Squiller 1

Emily Squiller

Materials Analysis #1

Vanderbilt University
 Squiller 2

Emily Squiller
October 24, 2017
Materials Analysis #1

1) Overarching Question: What model of reading seems to guide the design of this reading
instructional program? Looking at the Unit Overview and Day 1 lesson plans, which of the models
(Adams, Goodman, Rumelhart. Rosenblatt) is the basis for this instructional plan? Name the model.
- Rumelhart’s Interactive Reading Model

2) Reading Cue Systems and Reading Processes

What cue systems/knowledge sources are targeted for explicit instruction or teacher demonstration in
the Journeys program? Cite examples from the Journeys materials to support your points.

- The Common Core State Standards-aligned, Journey’s curriculum program implements

Rumelhart’s interactive reading model into all aspects of instruction. In paraphrased terms, his
model comments on the reading process and the way linguistic elements are attended to and
interpreted by the brain. He combines surface structure systems, such as phonemic,
orthographic, and lexical knowledge sources with deep structure systems, such as pragmatic,
semantic, and syntactic knowledge sources to generate a memory for and understanding of texts
and their features for all learners. He allows for agency on the part of the learner to use his or
her own strengths to dictate which systems will be used to identify and understand an unknown
word they come across (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). In my opinion, I believe Journey’s does an
excellent job of providing the students with instruction that aids their ability to use all systems
to understand unknown words.

- I will start with examples of surface structure activities that provide students with knowledge to
understand word structure. Day 1 begins with a daily phonemic awareness and high-frequency
word activity after the morning message. The time spent on practicing the identification of
beginning sounds and sight words allows students to utilize their phonemic, orthographic, and
lexical word processors (T13). This explicit instruction of first letter sounds and sight word
identification seems like it would be indicative of Marilyn Adams’s model of reading since
there is such a large emphasis placed on letter sounds and accuracy (not guessing the sounds)
associated with printed or heard text (Adams, M. J., 2004); however, I believe it promotes
Rumelhart’s model in that these same words and sound identification strategy are applied to
real text during this lesson thereby going beyond Adams’s model in the sense that she focuses
on mastery of phonemic/skills based instruction before providing sentences or text (Rumelhart,
D. E., 2004). Another promotion of Rumelhart’s model visible in this first lesson is during the
teacher read aloud of The Lion and the Mouse. The teacher demonstrates how she self-corrects
a word read incorrectly. This highlight’s Rumelhart in that guessing a word is okay as long as
the reader goes back to adjust if the sentence tells him or her that their first attempt was
incorrect (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). The teacher models this strategy of using the whole
sentence to help students identify a misread word by reading “One day, a long time ago, a lion
 Squiller 3
ate an excellent mall” (T14) and thinking aloud that it did not make sense that a lion could eat a
mall, this told her to go back and reread the sentence in order to be able to correctly read the
word meal. She demonstrated for students how they could use their background knowledge and
meaning of the sentence to assist them while they are reading, thus combining the semantic
knowledge source (testing their misread word) with the orthographic knowledge source
(rereading the word in question, paying particular attention to letters and their associated
sound). This highlights Rumelhart because he calls for simultaneous use of knowledge sources
(Rumelhart, D. E., 2004).

- Not only are their examples of surface structure present in this first lesson, but there are also
examples of deep structure as well. Page T22 introduces the anchor text that students will be
working with for the lesson. They will be reading and participating in activities related to the
comprehension of the text. Rumelhart would support this semantic knowledge source
application because students are encouraged to use background knowledge of what it means to
be a friend to assist them in accessing the text (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). One might say that this
seems like it would be portraying a Ken Goodman (1994) approach to reading because students
are viewing a real text and using their knowledge to help them comprehend; while that is true,
what makes it more of a Rumelhart approach is the inclusion of explicit instruction of
vocabulary words and high frequency words students may be unfamiliar with. Page T20
introduces the words “play, be, can, help, with, you” as words that students will see in the text
and page T22 highlights vocabulary words students will see as well, giving them both practice
with pronunciation and understanding of the meaning. This preview of difficult words provides
students with greater access to understanding the text. The teacher has demonstrated how to use
surface systems to decode a word and how to use deep systems to conjure up a meaning for the
word; this instruction allows students to choose which knowledge source to call upon while
reading the text—which is putting into play Rumelhart’s model for reading (Rumelhart, D. E.,
2004).

