Strangman's article on graphic organizers made me pause and reflect on my own use of graphic organizers in my classroom. The practice of teaching students to use graphic organizers has been frowned upon by my school's reading program, with the rationale that in first grade, it generally takes children "too long" to fill them out, and that reading time becomes more about understanding graphic organizers than actually focusing on books. That rationale seems a little oversimplified to me, and now I feel like I have a better understanding as to why.

Though the article did refer to "more modest effects for elementary populations," providing students with a variety of structures to visually (or otherwise) represent their interpretation of text is an essential part of the Universal Design for Learning. As with anything else, students must be taught how to use tools efficiently so that they support understanding. Currently, my first graders' reading comprehension is officially assessed solely through verbal questioning (from a script), which provides little support for students with communication disorders. I'm fairly confident, though, that if the assessment included more options for expression as the UDL suggests, we would see different results from our students who continue to perform below grade level in comprehension. Unfortunately, I have little control over the method of official assessment in my current school, but it still seems worthwhile for me to invest in the creation of some kid-friendly, differentiated graphic organizers for my students to use as they read.

My classroom may be ill-equipped with technology that is accessible for the students, but the creation of graphic organizers is something that I can easily do on my personal computer. I know, though, that this would only be enhanced by some of the technology referred to in the articles from this week - especially multimedia composition tools, text-to-speech, and text-to image programs used with supportive supervision.

Harper Keenan