I agree it's the process. We are working on visualization, so I gave them the poem "Mother to Son" by Langston Hughes and asked them to draw what was happening in the poem. It's about a mother talking to her son and comparing her life to a stairway filled with worn spots, loose nails, and rough edges. Most drew a picture of a stairway even though the scene was supposed to be a mother talking to her son. I could tell who 'got' it, but it gave the others a chance to show what they could do. There were no wrong answers since everyone's answer is based on their schema, so we discussed how to use clues in the poem to visualize better (the title was the most obvious clue...). The drawings were all graded based on participation. One of the things I stress in my class is that they need to do every assignment. Even if it isn't the answer I might have expected, they need to be able to defend their answer to me. If it shows logical thinking, I'll give them credit for the answer and then we discuss how to find what might be the best answer. If they can't defend their answer, they weren't thinking, and thinking is the key skill needed to comprehend. They all "think" they have right answers, so my job is to help them figure out how to get the best answer. If I grade them on true comprehension, they might feel stupid or dumb because they can't figure out the correct answer. I stress the process so we can fine-tune our thoughts. For example, we started our FLUENCY assessments this week, and it was interesting to see the word substitutions they used. Even though they were "wrong", they revealed a lot about the students' schema. One girl concerned with her appearance substituted "desirable" for "disagreeable". A few substituted "boutique" for "bouquet", while some of the boys substituted "banquet" for "bouquet". For fluency, their words were incorrect, but they really weren't wrong because their substitutions made sense to them based on their backgrounds. It's the process....
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] reflections-grading > > Okay Susan and others...help me understand something. I can't see basing a > reading grade on comprehension of a story. Aren't we teaching a process > here???We really aren't teaching the story here right? We are teaching students how > to read...so in the end, isn't what matters most the strategy knowledge the > child takes away from your class? Why grade comprehension of a story when it > doesn't matter 5 years from now whether or not the child knows the problem > and solution of a particular story. There are some children who could read a > story and fill in the answers to a comprehension test without our > instruction...so how do we know what they have learned without looking at how they have > come to comprehend or the processes?? > > Problematic as it is, I wonder if the grade has to be on the processes...not > the end results which is the comprehension of the story. A child might not > have learned a thing from your lessons if they are good readers and already > just "know" or intuit the themes and are not metacognitively aware of what > strategies they have used. How are we moving them forward as readers if we don't > hold them accountable for knowing how and when to use a strategy? > > I worry about these bright kids who seem to "get it" so easily. Some day, > they will be faced with a difficult text that they need to make meaning from. We > as teachers have to know whether or not we have prepared them to face those > difficult reading tasks. I have come to firmly believe that the metacognitive > part is crucial to all readers in order for them to have flexibility and > deep understanding of strategy use. I know I thought I was a good reader until > I started becoming more aware of strategies and how they are used. As I > became metacognitively aware of what I was doing to comprehend, not only did I > understand the strategies better, I understood and enjoyed my own reading much > more. > > I agree with you Susan that comprehension is the goal, but how do we know > that our students are really learning how to comprehend unless we evaluate where > they are in their strategies? > > I have such respect for all of you struggling with this thorny issue and > grading really comes down to our own personal philosophies of what reading is > and what needs to be taught. Please understand that my post here is an attempt > to clarify my own thinking as I struggle with this issue for grades 1-5 at my > school. It is not an attempt to put down other's grading policies or promote > my own views. > Jennifer > Maryland > > a message dated 9/16/2006 8:38:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >Last....Do all students need to do all strategies well? > > I thought about this one quite a bit during my teaching years. I > concluded that the simple answer is no. It's more complex, but > that's the simple answer. > > I looked at the strategies I use in reading, and have used from early > years. I rely on some heavily and others just occasionally/lightly. > I use some in all kinds of reading, and others only in technical > reading, as an example. > > My goal would be to have all students understand all the strategies. > However, they, too, are going to have strategies on which they rely > more than others. They don't need the same level of excellence in > all. > > The goal of our comprehension instruction is always just that - > comprehension. The strategies outlined by Keene and Zimmerman are > the best summary of what needs to be known that I came across. > There's always more work to be done in this area, of course, and I > know they are continuing to do it. However, we have to remember that > while teaching the strategies is important, understanding the > strategies is important, comprehension is still the goal. > > I've had students who seemed to "intuit" meaning. I'm sure that on > some level they were using the strategies, or some form of them. > They couldn't explain how they knew some things, but they were > adamant about knowing them, and they were almost always on target. I > didn't get caught up in worrying about whether they understood the > strategies, or how well they understood them. I focused on how well > they comprehended a given text, instead. That would rule out grading > the use of strategies, definitely. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/444 - Release Date: 9/11/06 > > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
