For me there is a ton of information in these two chapters to take in and adsorb into my brain. In previous classes I had heard of instructional levels of learning and independent levels of learning. However, I find it interesting that there is a frustration level and a listening level of reading. It makes sense that the listening level may or may not be the same as the instructional reading level. Since I am a science teacher whenever I read anything I think of ways I could possible use this information in science class. I know that I have students that are not at the same reading level. I wonder if these students may have a higher listening level. I wonder how I might be able to find and use readings at their independent or instructional reading level, which will fit my curriculum or fit somewhat with the vocabulary that is introduced with the readings from the book. I think and hope with this class I will learn more ways to assess even the possible readings I find to give to students to read. I think it would be interesting to use the informal reading inventories on some of my students to see where their comprehension breaks down on an expository text. Then I might use instruction to help those students. However, I wonder if it would be unfair to use it on the few students and not all my students. But using this on all 150 students that I teach in a day would be overwhelming if not impossible, I think.
I also like how they break down interpreting the IRI into quantitative data and qualitative data because I can understand this interpretation of data easily. In fact I teach my students the difference in between qualitative and quantitative science data collections. Now after reading this chapter and its redundancy I would feel comfortable trying to give and IRI.
Running records, hum, I am encouraged at how plan and simple they are. Although it has different categories it is nice how they can also be used as an assessment of the student reading level. However, I didn't like the part of the chapter where they state, this type of record is supposedly not useful for my middle school students. It just seems like there is a way to use this record possibly with alterations to help instruction in a middle school science class. Or to help instruction with certain students in a middles school science class. I don't know those are just my thought right now.
Oh yes, one quick question on page 42 in the Gillet reading it mentions a "good question....should call on both convergent and divergent thinking." I looked up a little online but you know how there are different response to one query online. So online the general overview is convergent thinking you must come up with one possible solution or answer the problem but with divergent thinking you can come up with all of the possible answers to solve the problem. Is that close?
Yes, you're close. :) Basically, look at all of the possibilities and base questions on both the norms AND by looking outside the box a bit. As for usage of running records and IRI's in your science classroom, you could do both. However, I would recommend the QRI or a basic miscue analysis at this age level. Too many check marks- lol. Considering your own situation as a science teacher, just keep in mind that many kids who would not be able to read a difficult text on their own have no problem understanding it when it is read to them. A lot of our kids survive this way in class. Though their reading skills are lower, they have developed an incredible ability to gain information through listening. It reminds me of when I was trying to learn Spanish. I could understand much more of what I heard than what I could read, write, or say myself. It works the same way for kids in class.
ReplyDelete