Joy,
I am very concerned with the movement toward more and more explicit,
direct instruction, especially when presented with a certain end goal
in mind, usually a "right answer" goal. I agree that it is more
important for children to be able to do something than to know what to
call it. I think it is AFTER they do it that you give it a name, not
before. But that's just me.
Renee
On Jun 13, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Joy wrote:
Renee,
This is a question that I asked about 5 or 6 years ago! I got shot
down by several members here!
I think it is more important to have a discussion with the student
that probes their thinking than it is to label the strategy. While
naming the strategy is nice, to me what the students do is more
important than what they call it. I think there is something to be
said about having common vocabulary, but the action is what matters
most.
You know that I'm a constructivist at heart, as well.
Joy/NC/4
________________________________
From: Renee <[email protected]>
. . . But I am wondering whether, especially with confident readers,
the strategies can be *taught* largely through the kinds of questions
we ask children, so that they are pushed to use the strategies. For
example, in a book discussion with a child, if we ask, "what did you
see in your mind's eye while you were reading this section"
would/could/should inherently push a child to learn to visualize. I
guess I am looking at more of a natural and constructivist direction.
"We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It's easy
to say, 'It's not my child, not my community, not my world, not my
problem.' Then there are those, who see the need and respond. I
consider those people my heroes."
~ Fred Rogers
_______________________________________________
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.
