On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ---- "Smith wrote:
>
> =============
> I have been a lurker on this group for the past year. Enjoyed all the
> topics and conversations. Good stuff. I now have discovered my own
> question and issue.
>
We just got the system at our school. I cannot see how it is any
different than any typical standardized test, breaking reading down into
the famous 5 parts. (actually 8 I think here because it includes a
separate test for sight words, oral vocabulary, and spelling)The
comprehension is simply multiple choice. It does give a print out based
on all those parts....but the advice is generic to particular parts.
Suggestions aren't bad per se but they aren't anything a good teachers
wouldn't know to do anyway. And there was little to no advice re
understanding issues that cross the particulars (e.g. the famous 5) or
that get at larger important issues like motivation and confidence and
background knowledge etc. It reminds me of the test that goes with
Accelerated Reader. The profiles given for individual students sound
pretty good - use all the right buzz words etc. But if you look at them
carefully, you realize that they all say the very same thing, given a
particular constellation of answers. There is an illusion of giving you
individualized feedback. In fact, I learned nothing new about the
students that I didn't already know.
A good point, it doesn't test components of reading that are
prerequisite to some other skill so students don't spend timeon things
they already know.
The danger in my humble opinion is that when a skill is noted as a need,
the program sends you to practice programs. You are then teaching
skills in isolation. I suppose that works sometimes for some kids.
Just being on a computer some people think is motivating. But the
downside is this sends the message of reading being its component parts.
It's my prejudice that many of this type computer remediation are
actually worksheets on a computer, the "extra" being the moving parts or
better animation. I am one of those whole language people who believes
skills and parts are best learned in meaningful contexts. It's just
really hard for isolated information to stick in the brain!
I do remember a good deal of research on the Waterford program maybe one
and a half or two years ago. I know Los Angeles Unified bout the
program for the whole district They found it didn't do anything for
test scores (and from test scores inferred, rightly or wrongly said with
an ironic smile, that the children didn't grow as readers in any
measurable way. The computer work on this program looks much the same
in my view so I would check it out carefully.
Another concern is that teachers will think this is really valuable and
not spend time doing more valuable things to support children in growing
as readers.
This also relates to the of late conversations about centers because I
imagine this being thought of as an ideal activity for centers. If
centers are conceived simply to keep children busy so the teacher can
work with small groups, we wind up with a problem too. The children
aren't spending enough time actually reading and problem solving as they
work toward understanding what they are reading - REAL STUFF!!
Honestly, I am very disappointed that my school purchased this and I
don't plan to use it. I really have better things to do - time reading
to with by my students is too valuable.
Sally
_______________________________________________
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.
