Wheeler & Swords (2006) show how children�s dialects have their own grammatical structure, and although the structure may differ from formal or �Standard� English, we can teach children to code-switch or change registers rather than correcting them, as the following table from page 57 of their book shows:
Take a look at the following examples of children's dialect-based miscues while reading and the difference between the child's original response (OR) and expected reponse (ER). Then answer the questions that follow.
| OR: It my little monkey here. | ER: Is my little monkey here? (sight word miscue) |
| OR: We got to tell. | ER: We've got to tell. (dialect miscue) |
| OR: Frog look at Toad calendar. | ER: Frog looked at Toad's calendar. (absence of past tense marker and absence of possessive noun marker) |
| OR: A word what sounded good. | ER: A word that sounded good. (sight word) |
| OR: hisself | ER: himself |
| OR: I can come to your party? | ER: Can I come to your party? |
Are these children's miscues evidence of proficient or non-proficient reading?� Explain. If you were teaching children who made these miscues, what, if any, assistance or teaching would you offer? Post your thoughts to your blog. Name this blog posting "Module 2: Instructional Challenge."
I believe these children's miscues are evidence of a proficient reader. In order to be a proficient reader one must construct meaning from a passage and doesn't waste time and effort in the quest for meaning. Many of these mistakes are sight word miscues "it" for "is" "what" for "that", dialect miscues "we got" for "we've got", or miscues that involve grammar such as absence of past tense markers or absence of possessive noun markers "look" for "looked" and "Toad" for "Toad's". I believe these children are proficient readers because, as Weaver states in her book, "proficient reading is not miscueless" (Weaver, 2002). This means that proficient readers make mistakes as they read aloud orally because they are using their schema, their own dialect, or predicting what will appear next in the sentence based on the context or the grammatical structure of the sentence.
In order, though for me to be able to determine if these children have constructed meaning from what they read, I would have to analyze their retelling or their answers to comprehension questions. However, since those are not provided, I can determine that these miscues given in the children's original responses do not affect the meaning of the sentences when compared to the expected responses. The structure of the sentence is altered, but the meaning of the sentence appears to remain the same.
If I were teaching children who made these miscues, I would not use special materials or change my teaching methods. I would simply explain that I noticed the child miscued on certain words, but am proud of that student for being able to change the sentence to fit their dialect, for example, and tell that student that since they did that, they actually created more meaning than just reading the words exactly as they are written. If a student was making these miscues and not creating meaning, however, I would do a cloze activity or work with them to determine the best means to improve their reading. Many of these students have been told or have felt that they are poor readers because they miscue and omit, replace, or use their own dialect instead of reading words precisely as they are written on the page. We need students to understand that reading encompasses many pieces that fit together to construct meaning and reading is not reading words exactly as they are written. As teachers, we can explain to students that they are code switching and translating or changing the structure of the sentence to fit the setting, according to Table 4.1. This will, hopefully, change the way students view themselves as readers.
I believe these children's miscues are evidence of a proficient reader. In order to be a proficient reader one must construct meaning from a passage and doesn't waste time and effort in the quest for meaning. Many of these mistakes are sight word miscues "it" for "is" "what" for "that", dialect miscues "we got" for "we've got", or miscues that involve grammar such as absence of past tense markers or absence of possessive noun markers "look" for "looked" and "Toad" for "Toad's". I believe these children are proficient readers because, as Weaver states in her book, "proficient reading is not miscueless" (Weaver, 2002). This means that proficient readers make mistakes as they read aloud orally because they are using their schema, their own dialect, or predicting what will appear next in the sentence based on the context or the grammatical structure of the sentence.
In order, though for me to be able to determine if these children have constructed meaning from what they read, I would have to analyze their retelling or their answers to comprehension questions. However, since those are not provided, I can determine that these miscues given in the children's original responses do not affect the meaning of the sentences when compared to the expected responses. The structure of the sentence is altered, but the meaning of the sentence appears to remain the same.
If I were teaching children who made these miscues, I would not use special materials or change my teaching methods. I would simply explain that I noticed the child miscued on certain words, but am proud of that student for being able to change the sentence to fit their dialect, for example, and tell that student that since they did that, they actually created more meaning than just reading the words exactly as they are written. If a student was making these miscues and not creating meaning, however, I would do a cloze activity or work with them to determine the best means to improve their reading. Many of these students have been told or have felt that they are poor readers because they miscue and omit, replace, or use their own dialect instead of reading words precisely as they are written on the page. We need students to understand that reading encompasses many pieces that fit together to construct meaning and reading is not reading words exactly as they are written. As teachers, we can explain to students that they are code switching and translating or changing the structure of the sentence to fit the setting, according to Table 4.1. This will, hopefully, change the way students view themselves as readers.
I like your strategies for talking with students about code switching. I agree that it isn't necessary to use special materials to address this, but simply talking with students about this should be sufficient. I also like what you said at the end about changing the way students view themselves as readers. Hopefully, when students are aware of why they are miscuing and that it is sometimes actually a sign of a proficient reader, they will have a higher confidence in their reading ability.
ReplyDeleteYes, building confidence is so important in reading! I do agree that their comprehension should be checked as well to make sure that they are getting meaning from what they are reading.
ReplyDeleteI love the positive approach that you took. Encouraging students and making them feel like they are proficient readers is so important. Sometimes students are their own toughest critic. When we give them positive feedback, they become more confident and more proficient.
ReplyDeleteCourtney,
ReplyDeleteI love your encouragement towards these readers!I do think it is important to take a further step to determine if these readers are gaining meaning from a text by providing some comprehension questions to gain future understanding. It is also evident that the students dialect is not omitting or inserting any words that would take away the meaning. All in all, I love how you reinforced the importance of positive feedback to help readers become confident in their skills. Great post!