messel: idea or thought
-goloss: voice

For the word "droogs," I realized that it meant either friends or brothers because of the names listed right after.

For the work skorry, I recognized that the word is an adverb because it is describing how the times changed. Then, using the context before and after the word, I could tell that the root of the word "skorry" is quick.

The way the word "spatted" was placed in the sentence, it just seemed right that the definition had to do with fighting or arguing.

The first time I saw the word "glazzies" I did not know what it meant. However, in the second sentence I figured that it meant eyes because "his glazzies were glazed" and then the phrase right after talked about him burbling noises so it makes me think that he is drunk and that his eyes were glazed over.

When I read "messel" I believed that the definition was an idea or thought because after the word, the author describes a thought.

When I first read "goloss," I was not sure of its meaning, however I did the second time it appeared in the text. Someone speaks in a very loud teacher-type "goloss" or "voice." Then I recognized the meaning because I was able to remember that it was a singer's goloss that was in the text earlier.

-Needless to say, I had no clue that the words meant when in isolation, however I was able to figure them out once they were put in context because I could use syntactic and semantic cues.

Activity 2

-No, I did not try to read the words letter-by-letter.

-Yes, I chunked the syllables together. 

-No, I did not try to read the words by sampling the letters more or less all at once.

-I did not know any of the meanings. I could recognize a few of the prefixes, like sub, extra, and dis, but I did not know the root word in order to figure out the meaning. 

-No, because I didn't know any of the meanings. 

-I use context cues to figure out the definition. I am usually always able to figure out the gist of what the author is trying to say. I also tried to chunk syllables together. For example, when I read the word "submandibular," I chunked it like this: sub-man-dib-ular instead of sounding out each letter one-by-one. It's easier to read when we can chunk letters together to make sounds. 

-I think that the purpose for this experiment was to show us how readers feel when they see only a word in isolation. I felt helpless and kind of dumb to be completely honest because I didn't know a single word on the list. Nor could I really pronounce any of them correctly. When readers come across an unfamiliar word in a text, it is much easier to gain knowledge about that word than just looking at it on a list. In context, the reader has several ways of options of figuring out what it means. When we give lists or words and tell students to read them, it may be hindering their ability to fully learn and comprehend the words.

Module 2: Reading Reflection

"The major folklore of reading instruction relates to the "theory" that reading is considered an exact process. In other words, the reader is expected to read everything exactly as printed on the page in order to understand the message of the author. In general the consuming public, legislatures, courts and too many educators hold to this theory. It is like the theory of the world being flat during the time of Columbus." -Robert Harper and Gary Kilarr (Weaver, pg. 41).

I absolutely agree with this quote. Yes, reading is a process, however there is not an exact way of doing it. First, we must recognize that reading is not just identifying the print on a page. There is so much more involved. We have to identify the print on a page and then construct meaning from the print. Every person can make meaning using their own schema. Each one's schema is different because not every person has the same experience. We also use different contexts when we read. The whole purpose for reading is to make meaning. Just as Dr. Ritchie said in his powerpoint, readers can still make meaning of a text even if they miscue with certain words. If a reader does not read a sentence exactly how it is printed on the page, that does not mean that they have lost the meaning that the author is trying to portray. Weaver says that most readers can make more understanding of a word when it is in  context rather than being in isolation. As readers, our brain automatically knows that these words in a sentence somehow go together. So, whether we realize it or not, we are breaking down the words in each sentence and figuring out what the mean in the context of the sentence. Often times, words that we come across while reading that may be outside of our vocabulary are explained through the context of the sentence. For example, on pg. 44 of Weaver's text, she gives us this sentence: "The teacups were delicate, easily broken. So fragile that Ellen hardly dared grasp the handle." If a child does not know the meaning of the word "fragile," they can realize that the meaning is given in the previous sentence. They can use syntactic and semantic cues to figure that out. We can also miscue on the pronunciation of a word and then realize from the words after it that we pronounced it incorrectly. Take the sentences at the bottom of pg. 49 and top of pg. 50 for example. One sentence says, "I saw the tear in her eye." We might originally pronounce tear as it rhymes with dare." In this context, the true pronunciation would be tear as it rhymes with dear. Once we construct meaning of the word "dress," we know the correct pronunciation of "tear." Using context is huge and essential when we read and often times, involuntary.

