Wheeler & Swords (2006) show how children�s dialects have their own grammatical structure, and although the structure may differ from formal or �Standard� English, we can teach children to code-switch or change registers rather than correcting them, as the following table from page 57 of their book shows:
Take a look at the following examples of children's dialect-based miscues while reading and the difference between the child's original response (OR) and expected reponse (ER). Then answer the questions that follow.
| OR: It my little monkey here. | ER: Is my little monkey here? |
| OR: We got to tell. | ER: We've got to tell. |
| OR: Frog look at Toad calendar. | ER: Frog looked at Toad's calendar. |
| OR: A word what sounded good. | ER: A word that sounded good. |
| OR: hisself | ER: himself |
| OR: I can come to your party? | ER: Can I come to your party? |
Are these children's miscues evidence of proficient or non-proficient reading?� Explain. If you were teaching children who made these miscues, what, if any, assistance or teaching would you offer?
Looking at the examples of the children's dialect-based miscues, I believe the children's miscues are evidence of a proficient reader. The students in the examples above made many miscues involving the high functions words "it" for "is" "what" for "that", dialect miscues "we got" for "we've got", and grammar miscues. It is mainly the proficient readers who make these types of miscues such as omission, substitution, or insertion of pronouns and function words. They are more likely to make these types of miscues because they focus more on constructing meaning from the text. They use preceding syntactic and semantic context, and their schemas to help them predict what might be coming next. Based on what I read from Weaver's text, I believed that the miscues from the child's original responses did not affect the meaning in the expected responses.
If I were teaching children who made these miscues, I would learn more about each student's home language/dialect. Next, I would inform them about the differences of the informal (home) and formal (school) languages. I would provide appropriate modeling for both informal and formal/ standard English. I would help the students become aware of the grammatical pattern of home speech to the grammatical patterns of school speech. I would teach them when it is appropriate to use these types of languages. When the students are aware and know how or when to speak or write appropriately. When will be able to switch/correct themselves when it doesn't sound right. As teachers, we must have the knowledge, the experience, and the attitude that will enable them to recognize and accept miscues that merely reflect an alternative spoken dialect (Weaver, 2002). This means that as teachers, we have to take into account of the students' home language when we teach them to read and write. We have to encourage them to speak and write appropriately in formal English rather than discourage them or tell them they are incorrect when they speak in their home dialect.
If I were teaching children who made these miscues, I would learn more about each student's home language/dialect. Next, I would inform them about the differences of the informal (home) and formal (school) languages. I would provide appropriate modeling for both informal and formal/ standard English. I would help the students become aware of the grammatical pattern of home speech to the grammatical patterns of school speech. I would teach them when it is appropriate to use these types of languages. When the students are aware and know how or when to speak or write appropriately. When will be able to switch/correct themselves when it doesn't sound right. As teachers, we must have the knowledge, the experience, and the attitude that will enable them to recognize and accept miscues that merely reflect an alternative spoken dialect (Weaver, 2002). This means that as teachers, we have to take into account of the students' home language when we teach them to read and write. We have to encourage them to speak and write appropriately in formal English rather than discourage them or tell them they are incorrect when they speak in their home dialect.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading Process and Practice. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
I really enjoyed reading your response. After reading the childrens miscues, I felt most of the children were proficient readers due to the fact their miscues were on functional words and the sentence meaning stayed intacted. However, I did see the first child's miscues as being non-proficient. I felt this particular child changed the meaning of the sentence with use of a functional word and punctuation. Changing a sentence from a statement to an asking sentences does change the meaning and will most likely effect comprehension. I think it would be important to look at the text as a whole. I feel it would provide more clarity into this child's reading ability rather than just looking at one sentence.
ReplyDelete