What cue systems/knowledge sources get the most instructional emphasis when you look at the
Journeys Day 1 lesson as a whole? How does this instructional emphasis reflect the identified model of
reading?

- I do not believe that there is one specific knowledge source that is emphasized over another,
which directly supports my decision to name Rumelhart as the reading model seen most
recognizably in the first lesson of the curriculum set. The local school district in Nashville,
Tennessee has implemented a Balanced Literacy Framework that guides instruction in a way
that is a gradual release of release of responsibility over time in literacy areas such as reading
and writing. MNPS Balanced Literacy Reference Guide (2012) delineates the framework as a
whole language approach with explicit instruction opportunities embedded to engage students
in reading and writing activities that increase their ability to communicate more effectively. I
believe that Rumelhart would support this endeavor as it provides students with the opportunity
to utilize any knowledge source they see fit in a particular instance. The balanced literacy
framework adopted by the schools parallels the layout of the curriculum chosen to be taught at
 Squiller 4
these schools. If you look at the lesson goals outlined on page T12, elements of Rumelhart’s
model are easily discernable. There is a back-and-forth procedure playing out in that students
are engaged with the explicit teaching of phonemic awareness and skills-based instruction
juxtaposed with whole language comprehension of text where they may not be familiar with all
of the letter and sound patterns included. This hybrid of a bottom-up and top-down approach to
reading excels at being student centered in that students are exposed to multiple strategies and
are allowed to choose the ones that make the most sense to them (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004).
Rumelhart would support this curriculum because in every instructional activity, the emphasis
is on simultaneous use of knowledge sources.

3) Analyze texts from a “models” perspective: In the Journeys excerpts I have provided (Day 1
lesson and Overview), students encounter 4 texts:
1. Big Book (teacher read aloud): Note: We did not have a copy of Chuck’s Truck in our
curriculum lab, so I’ve included the other big book mentioned in the overview, My Colors, My
World. (Teacher’s Manual, xxiv)
2. Teacher Read Aloud: The Lion and the Mouse (Teacher’s Manual, start page T14)
3. Decodable Reader (student text): Dan and Nan (Teacher’s Manual, start page T19)
4. Anchor Text: What is a pal? (student text) (Teacher’s Manual start page, T20.)

Analyze the characteristics of the two texts read aloud by teachers.

What parts of the reading process are developed through teacher read alouds.

- The first book, My Colors, My World is an excellent resource to review or introduce various
skills or print characteristics. The book can be used to highlight that books have titles and cover
pages, that print is often spaced a certain way, text is read from left to right, sentences have
specific features such as punctuation and capitalization, and specifically in this text, it
elucidates that different languages represent the same meaning. The dual language is a unique
characteristic of this text that encourages students of different cultural backgrounds to feel
engaged. The text also follows a discernable sequence and introduces students to the idea that
stories progress in a certain way; in this text, it begins in the morning, describes the child’s day,
and ends at night. Another helpful characteristic of the book is that the illustrations match the
text in a way that the students are able to match the words to a picture or action, which can help
students to understand what they are reading or listening to. The parts of the reading process,
specifically Rumelhart’s, on display in this read aloud of My Colors, My World are mainly
centered around the syntactic and semantic knowledge sources (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). As I
mentioned above, the illustrations match the text quite well and allow for students to discern
meaning of unknown words from analyzing the picture on the page. Another aspect of the text
that helps students is the fact that the color words are printed in the color they are spelling. In
this instance, students are familiar with color names and it allows them to use their semantic
knowledge source to identify the spelling of a color word if they are unfamiliar, which connects
to Rumelhart and his ideas that multiple knowledge sources can be used at once to understand
text because other students make choose to use a phonemic approach to sound out unfamiliar
color names (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). Secondly, students are able to combine their semantic
 Squiller 5
and syntactic knowledge sources to help them predict what will be in the text. From experience,
students know that colors often describe something, so when they hear a color word, they can
predict that a noun with accompany it. These knowledge sources are being used to develop
students’ oral listening and comprehension skills through this example of a teacher read aloud
(Rumelhart, D. E., 2004).

