One topic we have recently discussed in class which I find to be very interesting is Vigotsky’s Zone of proximal development theory. This is the idea that there are basically 3 levels of beginning readers which help inform instruction. When a child reads with 98% or more accuracy on his/her own, this is the Independent level. 95-97% is the Instructional level, and below 95% is called Frustrational. I suppose this makes perfect sense, but I had held different conceptions of what to best challenge children with in reading in the past. I would have said that the independent level is good for practice, but not of must use for instruction. Similarly, I would have looked at the instructional level as better, but still not challenging enough for teaching. My instincts would have me push students with reading that they could process at maybe 85% to 95%, but apparently research shows that anything under 95% is too difficult and would be counter-productive. I am glad I have been exposed to this research so I do not make the mistake in the future of asking too much from my students.
One thing I would like to discuss that I am not necessarily confused by, but more shocked, is the data on reading abilities in specific and literacy in general for the overall population. The numbers cited in this weeks reading about literacy rates for minorities are to be honest, disgusting. In particular, some stats that I find particularly upsetting are that “20% of elementary students are very poor readers,” “44% of all fourth graders…below basic,” and “the rate of reading failure in these groups (African-American and Latino) is 60%-70%” (Moats, 2000, p.4). I simply cannot understand how we have let this situation get so out of control in this modern age.
To answer this week’s most important topic question, this is exactly “why it is essential for Pre K – 5 teachers to know about and understand children’s oral language acquisition.” We must address this terrible injustice in a logical, methodical way. If we don’t understand how children acquire oral language skills, we will never break this cycle. Oral language is the basis for all further instruction in literacy. Obviously we need to find a way to adapt our instruction and curricula regarding written language based on newer research about oral language to better serve students today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm glad to hear you're shocked by the NAEP statistics - I've read them a billion times and still find them disturbing! Most researchers say that disabilities impact 5-12% of the population. Also, Vygotsky's ZPD idea is much broader than just reading levels - it can be applied to all categories of instruction. It's the idea that we can raise students' levels through support.
ReplyDeleteHey David,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more that we have a big problem in our hands with the overall literacy rates and it's time to break the pattern. I'm certain that with more knowledge for teachers regarding oral language development, the statistics will change for the better. It's so important for teachers to learn the things we are learning in this class and it's going to benefit the country as a whole. One thing I want to add is, don't forget that parents also play a major role in children's literacy abilities. I'm also shocked and disgusted by the rates, but children who are read to consecutively before bed at night, are given an enormous advantage just by frequent and consistent exposure to words and sounds. See you tomorrow,
Julia