Literate environment analysis


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Literate environment analysis

  1. 1. Tomeica Stephenson February 17,2013 Instructor:Cindee EastonEDUC 6707 The Beginning Reader Prek-3
  2. 2. •A place where one develops skills to communicateauthentically through speaking, listening, reading, andwriting (Cooper, 2000).•A place rich in language and print (Cooper, 2000).•A place accessible to all students regardless of theirlearning abilities, home language, or learning styles(Ruckdeschel, 2011).
  3. 3. •Getting to Know Literacy Learners•Selecting Texts•Literacy Instruction Interactive Perspective Critical Perspective Response Perspective
  4. 4. •The design of an effective literacy classroom is one based on fidelityto the literacy program as well as fidelity to students•(Laureate Education Inc., 2010b).•In order to create a literate environment, teachers must get to knowthe children in their classrooms. Children learn in terms of theculture and language background they come from (Laureate EducationInc., 2010f).•Teachers can begin to understand more about their students throughinteracting with families, talking to students, and interest inventories.
  5. 5. Noncognitive assessments focus on the student’s motivation to read,self-concept, attitudes about reading, and how they feel aboutthemselves as a reader (Afflerbach, 2007).Motivation is the force behind almost everything we do. Teachers mustget to know their students better in order to have their best interestsat heart (Laureate Education Inc., 2010d). Examples of Noncognitive Assessments•Elementary Reading Attitudes Survey (ERAS; McKenna & Kear, 1990)•Classroom observations Interviews with students
  6. 6. “ Students in our classrooms possess a complex array ofreading skills and strategies” (Afflerbach, p. 27). Understandingliteracy learners includes the use of cognitive and noncognitiveassessments.Examples of Cognitive Assessments Reading Inventories Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills test(DIBELS) Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP)Cognitive assessments provide teachers with the ability tounderstand each student’s growth and challenges as a reader(Afflerbach, 2007).
  7. 7. This research based practice allowed me to better understandmy students’ attitudes, motivations, and interests towardreading (Laureate, 2009).A student’s attitude towards reading plays an important rolein their reading performance (McKenna & Kear, 1990).I was also able to identify my students’ independent,instructional, and frustration reading levels along with otherpertinent information about their phonemic awareness, phonics,fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Afflerbach, 2007);thus enabling me to plan appropriately for the students’instruction in reading and writing (Laureate, 2009).
  8. 8. Selecting TextThree Genres of Text Dimensions of Difficulty  Readability Stories or narratives  Text Length Informational and non  Text Structure fiction  Size of Print Poetry  Visual Support (Tompkins,2010) These factors should be considered when selecting appropriate texts for students (Laureate, 2009).
  9. 9. Selecting Text(continued)Analysis of SelectingTextsExposing students to  The literacy matrix is comprised ofvaries of texts can four quadrants. Horizontally goinginclude printed anddigital. from narration to informational and vertical, going from narrative toInformational,narrative, and semiotic.semiotic texts areinforming to the  Linguistic- word orientedstudents. Afterreviewing the  Semiotic-messages other than wordsstudent’s assessments, (pictures).I chose the texts thatsupported theirneeds. I measuredtheir literacy levelsand interest.
  10. 10. Research for Selecting Texts determines that students who areexposed to a selection of texts at an early age will show thedevelopment at a more rapidly rate in obtaining neededliteracy skills (Tompkins, 2010a).
  11. 11. •The ultimate goal of the interactive perspective is to teachchildren to be literate learners who can navigate through atext independently (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010a)•Use schema as a strategy for comprehension•Use instructional strategies that address the needs of studentsand the demands of a text (Walden University, 2011).
  12. 12. The lesson I created for the interactive perspective focussed oncomprehension of a narration text. I modeled through thinkaloud which is the best way to teach all comprehensionstrategies. By thinking aloud, one was able to show studentswhat good readers do, Wilhelm (2001). ). Students wereallowed to think aloud then they were monitored as theymade use of the think aloud. Additionally, I used questions,visuals and synthesizing information to help students toexamine their thinking process, (fountas &Pinnell, 2000).
  13. 13. According to Dr. Almasi (2010c), looking at text and examining itfrom different perspectives can allow students to look at thebelievability of what they read. When students use the criticalperspective, they are required to think about who wrote thetext and what the author’s background is like. They may alsothink about why characters are important to a story. Most ofall, the critical perspective encourages students to think abouttheir own backgrounds and how the text influences their ownperspectives. The “Transaction Theory” describes the readerand the text as balls of clay. When the reader and the textcome in contact, their path changes, but there is always a dentleft where the two collided (Laureate Education Inc., 2010b).Providing opportunities for students to respond to text andinteract with texts in meaningful ways is vital to creating aliterate environment
  14. 14. In a reading lesson conducted on three beginning readers, onewas able to enhance their critical and response perspectivesthrough instructional practices, collection of data, and textselection. I modeled and encouraged readers to be activeparticipants in the reading process, by providing opportunitiesfor students to read, react, and formulate a personalresponse to text, Molden, (2007).
  15. 15. Afflerbach, P. (2007). Understanding and using readingassessment, K–12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association,Inc.Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A.(1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49 (7),518–533.Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010a). Analyzing andSelecting Text [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3.Baltimore, MD: Author.Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Changes inLiteracy Education. [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3.Baltimore, MD: Author.
  16. 16. Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010c). CriticalPerspective. [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3. Baltimore, MD:Author.Laureate Education Inc. (2010d). Getting to know your students.[Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3 . Baltimore, MD: Author.Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010e). Informational Text in theEarly Years [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3. Baltimore, MD:Author.Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010f). Perspectives onLiteracy. [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3. Baltimore, MD:Author.Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010g). ResponsePerspective. [Webcast] The beginning reader, prek-3 . Baltimore, MD:Author.
  17. 17. Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010h). ResponsePerspective: Reading-Writing Connection. [Webcast]. Thebeginning reader, prek-3 . Baltimore, MD: Author.Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010i). StrategicProcessing. [Webcast]. The beginning reader, prek-3 . Baltimore,MD: Author.McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude towardreading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43 (9),626–639.Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balancedapproach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Molden, K. (2007). Critical literacy, the right answers for thereading classroom: Strategies to move beyond comprehensionfor reading improvement. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 50–56