- The second text that is read aloud to students is The Lion and the Mouse which is used as a text
to model fluency. Again, this story follows a logical sequence and exposes students to
beginning, middle, and end; however, there are no illustrations that accompany the text, leaving
the student in charge of creating images that relate to the text. Students are actively using their
semantic knowledge sources to create meaning of the words and play the story in their minds.
If they do not know the meaning of some of the words they hear, there may be holes in their
understanding of what is taking place. Since the teacher is reading this aloud and facilitating a
discussion of the text, she is able to develop students’ understanding of unknown words (which
she is prompted to do in the “introduce oral vocabulary” section on page T14) thus assisting in
the development of their semantic knowledge source (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004). Other
characteristics of this text consist of the inclusion of dialogue and text features that show
talking is taking place. The students are able to listen to the teacher as he or she changes voices
for those parts of the story, helping students to develop their understanding of text features.
Finally, the students are again able to add to their knowledge source of “friendship” through
this text and will be able to call on it later in the lesson when they read their anchor text on
friendship as well. This read aloud allows the teacher to model reading and strategies they can
use to determine unknown words—a task they will be asked to complete later in the lesson as
well.

Describe the characteristics of materials to be read by students.

How does the design of these student texts reflect the underlying model of reading?

- Dan and Nan is a decodable text read by the students. Characteristics of the text include short
sentences that students can read because of their review of words with the short a sound. The
illustrations allow students to use their semantic knowledge source if they wish to decode the
word cat or sat however, they will use their lexical and phonemic knowledge source to assist
them in decoding other words such as and, Dan, Nan, can, or play. This highlights the
underlying Rumelhart model of reading because students are calling on both surface and deep
structure systems to help them identify unfamiliar words. While the bulk of this text is phonics
and skills-based, it is developing the surface structure system that they can apply to future texts
with similar word patterns and sounds (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004).

- The anchor text for the lesson What is a Pal? is a second student read text that gives the
opportunity to emulate how the teacher read during her model and apply reading strategies.
Characteristics of the text include photographs that match the text, short sentences with mostly
decodable words, and contextualized versions of their “words to know”, which are highlighted.
Having text that is easily decodable in a realistic fiction story allows students to develop all
 Squiller 6
parts of the reading process—students can apply what they have learned in terms of letter
sounds, beginning sounds, and sight words to identify words as well as use the photographs and
personal experiences of friendship to determine meaning of the text as well. Application of
both surface and deep structure systems while reading will help the student be a more fluent
reader (Rumelhart, D. E., 2004).

4) The Journeys Overview discusses how these materials were designed to help students meet
CCSS related to text complexity and close reading. For beginning readers, we would expect the
most complex texts to be read aloud by teachers. Choose ONE of the texts read aloud by the
teacher (either: My Colors, My World OR The Lion and the Mouse) Identify features that make this
text more or less complex. Do you think this text is appropriately complex for first grade readers?

- Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey (2014) created a chart to analyze the complexities of texts and I
will be using it to discuss if the text of My Colors, My World is appropriately complex for first
grade readers. In terms of Levels of Meaning and Purpose, I would say that the text is
appropriately suited for first graders even though there are several aspects of it that increase its
complexity. For example, there are references to a desert sunset, mud pies, marigolds, irises,
and cacti that students may not have experiences with, but those things do not hinder
comprehension of the text because the overarching theme is that there is an abundance of color
in our world, which students can still connect with. Another aspect of complexity is the
inclusion of the second language. The story is told in both English and Spanish, thus
introducing many students to a new language. This may impact a student’s understanding if
they are focused on the Spanish text. However, it is excellent if there is an ELL student with
Spanish as their native language, because then they can use it to understand the English text.

- Aspects of the text that make is less complex include its organization, illustrations, and
relatively unambiguous nature. The text is organized in a familiar way in that it starts at the
beginning of the day and ends at night time. This helps the students to be aware of the
beginning, middle, and end of the story. Also, unfamiliar vocabulary is heavily scaffolded by
the illustrations, thereby providing students with concrete meaning of the text. And finally, the
text mainly focuses on all the colors one is able to see in the world around you. Students have
experience with different colored flowers, playground equipment, colors of their parents’ hair,
etc. While they may be unfamiliar with deserts, the illustration again, helps to alleviate
confusion by clearly showing brown sand in desert like locations. However, looking at the
piece as a whole, I believe that at the beginning of first grade, it is appropriately complex for a
read aloud as it is not completely inaccessible but provides for stopping points for questions
and opportunities to think deeper in terms of cultural/linguistic comparisons.

In what way(s) is close reading incorporated into the lesson plans for Day 1? What is your evaluation
of close reading activities in these lessons?

- Day 1 of the Journey’s lesson plans students are asked to engage in a close read of What is a
Pal? It is easily discernable as a close read for many reasons, the first being its alignment to
CCSS. It is designed to help students develop mastery of the standards RI.1.1, RI.1.2, RI.1.7,
 Squiller 7
RF.1.3b, which focus on identifying the main idea and key details through questions or
illustrations as well as being able to decode regularly spelled words and understand grade-level
text (T26). From there it continues to follow the protocol for a close read as the discussion of
text is facilitated by the teacher as he or she poses text-based comprehension questions detailed
in the teacher’s manual (T26). Students are given the opportunity to turn and talk with partners
and well as share with the whole group their thoughts to teacher directed questions. These steps
thus far—CCSS aligned and text-dependent questions with discussion—follow the steps Fisher
and Frey (2013) outline in their written work regarding close readings. Also, since the teacher
selected this text, the motivation to read it falls on the part of the teacher, which is in
compliance with what we know of close reads of text. Similar to the teacher asking the
questions, the teacher is the one who validates student responses and guides answers to align
with that he or she deems correct. It is my opinion that the lesson for day 1 fully follows the
guidelines for close reading—there is a definite purpose for the read, the teacher is hands-on
leading discussion, and students are sitting whole group participating in the discussion through
most likely hand raising. I believe that it is beneficial for students to engage in text through
close reads as it allows students to pick up on certain meanings they might have missed
otherwise. Especially when they are so young, the direction of the teacher is a model for how
they can use the close read strategy on their own in the future.

5) Analyze the Journeys lessons from a sociocultural perspective (Gee):

Gee argues that as children engage in the Discourse of reading instruction in school they acquire social
practices that involve specific “ways with printed words.” Children co-construct an identity as a
particular type of reader and acquire cultural models about what reading is (for children of their age
and experience level). If students participated in these Journeys lessons (as written in the teacher’s
guide) what cultural model of reading would they form? What would they think reading was like?
What purposes, values, attitudes about reading are part of this cultural model? What reading roles are
first grade students expected to take? What stances or actions toward text are part of these roles?
What reading roles are not yet offered to first grade readers?

- Journey’s teaches students that reading begins with a title, has words that connect to form
sentences, and sentences that connect to for paragraphs; students come to understand the
correct way to read is from left to right and from the top of the page to the bottom. This
instruction gives students the affordance of being able to correctly open and flip through any
book they may come into contact with. According to Gee (2003), “Discourse integrates ways of
talking, listening, writing, reading, acting, interacting, believing, valuing, and feeling…in the
service of meaningful socially situated identities and activities” (35). From Journey’s we can
see that students will be engaged in listening, reading, writing, and speaking about text and the
way they do this (respectfully and with text evidence to support claims) students will begin to
understand the Discourse of academic discussion about text. Gee also comments that when
participating in a Discourse, students are learning much more than just what is on the page in
terms of phonics and word meanings, specifically social norms and values (Gee, 2003, 37-38).
The texts showcased in Journey’s are almost always written in formal, standard English, thus
subconsciously identifying standard English as being the most valued correct way to speak and
 Squiller 8
write. This could negatively affect some students’ attitudes toward reading if they speak in a
different dialect or accent because it is showing them that the only version of English worthy
enough to be published and discussed within this Discourse are ones in standard English.

- Gee (2003) comments that within a Discourse there are “socially situated identities” and
“socially situated activities” that come to be (32). In terms of student identity afforded by the
curriculum, students might form a belief that they are required to be dependent on a teacher or
an adult, because they see the teacher talking, reading, analyzing, and writing. Simply looking
at the anchor text and related activities, it is evident that the teacher is quintessential to the
successful completion of all activities. If all lessons are structured in a way where students
respond to teacher generated questions, students will generalize that to the larger subject of
reading—a task where an adult needs to be present to question what the text is saying and
validate student response. While this is important for students to see modeled, if it continues to
be the main way reading is taught through the years, students will internalize this and come to
rely on an adult to question, analyze, and connect the text, because they have been taught they
cannot do that on their own. Similarly, the curriculum denies students the opportunity to choose
texts, resulting in students possibly extrapolating the idea that literature and text is to be chosen
for them. Looking past day 1, there are opportunities for independent reading time which is
beneficial for students as they can act as agents of their own reading. However, if the majority
of the text decisions continue to be teacher driven, motivation of student engagement could
suffer as they come to believe that Discourse of reading instruction is one where they have little
choice or control. Students can be seen taking a more passive or compliant role as readers as
they are given text and told what to find meaning in. The roles not offered to first graders are
ones where they can independently establish meaning or question aspects of the text, as that is
seemingly reserved for the teacher to initiate and share with students. They also come to
believe that good readers are people who can read quickly and answer questions first. Since a
great deal of textual discussions occur in whole group settings, students are constantly
comparing themselves with the teacher and other students when they are reading and answering
questions. It is easy for a student to think they are not a good reader because they are slower
than their friend or need to take more time to come up with an answer to a teacher’s question.
This can affect the attitude they have toward reading in a negative way, if it is not addressed. I
realize that much of my response carries a negative tone in terms of the implications of a
reading program designed by Journey’s and that was not my intention; structured modeling and
introduction to text is necessary with young readers, but I know that it is important that once
students are exposed that there is release of control on the part of the teacher, where students
are given more agency in order for them to effectively continue to become stronger and more
inquisitive readers.

6) Analyze the Journeys lessons from a critical literacy perspective (Luke; Lewison, Leland, &
Harste): Luke and Freebody propose a “Four Resources Model of Reading”. Which of the
resources are targeted for instruction in this set of materials? For each “resource” you name, give a
 Squiller 9
brief (2-3 sentence) example or explanation that will let me understand how the Journeys lessons
support (or do not support) children’s learning of that resource.

- Coding Practices Resource: According to Luke (2000), coding practices are how students are
able to understand the text in terms of letter patterns that make words and conventions that
assist in the reading of a text fluency (454). In the curriculum set, there is substantial emphasis
placed on the practice and application of decoding text to understand what is being read. Page
T16 delineates how students engage with the teacher to practice the short a sounds and n and d
consonant sounds, which will appear later in the story. In addition, there is time spent doing
multiple reads of the What is a Pal? text, allowing students to identify punctuation and
conventions of the text yielding more fluent reads as they continue to see the text and know to
pause at the start of new sentences or to read with expression when questions or exclamations
are read.

