Thoughts on reading

When reading this text and the theories presented in the book, for the most part, I found myself agreeing to the majority of it. With the many theories that deal with home, it is almost certain that the home environment influences the reading ability in the student. Surrounding them with a literacy rich environment, having parents as reading models, interactions with reading situations (bed time reading, taking kids to library, etc.) all play an important role in the development of reading skills. In addition, the longer the child is immersed in this literacy rich environment, the more capable the child will be in his literacy ability. Personally, this connection between home and school is one of the most important aspects that I try to get across in my students and parents. Teaching in a district where parents do not have a strong influence in the child's education, I find it difficult to make significant progress in their academic lives. Getting across the importance of sustaining the learning at home becomes a battle that is often lost due to factors that are outside of my own control. These frustrations are a constant struggle when the true potential of the student is unrealized.
When it comes to the social aspect of learning, I also find myself in total agreement with the theories presented in this book. Teaching in an urban district, I see children who are less prepared for school due to their environments surrounding them. From the teacher's anecdote on sociolinguistic theory, I see a lot of similarities between the child from a low SES family and the childrent that I teach. No help with homework, little interaction with other children outside of school (due to the dangers on the streets), tons of watching T.V. resulting in a greater deficiency in common knowledge. I once incidentally made a 5th grade student cry because she didn't know what the Grand Canyon was. I was surprised by the lack of common knowledge that my students had. (Another time was when none of my 5th and 6th grade students knew what the Holocaust was).
When reading the theory of social constructivism, I found the zone of proximal development quite interesting. I had originally thought that the idea of differentiated instruction was a relatively new idea. It seems funny to me how logical all these ideas seem now and makes me wonder why they weren't practiced earlier.
When reading this book, I think that all of these theories have relevance in some way. Just like all children are different and learn differently, all of these theories can somehow pinpoint one aspect of learning where there are many. Even with the maturation theory which a lot of people seem to have disagreed with, I can see how educators can think that teachings should start at a specific age. I mean, who came up with the idea that children should go to school at age 4 or 5? I'm sure that the answer has something to do with the maturation theory. I think it is some kind of combination of all these theories that can help explain the mysteries of learning.