Inferring is one difficult task for my students to perform as they do not know how to listen to their inner voice. I use both strategies in my daily instruction, especially in my small group reading intervention to improve my students’ comprehension skills. The strategy I utilize the most is inferring; this is also the hardest “it involves merging background knowledge with text clues to come up with an idea that is not explicitly stated in the text “(Harvey & Goudvis, 2007 p. 131). In my reading intervention groups, I encourage my students to make inferences about the character’s feelings and traits. For example, last week we read a book about a 14-year-old Indian girl who invented a washing machine that didn’t need electricity to do the laundry without taking too much time. After reading the book with the students, I then encouraged them to express what they thought this character was like as a person. I distributed sticky notes to the students and asked them to look for sentences in the text that helped them understand Remya, the main character, as a person. Some of the words my students came up with were inquisitive because “Remya was always trying new things and doing experiments,” Another adjective my students brainstormed was persistent because “even though her parents and friends discouraged her, Remyan didn’t give up.” Finally, my students suggested Remya was creative and original as “she invented a new washing machine that did not need electricity to do the laundry efficiently. “ While my students were able to brainstorm these adjectives about a character of a story, they struggled throughout the activity as they do not possess the adequate vocabulary to talk about characters or people in general. Thus, I had to scaffold this activity by creating a chart headed: Quote/Illustration and Inference. Also, I provided my students with an anchor chart with several traits so students can refer to it as they are describing or making inferences about characters.

Another way I utilize Inferring in my daily instruction is by finding or inferring the meaning of unfamiliar words. While reading together, I encourage students to look for words they do not know and infer the meaning. In order to do this activity I utilize a chart headed: Word/Clue/Sentence/Inferred Meaning, which is located in Strategies that Work. This is a methodical way to teach context clues and inferring to students as it organizes the thinking process of students while defining words through context clues. Some words my students have learned through this strategy are: bolt, display, invent, competition, donate, structure, invention, and others. Although these are “easy” words for most fifth graders, my students read at a 3^rd grade level; which is why they have reading intervention in small groups. 

Chapter eight of Strategies that Work provides rationales and lessons for utilizing “Questioning” techniques for students when reading a text. Students tend to have numerous questions while reading, but sometimes these questions are not relevant to the text so it does not enable them to comprehend the text. Last week, I was reading a short text to the entire class during core. The text was about two boys who had taken a science test. While the teacher thought one of the students had cheated on the test, the other student, who accused his classmate of cheating, admitted that he had lied because he was upset. As my co teacher and I took turns in reading to the students, I modeled questions that crossed my mind. For instance, I asked myself: “Why did Fernando accuse John of cheating?” “Did John really cheat on the science test?” “I wonder how Fernando feels after telling the truth.” Some of these questions were answered right in the text, and others were not because I had to make inferences. I modeled this process to the students and talked about the importance of knowing we can answer the question directly from the text or use the information in the text to make an inference.  Students then had their chance to read another text and jot down questions as they read their text independently. As my co teacher and I walked through the classroom we realized this is strategy we should implement more because our students have difficulty distinguishing questions that relevant to the text and questions that are not relevant.

Harvey, S. & Goudvis A. (2007) Strategies that work: Teaching Comprehension for Understanding and Engagement (2^nd Ed). Porstmouth: NH. Stenhouse Publishers.

Activating my students’ background knowledge prior to reading in any subject area is difficult. The lack of schooling in previous years, degree of literacy in native language, and usage of another language at home are just some factors that hinder my students’ background knowledge. Chapter seven in our textbook Strategies that Work explicitly teaches some strategy to activate background knowledge. One strategy I began utilizing in my practice with whole class as well as small groups is that of making connections throughout the text. For instance: text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-to-world. Although our textbook suggests using sticky notes while making these connections, I have begun to model this activity through thinking alouds. I also made an Anchor Chart with all of the codes; I have displayed it in my inclusive classroom, which is not really my classroom, but my co-teacher loved it. This allows us to  allude to it while reading aloud to the students. For example, just last week we were reading about a Chinese girl who moved to California with her parents  at the beginning of the 20th century. Throughout the story the author provided sentences and clues to infer about how Mai lee, the Chinese girl, was feeling about relocating. While reading I could connect to this character as I too moved from another  country to the United States. I explicitly “coded” my thinking as T-S (text-to-self). I then described the emptiness I felt when leaving Cuba, my family, friends, home, and school. Next, I showed my students how my connection allowed me to infer about Mei Lee’s feelings due to my personal experience. 

