To me, the question is more complex than whether or not students learn to read. using a bottom up or a top down approach. A lot depends on how we define reading. I think to some people, if kids can say the words and even answer comprehension questions at the end of a text, and do well on standardized tests-- that constitutes "reading." To others, reading is deeper than that. and the goal is to help students think critically and to become lifelong readers who use literature to enrich their lives.
Part of the big problem with the Report of the National Reading Panel was that it defined "reading" as the acquisition of any isolated reading skill. If a study showed that training in systematic phonics resulted in improvement on posttests on isolated phonics skills, they called that "reading growth" even though kids trained like that did not improve in comprehension as their meta analysis clearly shows. There is a big report on ELL's (the Report of the National Panel on Minority-Children and Youth)-- it looked at all the research on ELL's and the findings are the same as the NRP report. It showed that bottom up skills instruction produces kids who can "read"-- they can word call. But when those kids hit third or fourth grade and they need to deal with more complex text, there is a huge plummet. I discuss that big EL study in my book and have many quotes from it because I believe many teachers do not know about the findings of that study -- the study also supports bilingual education-- The study was actually funded by the federal government but I would bet that the majority of people on this listserve that has smart, really, really involved and caring teachers on it-- never heard of it. What I have found frustrating and what I think I did in my book was clarify what the research really says and one of the biggest, most important studies is that ELL study, The findings and the quotes I have from it are very powerful What's worse, kids who are taught bottom up or let's say are focused on skills -first with the idea that comprehension and reading for pleasure will just happen at some later date-- do not understand that reading is about more than performing skills for a grade or to please a teacher. Kids take their cues from our actions, not our words. If we tell kids reading is valuable, but we put the emphasis on skills, the message they get is that what we value are the skills, not reading itself. Besides which we bore them and they don't learn that it is possible to interact with a text in a personal and meaningful way. I know from exprerience, it is so hard to undo that perception in kids. Once a kids gets it in his or her head that she hates reading, that reading is boring and that it's about saying the words and saying them fast-- it is a long, hard journey to change that perception. Anyway, to bring this back to whether or not kids learn to read through bottom up approaches, I'm suggesting that it depends on how we define reading (is it skills and test scores). Or whether our goals for our students are short term and confined and defined by a narrow world view or if our goal is to produce thinkers, doers, leaders and citizens who use reading to enrich their lives. PS-- the research also supports SSR-- that too is a fact that's been obscured and twisted. I'm getting ready to write 2 articles based on sections of my book-- one is on SSR, the other is on what the federal research says about the best ways to teach ELL's. I would make better progress if I'd start writing and get off this listserve!!! BUT, I have learned so much from reading your posts. I wish I could take you all out and buy you a cup of coffee!!! In love and gratitude for your inspiration, Elaine On Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 09:59 PM, Lisa D Pemberton wrote: > Several years ago I ran across some research that said that 70 - 80% of > students learn to read well with a top-down (phonics) reading model, > and > that 70 - 80% of student learn to read well with a bottom-up (holistic) > reading model. I have used this information to explain why I might try > a different approach when a child is not succeeding with one or the > other. Does anyone know the source of this information, or did I just > dream it up? It seems to follow very closely the same results that we > are getting with the DIBELS test. > Lisa > Tennessee > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/29/07 12:00 PM >>> > Send Mosaic mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/ > mosaic_literacyworkshop.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Mosaic digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: End of Year Reflection (Laura Rieben) > 2. Re: Re-replies to my fluency v. comprehension (Renee) > 3. Re: End of Year Reflection (elaine garan) > 4. Re: workshop model (Olga Reynolds) > 5. DIBELS Results ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 6. Re: DIBELS Results ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 7. Re: DIBELS Results (elaine garan) > 8. Re: DIBELS Results (Vien, Carol) > 9. Re: NYC Middle School Reading (Robins Maureen (25Q194)) > 10. NYC Middle School Reading + Webb's Depth of Knowledge (Linda) > 11. Elem Novel for Holidays ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 12. Re: Question for Tim about songs (Joy) > 13. Re: End of Year Reflection/upper elem (Joy) > 14. Re: Question for Tim about songs (Bill Roberts) > 15. Re: End of Year Reflection (Joy) > 