The Cunningham reading presents what sounds like a doomsday-classroom situation (which I obviously hope to avoid): “Thus, reading for meaning is hindered; unrewarding reading experiences multiply; and practice is avoided or merely tolerated without real cognitive involvement.” I did not anticipate being a literacy teacher as I most often am. As a 9th grade History teacher, I expected to focus on pure content and analyzing documents. Reflecting on my first five months as a teacher, I realize that I have spent more than half of my instructional time on reading and writing skills instead of pure historical content. After scoring exams and essays of my students for the first time, I knew that merely going through chronological history would not do our students any justice. A particular problem that I do worry aboutis what Cunningham says to be “[the] combination of deficient decoding skills, lack of practice, and difficult materials results in unrewarding early reading experiences that lead to less involvement in reading-related activities”. As my 7th period contains 18 out of 24 students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and as my differentiation skills are immature, I worry that the difficult texts we attempt with our other classes will further discourage our 7th period from becoming more proficient readers and writers. Coincidentally, or not coincidentally, this period, which generally has deficient decoding skills, requires the most behavioral management which often throws us off course from the lesson and steals away valuable literacy practice. The added difficulty with the text, I worry, will not just discourage our students from a love of reading, but will confuse the details of the course content for them. Something they seem to get through proficient auditory skills.
The Cunningham reading presents what sounds like a doomsday-classroom situation (which I obviously hope to avoid): “Thus, reading for meaning is hindered; unrewarding reading experiences multiply; and practice is avoided or merely tolerated without real cognitive involvement.” I did not anticipate being a literacy teacher as I most often am. As a 9th grade History teacher, I expected to focus on pure content and analyzing documents. Reflecting on my first five months as a teacher, I realize that I have spent more than half of my instructional time on reading and writing skills instead of pure historical content. After scoring exams and essays of my students for the first time, I knew that merely going through chronological history would not do our students any justice. A particular problem that I do worry aboutis what Cunningham says to be “[the] combination of deficient decoding skills, lack of practice, and difficult materials results in unrewarding early reading experiences that lead to less involvement in reading-related activities”. As my 7th period contains 18 out of 24 students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and as my differentiation skills are immature, I worry that the difficult texts we attempt with our other classes will further discourage our 7th period from becoming more proficient readers and writers. Coincidentally, or not coincidentally, this period, which generally has deficient decoding skills, requires the most behavioral management which often throws us off course from the lesson and steals away valuable literacy practice. The added difficulty with the text, I worry, will not just discourage our students from a love of reading, but will confuse the details of the course content for them. Something they seem to get through proficient auditory skills.