An Evaluation of, and Reflection on, English Planning and Teaching in a Primary School

Context
This sequence of four lessons, guided by a teaching as inquiry model (Ministry of Education
[MoE], 2007, p.35), has marked a considerable first step in the development of my pedagogical
practice and content knowledge in teaching reading comprehension. Specific components of
this step and the insights, understanding, and direction they have offered my development as a
teacher will be considered and reflected on in this piece of writing. The inquiry into these areas
is framed behind a personal appreciation of the overwhelming effect my role as a teacher can
have on the achievement of students (Rowe, 2004). Such a framing leaves a burning desire to
seek out and take on the information needed to ensure my actions and interactions with
students increase not just their knowledge and skill, but their attitude and engagement with
reading. Guiding my initial steps into this learning area has been the High 5! comprehension
strategies put forward by Dymock & Nicholson (2012), with this sequence of lessons focussing
on teaching students activating background knowledge (strategy 1) and analysing text
structure (strategy 3).
Successful readers and writers do much more than process information.
They bring their experience and existing knowledge, accumulated both in and
out of school, to their reading and writing in order to construct meaning and
develop new understandings. (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2003)
This view of meaning making comes from schema theory in which a students understanding of
a text is developed by the linking of their prior knowledge with the new knowledge to be learnt
(Dymock & Nicholson, 2012). In my teaching of this strategy I was at first hesitant to share with
the students the reasoning behind my initial questions, however after reading about the
importance of explicitly sharing the goals of a strategy I set out to test my initial hesitation
(Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2013). By helping students to understand that they can improve their
comprehension by making connections between what they already know and what they were
reading, I was able to hook the students into the lesson and their learning. This hook saw
students engaged with the topics of our texts, constantly connecting experiences or things they
knew with the events of one boating story in particular.

Understanding that comprehension is knowledge dependent, and that students need to be

paired with texts that offer them an opportunity to bring this background knowledge to their
reading, has been an important development in my pedagogical content knowledge (Dymock &
Nicholson, 2012). By making such pairings, I can offer those with poorer reading
comprehension or decoding skills scaffolded development of their comprehension abilities. The
potential for a miss pairing of texts was glimpsed when students had difficulty understanding a
piece of text that read, we were in trouble of being blown east into south america; students had
no geographical knowledge of either place or direction which left students confused about the
setting of the story. While the long term effects of such a strategy are not visible at this time,
looking at the engagement of students in their reading, something that has been an issue in the
past, it is clear to see the benefits it will have to their learning. This experience has expanded
my pedagogical content knowledge to include an understanding that this comprehension
strategy is not to be addressed only through a piecemeal offering of questions at the start of the
lesson, but through constant and active connection making that imbeds its practice in students.
In line with the appreciation of the benefits connecting students prior knowledge to their new
learning can have, I began teaching my second High 5! strategy analysing text structure by
attempting to first connect to their already present, but basic, understanding of narrative text
structure (Dymock & Nicholson, 2012). Knowledge of story grammars helped guide my practice
towards expanding upon students general understanding of text structure towards a more
detailed and specific one that would allow them to construct a set of rules that can generate a
structure for any story (Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989, p.307, as cited in Dymock, 2007). Initial
lessons concentrated on the character component of narrative texts, asking students to identify,
compare, and contrast the physical and emotional characteristics of each. The benefit of this
focus was clearly visible in later lessons where students were introduced to the remaining
elements of narrative text structure through story webs. Students were quick to identify the main
characters as well as their personalities and how they differed to the other characters.
Proficiency in the other elements however, such as plot and theme, were not present.
What became clear to me here, and has made a massive impact on my pedagogical practice
since, is that reading comprehension strategies need to be taught systematically, as a
sequence of steps for understanding text (Harris and Hodges, 1995, p.39, as cited in Dymock
& Nicholson, 2012). Students had been introduced to too much too soon, without the plan, or
appropriate goals, necessary to achieve in a way that would increase their understanding of the

text. In my future practice, students will be introduced to each element separately through
explanation, modeling, and scaffolded opportunities to develop each using an array of texts,
before bringing them together in a story web; This sequence has shown that it is my role as
teacher to explicitly explain and offer support to students learning these strategies (Pressley,
2008, as cited in Dymock & Nicholson, 2012).
A further development in my pedagogical practice in this teaching episode has come about
through my recording of, and reflections on, student learning. The majority of data collected
came from my overall teacher judgements and was recorded at the end of each lesson; while
this provided an accurate depiction of where students were and their needs for the future, it
required time that as a teacher I may not always have. Developing questions that help elicit
students thinking and provide feedback on the effectiveness of the teaching and learning taking
place will be a key focus for my future practice to combat these restraints (Clarke, Timperley, &
Hattie, 2003). Incorporating a marking rubric that aligns itself with the learning intentions of the
lessons and these questions could be a simple yet effective way to assess for students learning.
This lesson sequence has marked the first of many steps in my developing pedagogical practice
and content knowledge in teaching reading comprehension. It has offered me initial insights into
how my practice of whole class strategy teaching will come together, utilising different levels of
texts to allow all students to practice the taught strategies with guided reading. The importance
of reading comprehension for students has been made blatantly clear, not only does it affect
their ability to understand text, it affects their learning in all other areas and their ability to
succeed in education, having a huge impact on their future prospects and potential (Oakhill,
Cain, & Elbro, 2014). This critical investigation into my own learning and teaching has proven to
be an important realisation as to the role inquiry can, and will, play in ensuring my constant
pedagogical development. Through reflection, research, and the integration of new ideas, the
path ahead in my pedagogical development will continue to grow and expose areas of need and
strength as I progress forward.

References
Clarke, S., Timperley, H., & Hattie, J. (2003). Unlocking formative assessment: Practical
strategies for enhancing students' learning in the primary and intermediate classroom(1st N.Z.
ed.). Auckland, N.Z: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension Strategy Instruction: Teaching Narrative Text Structure
Awareness. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 161-167. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/stable/20204567
Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2012). Teaching reading comprehension: The what, the how,
the why. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.

Kelley, M., Clausen-Grace, N. (2013) Comprehension Shouldn't Be Silent : From Strategy

Instruction to Student Independence (2 Ed). Newark, DE, USA: International Reading
Association.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Effective literacy practice in years 1 to 4. Wellington: Learning Media.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2014).Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook.
New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315756042

Rowe, K. (August, 2004). The importance of teaching: ensuring better schooling by building
teacher capacities that maximize the quality of teaching and learning provision - implications of
findings from the international and Australian evidence-based research. Paper presented at the
Australian Council for Educational Research conference, Melbourne. Retrieved from
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=learning_processes