Matt Taylor- Pedagogy Practicum

Reading across the curriculum as the key to student success

This was an interesting article. The argument was similar to the article by D’Alessio and Riley. The difference was that the information in this article was broader in discussing the effects procedures to affect student performance. Furthermore, the procedures targeted reading which indirectly affect, arguably, writing. I see this as an interesting article because it is closer related to our research project, yet it is rather vague. 

The field seems to have a lot people giving ideas about what is effective, giving vague descriptions, yet little evidence of effectiveness. Again, this why I think our research project will be a much needed addition to the literature. 

According to the above article, the four strategies for reading across the curriculum are the following: 1) understanding the reading; 2) overt teaching of critical reading skills; 3) modeling and practice of reading; and 4) learning to read in specific disciplines. These above four strategies appear to be similar to scaffolding, yet I’m still a bit unclear on the definition of scaffolding. Many of the descriptions in our articles are a bit ambiguous. 

I did, however, find an online article that describes scaffolding more clearly. See: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Scaffolding#What_is_Scaffolding.3F

The site gives a decent amount of information on the characteristics, critical features, general elements, methods, points to consider, and applications. Additionally, it lists challenges and benefits.

Scaffolding writing skills for ESL students in an education class at a community college.

The authors described a semester where they implemented several procedures to increase student writing skills. The purpose of this article was, for the most part, to convey the effectiveness of these procedures. The authors argued that the procedures resulted in the students earning higher grades, and improved writing and understanding of English language during that semester.

The authors suggested that the main reason for student improvement over the semester was the scaffolding assignments that include low stakes writing. The low stakes assignments were used to have students write about information covered in earlier classes related to classes later in the semester (i.e., integration of information). The students journaled (i.e, low stakes writing) in each class for approximately 15 minutes. The writing was based on a planned topic that regarded previous class material.  Also, the student used learning logs. The students kept a log of notes about material read and discussed it in class.

The students had substantially better grades during the target semester compared to the pervious semester. Anecdotally, the authors stated that the students performed the high stakes writing with more enthusiasm and turned it in on time, which apparently is abnormal. 

Based on the above information the scaffold writing assignments appear to be very effective. It is great that these instructors are sharing this information with the academic community. Furthermore, I think it is wise that our practicum has a hand in further assessing the effects of scaffolding (even though it is for reading).

Based on my search of through the literature there is a need for an empirical demonstration of the effectiveness of scaffolding. The procedures that we have planned for next semester will allow us to come to strong conclusions if we find an effect.