Readings for March 21

The article that stood out most to me and that I found the most interesting was the Gregory and Cahill article. I think it is very common to underestimate the ability of such young children and it is important to understand that children as young as Kindergarten are able to learn and practice comprehension strategies they will use for the rest of their lives. As this article explained, this classroom of Kindergarteners was able to distinguish whether their comments in discussions were connections to the story, descriptions of their visualizations (mind movies), or questions. In particular I loved the “Velcro Theory”. This is a great way to approach the idea of schemas. I also found it exciting to see children as young as Kindergarten knowing and using the term schemas. The Velcro Theory says that a “new piece of information is easier to remember if we can stick it onto something that’s already in our heads”. This is a great way to think about schemas and it makes sense (and will also make sense to young students). I also really liked the idea of having students close their eyes and then draw what they imagine and then compare it to the illustrations in the story. This is a great way to get students engaged in the text without requiring them to do a lot of writing (which is good because they are so young), but is just as beneficial in my opinion. This article also did a good job of breaking down the idea of inferring. By simply saying, “was the question answered in the text or did you have to use your brain?” it makes this concept seem less complicated. I think by simplifying even the most complex concepts, you can address these types of things with very young children.
In addition, I also like reading about the different Comprehension Profiles in the Applegate & Quinn article. This article talked about the need for higher-level questions that get students to really think rather than recall text details. This is pretty much exactly what we have been hearing in this class in every article we have read so far. Nonetheless, I found the profiles interesting and I enjoyed being able to place some of my students that I have been working with during my small group literacy lesson into some of these categories. There is one student in particular that falls into the Fuzzy Thinkers and/or Minimalists profile(s). She always seems to have something to say however she always makes vague statements and provides no elaboration on her answers no matter how much I try to probe her with further questions. I find it interesting that type of student can be found anywhere. I agree completely with the need to identify the profile of each of your students so that you are able to “provide instruction they need for effective, rewarding, and engaged reading” (Applegate & Quinn). You are not able to effectively approach the instruction of a student until you understand their habits of reading and thinking.