The next day while continuing the same story a student made an interesting connection I had not even thought about. My student suggested that the title of the article “A tree of Heaven” was probably referring to the tree as a sign of “hope” for Mei Lee just like the statue of Liberty was a symbol of “Freedom” for immigrants. I got really excited! My student had just made a T-W (text-to-world) connection. However I didn’t stop there; I asked him how that connection helped him understand the text and he answered: “Well I can predict Mei Lee will feel a lot better when she notices that tree of heaven is outside her new house in California, she will probably feel at home.”  In effect, the student –who is a student with learning disabilities in reading and math-, was able to confirm his prediction when finished reading the story.

Had I not read this chapter? I would have continued reading after this student made a t-w connection; however, Harvey and Goudvis suggested that students’ connections are not always accurate or related to the text. Often times, students make connections just to say something but they are not really meaningful to the text (2007 pg. 102). I wanted to ensure the student’s connection was relevant to the text so that he could make sense of what we were reading. Needless to say, he was very successful in comprehending the story.

Another lesson I am implementing is “Rethinking Misconceptions: New Information Changes Thinking.”  I utilize this strategy everyday in my small group of reading intervention as we read a variety of non-fictional books. Last week we read an informational book about an animal that lives in Madagascar, the Aye-Aye. I had never heard or read about that animal and neither had my students. After introducing the text, I read the first two pages with the students and I explicitly modeled how to code the text with new knowledge. I stopped and said: “Wow, I never knew that Aye-Ayes lived in Madagascar and that they are nocturnal animals like owls.” I coded my text with an L and then wrote that sentence to represent the new information I had just learned. After that, I encouraged the students to do the same activity for 5 minutes as the book was quite short and then we shared our answers. Some of the students found new information but were not specific in rephrasing their new knowledge; I helped them identified the new information they had really learned. This is one strategy teachers can use not only in reading but in all subject areas as it teaches students to synthesize and summarize new information while reading.

While chapter 13 from the text book promotes the Researcher’s workshop in the classrooms, it lacks all the factors that prevent teachers from teaching social studies and science. “We [teachers] need to give students time to engage in research, we [teachers] give them long blocks of time to read about a topic, find information, write about it, and actively use their knowledge as they teach others” (Harvey and Goudvis, 2007 p. 230). The Researcher’s Workshop is a great method to engage students in in-depth investigations as long as they are provided with extensive opportunities in the classrooms as well as computers or smart devices such as iphones, ipads, and others at home. Unfortunately, we teachers are “engaged” in learning how to teach Common Core Standards which consists of more complex texts and features. Also, we are engrossed in implementing our brand new Reading Core series “My Reading Street” along with all of its components such as:  on grade and below grade reading intervention, English Language Learner reading intervention, and last but not least reading intervention for students with special needs. Due to all of these new resources and standards we have now doubled our faculty meetings, PLC’s, and staff developments; not to mention our committee meetings and duties. This leaves us little time to fully plan our reading, math, social studies, and science periods which is why now we are required to plan with the content area coaches in our schools who most of the times are late or take up our time venting about other issues not related to planning.

I recognized the significance of providing our students with the best tools for their learning. However, school districts make it harder each passing day for teachers to accomplish this task. We end up “teaching to the test” because that is what the school or district mandates; in fact, most of our curriculum maps and textbooks are already designed to teach to the test. Randi Weingarten exclaimed “Reclaiming the promise [of Public Education] is about enabling [teachers] to teach an engaging curriculum that includes art, music, and the sciences” (2013 p. 1). Not only do public education teachers struggle to plan long periods of research, but also regular subject area classes. All we want is TEACH!

Harvey, S. & Goudvis A. (2007) Strategies that work: Teaching Comprehension for Understanding and Engagement (2^nd Ed). Porstmouth: NH. Stenhouse Publishers. 

Weingarten, R. (Fall 2013) Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education, 37(3) p. 1.