Presente del CRAI con la Cultura Ambiental

individualized, resulting in an acute responsiveness to child’s strengths and weaknesses.

As mentioned in chapter two, a component of Reading Recovery is the

individualization of lessons during the one-on-one interaction between teacher and child. The success of the Reading Recovery teacher depends on her tentativeness and reflective practice with regard to each child, recognizing her/his specific strengths and weaknesses (Clay, 2005). I found this sentiment exemplified in my participants’ reflections as well. Upon analysis of all data sources, neither of my participants ever compared a student to another child or talked about their experiences with another child (or children) while reflecting on or planning for a specific child. In fact, both mentioned how different and unique planning and observing each child has to be. Kim mentioned that,

“It’s so interesting because you could ask me the same question about another student and it could be a completely different answer because it’s so individualized. In this particular student I’m looking for areas where she’s being dependent, where she’s go those sight words correct, where she’s getting those predictions of progress. But for another student it might be a different thing, but constantly, constantly thinking, what was the prediction? What is the big picture that the child needs? And, what is it right now that the child is doing?”

Additionally, all the forms Reading Recovery teachers fill out during and after lessons are individualized and focus a teachers’ attention to that specific child’s actions, strengths, and needs. Being that their lessons are one-on-one and they are required to plan for each child individually, this is not surprising. Interestingly though was the notion of this individualization and responsiveness evolving with experience and over time. Dee spoke repeatedly about how highly individualized her reflections are toward her students, but how it was a process to get there:

“So, I think that part has taken me a long time to grow into (reflecting on the child) because as a classroom teacher for eight years it was what I

planned not what the child did (emphasis added is Dee’s). So making that big shift of following the child is something that takes time.”

It should be noted that both participants regularly reflected during every observation to make teaching decisions during that lesson, particularly related to word work. In all 36 observations I conducted, the word work portion of lessons was directly linked to a point of difficulty a child experienced while reading. Though this point of difficulty was usually also a noted need of the child, both participants repeatedly used a point of difficulty as a trigger for reflection and then decision-making to scaffold a child’s use of reading strategies. Kim observed a child at a point of difficulty reading “goes,” “gets,” and “a” for “go.” In the same reading she read “going” for “good.” She noted these on the daily lesson record sheet. Then, during the word work time she wrote “go” on the table with a dry erase marker and asked the child to read the word. The child could

successfully. She then added –ing and prompted her to read the word. The child read “going.” She added –es to “go” and had her read “goes,” which the child did successfully. She then added –ing to “look” and “play,” having her reading those words as well. She ended the word work session with a conversation about having to “say the whole word,

not just the beginning” and making sure to “follow the whole word with your eyes all the way to the end.” After the activity Kim also wrote “tomorrow add –s to end of word.” In the following day’s lesson Kim made sure to include words that ended with “s” in the child’s writing. She pointed out how important it was to include all of the letters in the word because words mean different things when they have different letters.

Dee recorded instances similar to this during lessons with her child. For example, during the reading of a familiar text she observed the student reading “he” for “with,” “we” for “he,” “made” for “make,” and “sit” for “sat”. The following is a script of Dee during word work.

Dee: Okay, come over here.

Dee: I’m going to make a word and you’re going to have to decide if I’m making ‘made’ or ‘make.’ It’s your job to decide if I’m making ‘made’ or ‘make.’

Dee writes ‘made’ with magnetic letters. Child: Made

Dee: Check it.

Child follows with finger and repeats ‘made’. Dee spells ‘make’

Child: Make

Dee: Break it for me. Child breaks ma-ke.

Dee: I’m going to do another word you know. Dee writes “will” on the board.

Dee: Watch me break it. Wiiillllll (using her finger underneath the word). Dee: Now you break ti.

Child moves the magnetic letters “wi” “ll” apart. Dee writes “with” on the board using magnetic letters. Dee: Can you break it?

Child breaks “wi” “th”

Dee: What parts stay the same? Child: “th”

Dee: Good. It’s important for you to check all the way to the end of the word. Okay? That’s your job.

Dee and the child move back to their seats.

These two word work activities reflect examples of every lesson where both participants’ systematic observations of a child’s point of difficulty served as a trigger to reflect on what skills the child was using (or neglecting to use), resulting in an action plan for the word work portion of the lesson.

Property 3: Reading Recovery teachers often reflect in a three-step patterned process: