Reading this article exemplified the urgency of talking about text with children. Many teachers hand out books or read stories to a class and feel that, that in itself is a language and comprehension enriching process. It takes so much more. A huge part of comprehension is talking about the text that has been read. I agree with McKeown, in that in order for this to take place, text needs to be conceptually challenging. I think many teachers go wrong when they assume that young children cannot handle being intellectually challenged. The earlier student begin being challenged, the more beneficial it will be in the future. I had never really thought about the fact that, just because a student is not able to read certain types of text yet, many of them will become more familiar with vocabulary sooner than later, if enriching texts are being read aloud.
The best teachers I remember throughout school were consistently challenging me and always asking that we reflect on what was read. Only when something is reflected upon, can it become relevant to one’s own world. When a student makes connections between text and self or text and world, it begins to make sense. I agree with Dickinson and Smith in that I believe text is most beneficial when “analytic in nature.”
The article states that children tend to respond to stories by using what is easily accessible to them, thus making the reflection process a little difficult. What are some effective ways I, as a teacher, can engage younger students in the reflective thought process of reading a text?
I found the portion of the article about illustrations intriguing. I have noticed in past observations that, although illustrations initially attract the students, they at the same time, detract from the text itself. What is more important? Should illustrations be kept minimal for a certain age group of children or are they absolutely essential to a child’s construction of meaning?
No comments:
Post a Comment