I agree with the second part of the quote as well. There are too many people that hold on the theory that reading is an exact process that needs to be done in the same way for every single child. Every child has a different way to learn math or social students because every one has a different learning style. The process of reading works the same way - students learn how to read differently. Just because a student miscues words on a page does not mean that he has not gained or constructed meaning from the words.

Module 1: Activity 1

Module 1: Activity 2

a. What is corandic? A corandic is an emurient grof with many fribs.


b. What does corandic grank from? It granks from corite, an old which cargs like lange.


c. How do garkers excarp the tarances from the corite? Garkers excarp by glarcking the corite and starping it in tranker-clarped storbs.


d. What does the slorp finally frast? The slorp finally frasts a pragety, blickant crankle: coranda. 


e. What is coranda? Coranda is a cargurt, grinkling corandic and borigen. 


f. How is the corandic nacerated from the borigen? The corandic is nacerated from the borigen by means of loracity. 


g. What do the garkers finally thrap? The garkers finally thrap a glick, bracht, glupous grapant, corandic. 

How is it that you are able to answer such questions? What does this experience suggest about the kinds of “comprehension” questions found in workbooks and on standardized tests? 

I was able to answer the questions only by looking at the structure of the sentences. Simply by looking at the words like “is,” “by,” “from,” etc., I was able to figure out how to somewhat answer the questions. There is no way I could explain what the nonsense words mean, however just by the grammatical structure, I can easily answer the questions. The questions were also surface level questions (What? How?) If a question required me to think or infer, I would not be able to articulate an answer. I know that a corandic is a noun because of the way it is placed in the sentence. Suppose I said: “It corandic from the car.” You would conclude that “corandic” is a verb because of the way I used it in a sentence. You probably still could not determine its meaning, however you could probably figure out that it is a verb.

This experience shows that sometimes the comprehension questions that we ask our students, as teachers, do not tell us what we think they tell us.  Students may not always comprehend a text. Maybe they are just figuring how to answer the questions by looking at the grammatical structure of the sentence. Our comprehension questions should require more in-depth thinking and inferring. When a student infers something from a text, that situation is not clearly given. Inferring requires students to comprehend the events or meaning of the text. We need to be careful when using these types of questions, even though they may seem harmless. 

Module 1: Instructional Challenge

After reading and re-reading the passage presented to me, I could not make sense of what the passage was about. I first thought that the passage might be talking about a plane and a pilot. However, I'll admit that I "googled" the passage and realized that it was actually about Christopher Columbus and his arrival to land. 


1. What are the hocked gems? I looked up the definition of "hocked" because that was the only term that I would not quite use the context of the passage to identify it's meaning. I found that it means to pawn or trade. So, I am assuming that "hocked gems" are the spices and goods that Columbus had to trade and receive. 


2. What should we think of as an egg and not a table? The earth was thought to be flat, like a table. Here, he is saying that we should think of the earth as round, like an egg.


3. Who are the three sturdy sisters? The three sturdy sisters are the ships. 


4. What kind of winged creatures approached? I think that the winged creatures that approached are birds. 


If you were to use this passage with students, what schema would you need to activate with them first? I would definitely have to activate their schema of Columbus. When I first read the passage, I could not make sense of what the author was trying to say, so I had to activate my schema. It would be very difficult for students to automatically pick up that this passage was referring to Columbus; similarly to Weaver's example about "washing clothes. Once the reader is told that the passage is about washing clothes, the reader is able to conduct meaning. My schema was activated once the author said that. 


How can you help teach children whose schema and the text’s content don’t match? I think it is still very possible to teach children whose schema and text's content don't match. For example, anytime that children read about an event in history, they don't always have a schema associated to the event. Kids who are learning about the signing of the Declaration of Independence were not there. They have not experienced what it was like so it would be difficult for them to fully understand the concept and apply meaning to a text that is about the signing of the Declaration of Independence. However, before reading about it, I can use pictures, video clips, letters, etc. to start some sort of schema that relates to the event. So when a student begins to read about the event, they can associate the pictures, video clips, and letters with the text. 


How much time should children spend in texts that don’t match their interests or schema? I think is it still important for children to spend time in texts that don't match their interests of schemas. How will a child ever learn if he is not "stepping outside the box" or "outside the comfort zone?" Although, I do think it is important for a child to be reading within their interests and schemas when reading for fluency and accuracy. It would not be fair for a student who just moved from Montana to New York to be assessed over a text about taking the subway to school.