Learning Blog 3

I found chapter 4 of our reading, about the Assistance Phase of the PAR framework, to be a bit challenging for me to understand. I was getting confused about how each strategy truly fit into the PAR framework. Then, I realized that a lot of the strategies overlap in PAR and many of the strategies even include all aspects of PAR (such as the DR-TA). That being known, I still found it difficult to get through this chapter and understand each technique thoroughly. I found it hard to think of ways that I could adapt some of these strategies into my primary level classroom.

It was mentioned on page 81 that students felt more engaged and comfortable with a text after they spent class time reading it and discussing it with peers; however, the authors found that many reading materials were not conducive to provide this type of reading environment. I found this interesting because even if a text does not support this type of interaction, a teacher can still mold and interpret the text to fit her classroom learning styles in order for all of the students to comprehend successfully.

Page 83 mentioned the MARSI which is something that I had never heard about and had to look at the marginal glosses to understand better. One of the questions I had regarding this is what I could do if my students cannot read the questions or understand them? Is there another inventory that could be used for the lower grades (I’m thinking K & 1^st)? I understand why it is given and it seems like it would give a teacher great insight on learning the problem areas for her students’ comprehension.

Constructivism was another term brought up throughout the chapter and I’m not sure if I fully understand the concept. It seems as if it applies to readers/learners who are actively participating in their learning; not doing things out of rote memory.

There was an example on pages 86 &87 about constructivist learning regarding a little boy reading about an “oil lamp.” He did not know how to say the words and the teacher did not give him the correct pronunciation. It was said that after the reading, the teacher asked comprehension questions and one of the questions was how they used light in the cabin. The boy had a “light bulb” moment and realized that was the “oil lamp” referred to in the story. I’m not sure if I 100% agree with this technique. Wouldn’t this oil lamp vocabulary been spoken of during the P section of the PAR lesson? It seems like oil lamp would have been discussed when working with the students on their prior knowledge. In my opinion, there seems to be a disconnect here between the preparation phase and the assistance phase. I understand that the student was able to create his own conclusion by piecing together the clues, but it still seems like this should’ve been addressed in the preparation phase.

When the authors were explaining the DR-TA strategy on page 89 it was said that, “In fiction, the predictions themselves show whether the students are adequately comprehending the story.” I didn’t really understand this point because aren’t predictions made prior to reading the story? How can they be a reflection of comprehension if the story has been read yet?

Even though this was a challenging chapter for me to get through (perhaps it’s summer fever?!) I was still able to see some of the strategies that I could use in my classroom and implement in my PAR lesson plan assignment. I liked reading about the Jot Chart and QAR. I feel like the QAR strategy is very helpful for the students to become their own thinkers and be in control of what they learn and justify their reasonings.