Summary
In Chapter 2, Ruddell (2008) dives into the theoretical foundations of reading, writing, and language by examining cognitive theory, metacognition (the interactions between our thought and text), as well as the implications of these theories to teaching and learning. Giving particular attention to “schema theory,” Ruddell (2008) explains how cognitive structures allow individuals to connect new information to prior knowledge in schema (assimilation) or create new/change old schema for new information (accommodation). Further, the author posits that individuals build a larger “world knowledge” schemata which they then employ during reading and writing to bring about coherence and construct meaning. However, a lack of “concurrence” between …show more content…
32). Ultimately, reading and writing rely upon a complex interplay of a reader’s/writer’s prior knowledge of the world and text, their stance towards the information, and the information available in (reading) or emerging from (writing) the text itself. Building on this understanding of cognition and literacy development, Ruddell concludes the chapter by turning attention to second language acquisition and cautions educators against diluting content instruction. Rather, educator’s need to employ instructional strategies that increase students’ meaning making in content knowledge regardless of their language …show more content…
I think that when we encounter students in the classroom who English is an additional and developing language for, we tend to feel fear and a stage of “silence” in our own teaching approaches to meeting these students’ needs. Moreover, it can be incredibly discouraging as an educator when you feel ill-equipped to meet the needs of these students, or any student who is not up to the normative reading and writing levels of their same age peers. Yet, as Ruddell expertly points out, we should not develop an “they cannot” attitude towards these students and their ability to access our content. Rather, we have to seek ways to develop instruction that brings coherence of our content to our students. Reading the language portion of this chapter, I thought back to the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) I learned about in a graduate introduction to ESOL course I took for my first master’s. This model allows educators to clearly define content and language objectives so that students are practicing both and accessing the same content knowledge as their peers as they continue to develop their language skills. Thus, students are not given a diluted curriculum but rather an adapted learning experience tailored to meeting their language development needs while still addressing content. In this method, students do not fall behind their peers and I
In Chapter 2, Ruddell (2008) dives into the theoretical foundations of reading, writing, and language by examining cognitive theory, metacognition (the interactions between our thought and text), as well as the implications of these theories to teaching and learning. Giving particular attention to “schema theory,” Ruddell (2008) explains how cognitive structures allow individuals to connect new information to prior knowledge in schema (assimilation) or create new/change old schema for new information (accommodation). Further, the author posits that individuals build a larger “world knowledge” schemata which they then employ during reading and writing to bring about coherence and construct meaning. However, a lack of “concurrence” between …show more content…
32). Ultimately, reading and writing rely upon a complex interplay of a reader’s/writer’s prior knowledge of the world and text, their stance towards the information, and the information available in (reading) or emerging from (writing) the text itself. Building on this understanding of cognition and literacy development, Ruddell concludes the chapter by turning attention to second language acquisition and cautions educators against diluting content instruction. Rather, educator’s need to employ instructional strategies that increase students’ meaning making in content knowledge regardless of their language …show more content…
I think that when we encounter students in the classroom who English is an additional and developing language for, we tend to feel fear and a stage of “silence” in our own teaching approaches to meeting these students’ needs. Moreover, it can be incredibly discouraging as an educator when you feel ill-equipped to meet the needs of these students, or any student who is not up to the normative reading and writing levels of their same age peers. Yet, as Ruddell expertly points out, we should not develop an “they cannot” attitude towards these students and their ability to access our content. Rather, we have to seek ways to develop instruction that brings coherence of our content to our students. Reading the language portion of this chapter, I thought back to the SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) I learned about in a graduate introduction to ESOL course I took for my first master’s. This model allows educators to clearly define content and language objectives so that students are practicing both and accessing the same content knowledge as their peers as they continue to develop their language skills. Thus, students are not given a diluted curriculum but rather an adapted learning experience tailored to meeting their language development needs while still addressing content. In this method, students do not fall behind their peers and I