16. Re: End of Year Reflection (elaine garan) > 17. Re: End of Year Reflection (Patricia Kimathi) > 18. Re: DIBELS Results ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 19. Re: rigor of curriculum with strategies (Patricia Kimathi) > 20. Re: wAndering minds (Amy and Christine Rebera) > 21. Re: DIBELS Results ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 22. Re: Elem Novel for Holidays ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 23. Re: Question for Tim about songs (Tim Rasinski) > 24. Re: Question for Tim about songs (Tim Rasinski) > 25. Re: wAndering minds (addendum to my last post) (Tim Rasinski) > 26. Re: Re-replies to my fluency v. comprehension (Tim Rasinski) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 12:11:44 -0400 > From: "Laura Rieben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] End of Year Reflection > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > This was my first year attempting to use the comprehension strategies > with > kindergarten, also. I loved using them with first and second graders > (unlike Ginger, I was coming from below, so to me, those second grade > responses were fabulous!!). One of the chalenges in kindergarten is > the > decoding, concepts of print, sharing reading, etc. takes up most of > the > first half of the year. I did a good job with some of the strategies > (prediction, schema/connections, questioning), a so-so job with some of > them > (visualization, determining importance, inference) and never made it to > synthesis. I was able to get the kids to use sticky notes to write > questions, we were able to decide if the question was answered in the > book, > and whether it was an interesting question that we would use inference > to > answer. These kids will go on next year to a team of first grade > teachers > who did a book study on Debbie Miller with me two years ago, so I know > my > kids are going to continue to grow in using the strategies. I am more > convinced than ever that this is the way to teach, even in the youngest > grades, to get kids more concerned about the meaning of the text and > not > just the words they can decode, especially after reading some of Elaine > Garan's book. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 09:31:35 -0700 > From: Renee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Re-replies to my fluency v. comprehension > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Terry, > > You say that your students work on Reader's Theater fifteen minutes a > day when they arrive. Could you tell us what other work they are doing > in reading? For example, are you working from a particular reading > program? If so, are you mandated to use it a certain way? What kinds of > things are you required to do, and what things do you do on your own? > What does a typical literacy block look like in your classroom? > > Renee > > On May 27, 2007, at 5:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> I have found this conversation so interesting. I was one of the lucky >> participants who saw Tim Rasinski last summer at the Georgia Reading >> and Writing Conference and I was convinced to try some strategies he >> had presented. Before that time I had used Reader's Theater to help >> with fluency, but after hearing him speak I knew I had to be >> consistent. This year it became consistent, and EVERY student made >> gains in their rate as measured by DIBELS. That is enough for me to >> know I will continue to use it as I did this year. On Monday, students > >> came in and found a new script (plays, poems, speeches, etc) on their >> desk and put it into their binder. Their morning work was to practice >> with their group, about 15 minutes each day. On Friday they performed. > >> Yes, they increased in rate....but they also improved in fluency. I >> LOVED to listen to them read, they began to see the importance of >> expression, to pay attention to punctuation, to think about the >> meaning and adjust accordingly. >> >> I was disheartened when we looked at DIBEL scores and was told that >> the instruction was not effective because students did not meet the >> benchmark. But I still disagree, it was effective. They did make gains > >> in rate, every student, and more importantly made the gains I >> mentioned above. I do believe in this strategy and will use it again. >> >> Also, they loved to perform, they became more confident, and they >> understood?fluency's importance. Each time they performed they also >> made comments to the students, pointing out the things they did well, >> and they noticed the gains of specific students. I am saving all the >> sites listed here for next year. I also purchased some of the books >> from Benchmark with a grant I received. I see they have some new ones >> with speeches and other genres. I am hoping to order more. >> >> So glad to see Tim Rasinski post here, if you have not heard him >> speak, and have the opportunity, GO! >> >> Thanks, >> >> Terry/Fl/2,3 Loop"Learning isn't a means to an end; it is an end in >> itself." > ~ Robert A. Heinlein > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 12:00:24 -0700 > From: elaine garan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] End of Year Reflection > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > I'd just like to add two thoughts here to the discussion. Absolutely, > it's essential to start comprehension in kindergarten. One of the most > powerful, research- proven