- Text-meaning Practices Resource: Luke (2000) defines this resource as how ideas represented
are strung together and how cultural background can assist students in making sense of a text
(455). In the text they read as a group, students can draw on their cultural experiences of
friendship and what they have done to be a friend. When students see the text resembling what
they have experienced, students are able to better understand the text and be able to respond to
the comprehension questions correctly.

- Pragmatic Practices Resources: Luke (2000) outlines that this resource helps students to think
about the uses of a text; are their everyday uses, features they can identify and apply to other
texts, allowances for secondary languages (455)? I feel as though this resource is not as heavily
seen in the activities for the first lesson, the uses for this text might be to detail what a friend
does, which can be applied to everyday life, but in terms of text features, none stand out for me
beyond continued exposure to complete sentences, use of sight words, or good visuals to aid in
the comprehension of text, which I feel are all found in most text.

- Critical Practices Resource: When you think about and critique a piece of text, you are
engaging in a critical practice; thinking about what the text is doing to you or which voices or
point of view is present would be critically engaging with a text, according to Luke (2000). For
the first lesson in Journey’s this anchor text does not really showcase any specific voices or
points of view being taken because the text revolves around who can be a pal and what it looks
like. The text is limited, but the photographs allow for all kinds of diverse people to be seen as
pals. I think it is easy for students to put themselves in the shoes of being a pal because they
have experience being friends and playing with neighbors, classmates, siblings, etc. However, I
do not think it allows for much critical analysis in terms of taking action on a social justice or
sociopolitical issue, or disrupting the commonplace. I do feel as though you could integrate
multiple viewpoints and social justice with the topic of friendship in an extension activity,
which could lead to more critical discussions on disrupting the commonplace or looking at
social justice/sociopolitical issues.
 Squiller 10
We read about a variety of ways that students can begin to take a critical perspective as readers.
Lewison, Leland, and Harste propose four dimensions of critical literacy. Briefly describe an
extension activity you might add to these lessons to help your students begin to take a critical
perspective. Name the dimension of critical literacy that you are targeting in the extension lesson.

- With the What is a Pal? text, I feel as though you could lead students through a scenario based
discussion that looks at children experiencing different issues or problems in their lives and
allow students to take what they have learned from the text and their own experiences to be
able to come up with actions they could do to be a pal to the person in the scenario. This would
be an example of taking action and promoting social justice. For example, if a classmate got a
test back with a bad grade, how could you be a good friend to them in that instance? If you
were on the playground and saw someone bullying your classmate about not being allowed to
play on the team, ask students how they should respond if they were to be a pal. You as the
teacher could provide options or allow students to come up with their own ideas. You could
discuss what the right thing to do would be. This activity could spur the questions of “How
would you feel if you were in their shoes?” “What could you do to help?” “What are nice
things you could say?” “How can you advocate (or stand up for) those in need?” While these
are all small things in terms of social justice, they are the start for students to be able to see who
is in need and how they can help. In addition, if you have read the text a few times, you could
ask them to reference the text to support their answer (the text gives examples that a pal is
someone who helps you, plays with you, sits with you, T26-29). This activity could allow for
students to understand how others might be feeling and how they can be a good friend.
 Squiller 11
References

Adams, M. J. (2004). Modeling the connections between word recognition and reading. In R. B.

Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1219-

1243). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2014). Addressing CCSS anchor standard 10: Text complexity. Language Arts,

91(4), 236-250.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). What's the secret to successful close reading? Strategic preparation and

follow up. Reading Today, 31(2), 16-17.

Gee, J. P. (2003). A sociocultural perspective on early literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D.

Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 30-42). New York: Guilford Press.

Goodman, K. S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic

view. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of

reading (4th ed., pp. 1093-1130). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448-461. [Focus only on the description of Four

Resources Model on pp 453-455.]

Rumelhart, D. E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau

(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1149-1179). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.