Bonita DeAmicis
Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:02:03 -0700
Jennifer, Wonderful points you bring up for discussion! Thank you!
I will put in my two cents after your comments, and then I hope that others join in as well. >Many schools and teachers have embraced comprehension > strategy instruction this past year. My fear is that they are in fact > going overboard and teaching strategies as an end, not a means to an end. I think that can happen, particularly in the beginning of using strategy instruction. It is a good sign that they are jumping in--that will create a universal dialogue and experience that you can certainly build on as a consultant and coach. > Let me give you a typical example..... Schools lay out a sequence for > teaching the strategies: September = making connections, October = > inferring, etc. There is a diagnostic at the beginning of the month, > lessons are taught over the course of the month, and then an evaluation is > completed (usually similar to the diagnostic) at the end of the month to > chart progress. It is possible that the teachers are more flexible within that structure than it seems. Do you know how much flexibility they are using? It seems to me the upside of such a structure is that teachers will be able to talk about how the strategy instruction is going in their classrooms and have a broad and wonderful source of reflection and discussion. It is also possible that many (especially those who may be more experienced) are using the structure as only a framework. That has certainly been the case when edicts come down in my school district. What is your role in this transition? >My fear is that the > kids are learning strategies in isolation, but never really understand WHY > they are being taught (do the teachers have a clear understanding of why > they are teaching the strategies?) - and never have time to connect them > to understand the importance of pulling out a combination of strategies > required to comprehend any given text. Yes. I think even Goudvis, Harvey, Zimmerman, and Keene express those same concerns about all of strategy instruction. It is a danger in any curricular focus. However, it seems to me your teachers sound vested and excited about strategy use. That could/should lead to open dialogue about being reflective practitioners in strategy-use and adjusting appropriately as their ongoing experience and learning leads. Sounds like an ideal place to insert yourself as you coach them along. Are you given opportunities to lead teacher meetings and discussion? > So here's my conundrum..... When teachers (and schools) are first heading > down the "comprehension strategies road" is there any benefit to teaching > the strategies in a sequence - mainly to support teachers by getting their > heads around what this "new-to-them" approach is all about? I think the benefit is the dialogue and shared practice that might lead to stronger understandings earlier than a haphazard adoption. But the system also needs to be open to allowing adjustments and flexibility as teachers express that it is needed/desired. As students are universally exposed to strategy-use, I suspect you will find the following year teachers are thinking harder and noticing more. >Or are we actually doing a disservice to them by supporting this approach, when > there is a better way? What, exactly, is the better way? I am not sure there is an ideal when you are talking about changing a "system" rather than a single classroom. I truly believe the learning that comes from teacher practice, dialogue, and reflection cannot be replaced or sped up by some professional development or rearrangement of curriculum. Again, if there is no opportunity for dialogue and reflection, then the direction you describe worries me more. >It really rang true to me when I read page 35, "So > rather than following a prescribed sequence, we consider what our kids > need to learn, what they are reading, and which strategies will best > facilitate their learning." And this will happen in your schools, from the sounds of things, if the teachers are given time to discuss and reflect upon their use of strategy-instruction and if they read books like MOT and STW and talk and are given the power to make changes when they recongize changes are needed. Professional development is tricky. When we just "present" materials to teachers, generally the result is a small cadre of interested folks pursuing the ideas and many more smiling and going on with what they normally do. What you describe here is teachers that are adopting such instruction, even if the adoption has a somewhat regimented beginning. That sounds like such a good start. Not that your fears are not founded. If the next step (reflection and adaptation) is not addressed, then I could see your program faltering and becoming lock-step, unthinking, much like scripted programs can be implemented in an abusive and dictatorial fashion, counterintuitive to real learning and teaching. > What approach are you taking in your different districts? LOL! My district advocates the use of texts. While open Court has strategy instruction built in it is rather a weak alternative to the type of strategy instruction described in MOT and STW. I am interested to hear from others that have adopted full district or school use of strategy instruction and how such adoption evolved over time. > Looking forward to continuing our learning together! > Jennifer Me too! :)Bonita _______________________________________________ Stw2chat mailing list Stw2chat@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/stw2chat_literacyworkshop.org. Search the STW2 Chat Archives at http://snipurl.com/stw2archives.