Reaction to "Writing to Learn..."

I really enjoyed reading this article, perhaps because it was interesting, or perhaps because I so enjoy writing. I’m not sure which. In any event, I loved the idea of using writing as a method of deepening the understanding of our students. As the article stated, “writing enhances comprehension,” and one must have a deeper level of understanding of a concept in order to write about it. Writing involves deep thinking, questioning, and grappling with your thoughts. If you are merely answering multiple choice questions about a topic, you are not required to actually learn a great deal about it. However, if you have students write, possibly in essay form, about a topic, they can actually show all that they learned. This is the higher level of processing that we need to get our students to attain.

I also liked how the article referred to writing to learn as a “catalyst for further learning.” Writing is not the destination in learning; it is a beginning point from which we launch into deeper understandings.

The article made me reflect on writing as a life skill. Writing is like math, in that, no matter what your career or path in life, you will always use the two. Teachers really need to get their students comfortable with writing because they will use it the rest of their lives, even if they do not choose to go to college. And as the article stated, in today’s job market, written communication skills are imperative.

I think that most students are intimidated by writing, perhaps because they have not had many positive writing experiences, or because writing was not appropriately modeled for them in school. Writing is a complex process, and so many mistakes will occur in writing. If I know that my writing is going to be scrutinized at length, I am naturally going to be apprehensive to write. I think that the article had a great idea about allowing students to make mistakes in their writing. Let them write, but provide support and feedback to help them improve, but don’t freak children out by making too big of a deal about mistakes. This blog is an excellent way to motivate students to write. Imagine if you started a classroom blog and allotted time each day (or week) for students to contribute to the blog. Kids always want to “play” on the computer.

Concerning the “writing helps students to think critically and creatively,” part of the article, I have to agree with Sarah G, who said in class that school has taken away our creativity. America itself was built by a group of people who thought creatively and “outside the box.” Creativity and entrepreneurship are what made this country the greatest in the world. I think that we are going to see serious repercussions from a lack of creativity in years to come. What business will never be started due to a lack of creativity? What inventions will not be created? What cures to diseases are being stifled all because we are not teaching or allowing our children the freedom to think for themselves and be creative? Perhaps we can be part of the change of atmosphere in classrooms and allow children to be creative and innovative again.  

Reaction to "Making a case..."

This article did an effective job of making me aware of the need for content area reading, or "reading to learn." I guess that previously I hadn't given the idea of reading to gain information too much thought. This was probably mostly true because the majority of our instruction last semester was geared toward teaching children to read period; not necessarily how to read informational text to gain understanding. One thing that the article did say concerning this was that recently informational text is made to help improve decoding and fluency skills at the same time as they learn about their surroundings. This is a brilliant idea. Since one of the main reasons that we read is for the purpose of learning, why wouldn't you make reading both informational and geared to improving actual "reading skills" simultaneously? I think that children would be very excited to learn in this way as long as the informational reading is developmentally appropriate for their age level. Children are naturally inquisitive, investigative and love to learn about the world around them. Instead of reading books simply for pleasure (which is important), a large percentage of what children read should be actually teaching them something. I agree with the article about the kid-friendly magazines from National Geographic and such. I love reading them myself!

Explicit reading instruction is absolutely important, but as the article stated, can be integrated into the other subjects. Students can learn to read while they are reading to learn, as the article also stated. Math and science are not to be left out of this either. Reading and writing can absolutely be improved in these content areas, just like all others. The article gave an example of how to accomplish this by asking children what the definition of a fraction is. Not only will the teacher be able to assess the student's content knowledge of fractions, the child also has to think on a higher DOK level than merely filling in answers on a worksheet. This is a great exercise for getting the students to expand on their mathematical thinking and to think deeper, rather than memorizing and repeating answers.

The article pointed out a truth that brings me a bit out of my comfort zone when it stated that a third factor in the changing of literacy is the technology craze in our society. I am coming up on my ten year high school reunion and even when I was in school, teachers used a chalk board or a white board. Now teachers are using a wide range of technology in the classrooms, and sometimes the children know how to work it better than the teachers! I am increasing in my technical knowledge, but I am not yet comfortable with all of it. Just give me my chalk board, and I will be good. However, I know that I am going to have to learn the technology. It is just the society in which we live. My friend recently had a baby girl and I realized that the very first phone little Gracie gets will be much "smarter" than the smart phone I have right now, and I have the latest edition. She will never even know a day in her life when people had land lines in their homes. It is just a technology generation.

I found it interesting that the article referred to "trade book, e-mail, electronic messaging, or Internet sites" as "literacies." I guess though, they are forms of literacy. I had just never considered them such. I was also shocked to read that basal readers are used in 85% of elementary classrooms. If this statistic is true, then no one should be shocked to find that children are not motivated to read. Dick and Jane are not very entertaining.

I agree that informal texts are a great way to motivate children to learn. Children are naturally curious and want to learn more about the world around them. Especially beneficial to children is finding topics that the children are interested in exploring more. Find out their interests, and give them an informational book. Also interesting, was that the article stated that little boys are especially interested in reading to learn. I have heard this before. I wonder why that is.

I was alarmed when I read that only 3.6 minutes per day are spent reading informational text! So, less than five minutes a day is spent on reading for the purpose of learning. This trend is not preparing students for the real world. Most of what I read is for the purpose of learning, and such is the case for most adults.

I did read one thing in the article that pointed to a positive aspect of NCLB...ahhh finally. I knew that it had to have done at least one good thing! That was that according to the reading, it increased the emphasis on content area reading, which is a plus. The MCT2 tests place a strong emphasis on reading, so teachers have in turn, spent more time with students practicing reading to gain information.

I enjoyed reading the article. It was packed with some beneficial information. I was left with two questions, which I would like to explore further. The first question was: How do we change the epidemic of reading deficiencies in our students? How are we going to motivate those students who just do not care about reading? I was asking myself these questions after reading that only a third of tenth graders are on the appropriate reading level.

The second question that I have regarding the article is: What do we do in a situation in which there is no technology available in our classrooms? With budget cuts at an all-time high, it seems very likely to me that we may not have technology available. How then will we teach our students the language of technology?