Journal Question #12

This entry answers #12 of the Reading Methods Journal

Respond to the presence or absence of the opportunities to develop all aspects of the language arts—reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing—within the meaningful context of the daily curriculum.

My normal practicum time (8:30 AM- 11:10 AM) did not afford me with an abundance of opportunities to watch the children express themselves using language arts. My typical observation included the kids sleepily walking in, quietly sitting at their desks, eating breakfast and recording the day’s activities in their planners (writing), and then rushing through word sorts of their spelling words. After this morning routine, the children would go to the library to choose books to read for the week. The children meticulously spent time selecting their books in the library and recognized the importance of developing themselves as readers by selecting books that were “just right” books as well as books that were just on the upper cusp of their reading levels so that they could challenge themselves as readers (Vygotsky-ZPD). They enjoyed reading the books that they spent so much time in selecting for themselves. After library, the children would go to specials (PE, art, and music), come back at 10:25 for a math lesson in which they were able to interact with the lesson by writing their math work on a whiteboard, and then work on a math worksheet.

Quite honestly, I felt like I was missing something during many of my Tuesday morning practicum experiences. I always got to observe Mrs. Overstreet’s math lessons, but rarely saw any of the balanced literacy activities described by Professor Huntley. In order to catch a better glimpse of what the opposite portion of the day held (the reading and language arts portion of the day after lunch), I attended my practicum over Fall Break. I hoped to see the language arts that I was missing in my morning session with the kids.

During their reading/language time, the children independently read for 45 minutes while Mrs. Overstreet went around to her focus students (typically struggling students), having them read aloud to her. There was a huge amount of importance placed on reading in Mrs. Overstreet’s classroom. Mrs. Overstreet would record anecdotal notes during this time. The children then participated in a writing lesson in which Mrs. Overstreet introduced a writing concept, gave an example of the writing concept, discussed it with the children, and then practiced applying the concept in their writing. On the particular day that I observed, the children were discussing the ways that authors use “emotion words” or descriptive adjectives and adverbs to inspire emotions in the reader. They then were allowed to write their own stories using emotion words. This assignment encouraged the children to use and build on their writing skills. The children were able to express their ideas through speech (Thinking Aloud- Keene and Harvey) and were given the option to visually represent their story by drawing a picture after they had written out their stories.

The first impression that I received when I went into Mrs. Overstreet’s class for my morning practicum was that there was not a whole lot of purposeful language arts activities going on. Granted, my observation time wasn’t ideal (I only really got to see math and library time). As I continued to attend my practicum, I realized that even during the morning responsibility and math time, Mrs. Overstreet did her best to keep her kids writing in their planners and on their whiteboards (which was certainly better than having no writing at all). The morning time seemed to be mostly about discussion, planning, and thought. The afternoon time seemed to be about reading, writing, and articulating. As I reflect upon this, I realize how purposeful it is to have discussion, planning, and thought during the math part of the day, for kids are dealing with abstract concepts. They need language to guide their thinking (Naming thinking using consistent language- Keene and Harvey). While I feel that language arts can be incorporated into every subject (and probably could be interjected even more into the math portion of the day), I think that Mrs. Overstreet did a fine job incorporating writing, listening, and viewing into her lessons, all the while teaching according to her students’ strengths and learning styles. The afternoon language arts portion of the day was rich with language arts activities- reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing.

I made a very interesting observation during my time in Mrs. Overstreet’s class. It appears that the more mediums of expression that children are allowed to use, the more engaged that they are in the learning process regardless of the subject matter. Children who are able to freely speak, write, read, view, visually represent, and listen are much more engaged than children who are just allowed to listen or read quietly. I believe that it is because of this that most children love language arts (because they can freely express themselves using multiple mediums of communication) and learn to hate math. Their mediums of expression are muted during math when they are forced to “focus” and “pay attention”, when what they really need is to assign language to their thinking and begin to use that language in their everyday vocabulary (Critical dialogue- Gentile, Thinking/Language- Keene and Harvey).

I can think of only one last thing to say regarding my opinion on the topic of language arts opportunities in the classroom. It would be unfair to use a single rating scale for all teachers and their proficiency of language arts use in their classroom. Every classroom is made up of a diverse group of kids and it is the kids that should determine what kind of lesson should be used. I am convinced that while Balanced Literacy is incredible, there are elements of it that cannot be used in every single classroom, but must be modified to fit the group of students. I feel that Mrs. Overstreet was wonderful at reading her students, was flexible enough to change her instruction mid-lesson if it was not working, and did all that she could to provide ample opportunities for language arts expression taking into consideration the personalities of her children, their academic levels, and their preferred styles of expression. Teaching is like solving a rubik’s cube. You have to come at it from all angles and all sides taking into consideration that one move will affect all of the other squares (or children in this case). Maintaining a homeostasis in which each child is learning is certainly a challenge, but can be overcome by (1) knowing the students extremely well, (2) learning to “read” the children in order to gauge their interest levels, and (3) allowing the children to express themselves using multiple mediums of expression.