method for doing so is through read alouds > with lots of discussion. Doing so gives children a sense of story > structure, that reading is about meaning, but there is also a wealth of > > research that shows that just listening to stories build children's > vocabulary. > > The second thought is that there is that skills can be taught in > context but they can STILL be taught directly. Direct instruction and > teaching skills through context are not mutually exclusive approaches, > or at least they don't have to be. In other words, by teaching skills > directly, after a text has been read or through a shared writing > experience, teachers enrich their instruction. They give kids the > benefit of acquiring skills naturally, incidentally through involvement > > with the text (be it a book or a shared writing experience) but they > also provide the benefit of direct instruction (or instructing > directly). > > I have a truckload of government research that supports the teaching > > of phonics and other skills in context as well as the importance of > print rich environments, read alouds, shared reading and comprehension > strategies right from the beginning-- before kindergarten and of course > > in kindergarten. Providing kids with lots of exposure to literature > does not mean that we aren't teaching skills and it doesn't have to > mean that we are not teaching skills directly. It means that we are > teaching skills in a way that will stick. > > I too used sticky notes with k kids in fact, one of my big "aha's!" > came when I was working with kindergarten children. I think somehow out > > there in the world of those who decide what we're supposed to do ( many > > of whom never taught themselves!), there's this illusion that the more > we skill and drill young kids, the better they'll read. Actually, the > truth is that isolated skills instruction is a total and absolute > abstraction for young kids who as we all know, learn through > experience. The more we make skills instruction meaningful and > relevant, the more concrete it is. The more we detach it from how it is > > used, the more abstract and therefore, the more difficult we make it. > > I doubt we can name one single life skill that children learn in the > abstract. Not vocabulary, nothing. Yet for some reason when we get them > > to school, it seems as if we forget that and detach skills from the > authentic experience that gives those skills vitality and relevance. > What's more, there are a many ways, not just one to teach the same > concepts including as I illustrate in my book, creating our own texts > with the kids. > > On Monday, May 28, 2007, at 09:11 AM, Laura Rieben wrote: > >> This was my first year attempting to use the comprehension strategies > >> with >> kindergarten, also. I loved using them with first and second graders >> (unlike Ginger, I was coming from below, so to me, those second grade >> responses were fabulous!!). One of the chalenges in kindergarten is >> the >> decoding, concepts of print, sharing reading, etc. takes up most of >> the >> first half of the year. I did a good job with some of the strategies >> (prediction, schema/connections, questioning), a so-so job with some >> of them >> (visualization, determining importance, inference) and never made it > to >> synthesis. I was able to get the kids to use sticky notes to write >> questions, we were able to decide if the question was answered in the > >> book, >> and whether it was an interesting question that we would use inference > >> to >> answer. These kids will go on next year to a team of first grade >> teachers >> who did a book study on Debbie Miller with me two years ago, so I know > >> my >> kids are going to continue to grow in using the strategies. I am more >> convinced than ever that this is the way to teach, even in the > youngest >> grades, to get kids more concerned about the meaning of the text and >> not >> just the words they can decode, especially after reading some of > Elaine >> Garan's book. >> _______________________________________________ >> Mosaic mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to >> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/ >> mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. >> >> Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:43:37 -0700 (PDT) > From: Olga Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] workshop model > To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Shelley, > Is it possible for you to send me some classroom > models for yoyr reader's workshop. Our district will > be going to balanced literacy > next year and I would like some background on it! > Thanks, > olga > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 19:31:36 +0000 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [MOSAIC] DIBELS Results > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: > > <052820071931.17540.465B2E18000226580000448422165662769C029D0E000E0B020 > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain > > I recently completed the DIBELS assessment on all our first grade > students - I'm a Reading Specialist. This year something really stood > out for me when I did the scoring. At first, I thought it was just a > fluke, but as I continued through the three classrooms, a pattern began > to emerge. I'm just wondering if anyone els > > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/ > mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
