Reading Reflection #4

Edyburn, D.L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146-152.

Having read Edyburn's article, one major idea that occurred to me was that he was questioning our underlying assumptions about what it means to perform (specifically, to read).  What we believe/assume about how a performance should or ought to be done affects our views of what it means to perform; however, we sometimes fail to recognize other means of accomplishing the same performance or to recognize that individuals may become stronger in certain intelligences (considering Gardner's model of multiple intelligences) or skills if they are allowed to use those intelligences or skills they are most comfortable using until they become familiar with newer intelligences or skills.  For example, I was not incredibly strong at reading visual images to interpret meaning as I progressed through school, but I was strong at processing verbal images.  (Luckily, I was at an advantage based on what is practiced in the public school system I attended.)  Although I was given art classes and saw visual messages in other classes, my knowledge was built upon the verbal information.  It has not been until recently that I've grown to appreciate visual images for what they say/what information they communicate.  I may be incorrect, but I believe these ideas about having more than one way to perform (intelligence or skill) may be the underlying basis for universal design for learning.

Based on what I've read, I'm predicting ideas/assumptions influencing current practices in school systems are not doing justice to children who do not process in the way we deem appropriate (those who do not fit the norm). If we offered "compensatory" (a potential misnomer) strategies earlier, they may well feel successful using other strategies and develop those strategies we deem appropriate when they are ready.