Shelby Owen Article
Critique
Lutz, S., Guthrie, J., &
Davis, M. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading
instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3-20
In the article I read, “Scaffolding for
Engagement in Elementary School Reading Instruction,” there was a study on the
relationships among student engagement, teacher scaffolding, task complexity,
and reading instruction in elementary school classrooms. Three fourth grade
classrooms were involved in the study and participated in, “broader, long-term
project involving the implementation and evaluation of integrated
reading–science instruction and its effects on reading achievement and
motivation in comparison with traditional reading instruction in Grades 3, 4,
and 5.”
The
study showed that engagement increased with low achievers when the teacher told
them to continue to read, but the high achievers did not need to be told and
kept engagement throughout the independent work. The article also discussed
that the two fourth grade classrooms that received integrated reading showed
strong growth in reading comprehension and reading strategy as time went on,
but the fourth grade class that got traditional reading instruction did not
show growth. One way to decrease engagement in the classroom is for the teacher
to call on a student who gave poor answers because the students need
motivation. Just because a student’s gives a wrong answer to a question
teachers do not need to make it seem like such a negative thing because if they
do evidence shows the students becomes disengaged. The findings in this article
are related to effective reading instruction because it states that in
elementary school classrooms that have high reading comprehension they are also
going to have moderate engagement in learning and high complexity of literacy
task.
This article had some very
interesting information in it; some of the information surprised me and some I
expected. I did not think that just by the teacher telling the low achievers to
read that their engagement would go up, but I looked back in my Teaching Children to Read textbook to go
over pillar five because it had to do with motivation. The text says, “Gambrell
and Marinak have referred to motivation as a key “pillar” of effective reading
instruction…describes motivation as a complex of interrelated social and
emotional dimensions that influence
children’s choices to engage in reading.” That seems amazing to me that all
teachers have to do is motivate their students and they will be more engaged in
reading. Also I thought it was interesting that all a teacher has to do to decrease
engagement is to call on a student who gave poor answers. If I think about when
I was in elementary school that statement makes sense because everyone had that
teacher that made you look stupid for the answer you gave. The study says once
a student gave a poor answer motivation was lost so therefore engagement is
lost. If students feel like they can’t do something or do not understand
something they are going to want to give up.
When you do not motivate the student in a way of telling them that
wasn’t the right answer but that was creative thinking or good try you’re on the
right track the student shuts down. They see no more reason to try because
clearly they can’t do it. The final major point this article proved was that in
elementary school classrooms that have high reading comprehension are also
going to have moderate engagement in learning and high complexity of literacy
task. There is a clear connection between comprehension and engagement, because
if you are paying attention in class you are going to be able to recall what you’re
reading. This study proves some interesting things, some that I never thought
were related, but now that I have taken a deeper look at the correlations it
makes sense. It made me realize how motivation was such a huge key in the
classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment