I have often read these emails about grading/not grading/basal-vs-no basal/tests/no tests and wondered if there is a happy medium where it can meet. Then I moved to 2nd and not knowing the reading levels, state testing, etc. used the basal/tests and taught strategies and found the happy medium. How do I know, the 3rd grade teachers this year go on and on about the abilities my kids have in both!!! It is hard to fight the good fight and meet the green ogor of testing, but it can happen. I don't think we should short change the effort going on with both. I LOVE my strategies and have my students work with them and grow in them. They write response journals, they share, they partner read, they indep. read of choice, they complete shared reading with poetry pieces. It can be done and a basal can be there. What really needs to be done is to stretch out into all grade levels who are consistently teaching strategies. I know that not every 3rd grade teacher is teaching strategies. Who is suffering, my students who LOVED learning and discussing them. Then only some of the 4th and 5th teach them, then, they are basically going to miss it in middle unless they get someone very innovative (I'm not dissing middle school teachers, just stating what goes on in the feeder school in my district) and then they need to think in high school and can't. The reality is it is not the basal's fault, it is not the state testing's fault, it is not the fault of student's not learning, it is the fault of the stagnant teachers who are not willing to step out and learn. We need to seek the change that we have learned and help others to see that there is a better way, there is a way to push students to think in deeper and more real ways ,the way that most adult readers read. This is the Mosaic way! Just a Thought, Julie
On Sep 16, 2006, at 11:36 PM, jepilyn matthis wrote: > You know what's interesting about this? My son is now 15 and in high > school. It has hit me this week like a 2x4 that he doesn't know > how to > think when he reads. He is a GT student who has always done well > in school, > but this year, for the first, time, he is in classes that expect > him to > analyze his thinking about text (non-fiction textbook text) as he > reads it. > He hasn't a clue. So, Jennifer, what you said is SO true...we need > to set > our kids up for their future as much as their present. > > jepi > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 8:19 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http:// > literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
