Ellin, I very much appreciate your well-thought-out response to this conversation. I look forward to reading To Understand. From your description is sounds like a guide to very appropriately teaching comprehension strategies. I think you make a very good point, that if students are always reading at their level, they are not being challenged or taught. This goes hand-in-hand with Gallagher's 50/50 approach, where 50% of the time students get to read what they want and the other 50% they are reading novels together, making sense of them together as a learning experience. (I think you would really enjoy the book!) I never knew I could feel such a knot in my stomach over something related to my career, although as we all know, it's so much more than just a career. As I read and contemplate I am starting to feel more "okay" as I form a belief system that sits right with me. Again, I appreciate your response very much. Heather
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Ellin Keene <[email protected]>wrote: > Colleagues: > > I've picked up some of your posts related to whether or not to teach > comprehension strategies explicitly and, more recently, your discussion > about Readicide and Atwell's The Reading Zone. I have not read the former, > but have read the latter. I'd like to make a couple observations about > explicit strategy instruction here, but because I respect Atwell so much, I > read and carefully considered her arguments in The Reading Zone. I took > the > time, when the book came out, to get my thoughts into writing and should > any > of you want to read my responses, please feel free to email me separately - > I would be happy to send you a document with my comments. On to explicit > strategy instruction: > > > > First, I fully agree that some teachers, but mostly publishers, have > "basalized" strategy instruction, effectively dumbing it down and robbing > from it what the original researchers and theoretical writers (myself, > Zimmermann, Hutchins, Harvey and Goudvis, Miller, Tovani, and the list goes > on and on. . .) tried to communicate about explicit strategies instruction. > However, there really is no choice in terms of whether we teach > comprehension strategies explicitly. We have decades and decades of > research (Pearson, Dole, Pressley, Duke, Beck and the list goes on and on . > . .) to show that children (all children) comprehend more deeply and > effectively when they receive comprehension strategy instruction. To > ignore > such an enormous body of research would be irresponsible, at best. > > > > We absolutely do have a choice with respect to how we approach strategy > instruction - how long we teach a strategy, whether we integrate all > strategies simultaneously, teaching them cumulatively or one at a time > (which we addressed in the second edition of Mosaic of Thought). We can > choose to "basalize" the strategy instruction or we can observe students > carefully, understand their comprehension needs within the fuller context > of > what they need as readers and use strategies as tools to help them enhance > and deepen comprehension and thus their engagement in and excitement about > reading - the "zone". Obviously, the original researchers and theoretical > writers have tried to promote the latter, sometimes with greater success, > in > some cases, much less clearly. > > > > Secondly, as Suzanne Lee points out in a post today, the reason I wrote To > Understand is to directly address some of the problems I've observed and > colleagues have expressed here and elsewhere related to over-reliance on > comprehension strategy instruction. In it I argue that we must consider, > through conversation and instruction with children, where strategies lead > when students apply them. Strategies are tools, so the question becomes, > what do the tools help us do as readers? A quick response is that > strategies, well taught, can almost always help children reflect more > deeply, become more engaged, understand more subtle themes and topics and > recall and reapply more from what they read. > > > > I certainly agree with Heather's post today: "if I had to stop every page > to > make connections, etc., it would probably make me hate reading", but there > are two key issues she may not have addressed here: first, she is an adult > proficient reader and does not need, but may certainly find that > occasional, > conscious use of the strategies might deepen her reading experience and > secondly, that asking children to stop after every page (or anything like > that practice) is simply poor comprehension instruction. It may well lead > to > students disliking not only the strategies, but reading! None of the > writers > I listed above has ever suggested that we ask children to do such a thing. > This is one of many misinterpretations of the original research and > theoretical writing. My attempt in To Understand was to address these > questions and push us to think about what the new horizons might be in > reading comprehension instruction. Jennifer Palmer, who moderates this list > serv, conducted a superb discussion on To Understand last year - it might > be > helpful to return to the archives to see how some of your colleagues > discussed these issues at that time. To Understand is a direct response to > some of the concerns you all have raised because I've had them too!! > > > > Thirdly, with respect to children using the strategies automatically > (subconsciously would be a better term) when they are reading text at their > level, I would suggest that if we have children reading a more-or-less > steady diet of texts at their level, we are not challenging them to become > better readers!! Children need texts at their level for fluency and word > identification work (particularly very young children and children who are > learning English as their second language), but I contend that they also > (desperately) need to be challenged by texts in which, because of the > complexity of the concepts, they will greatly benefit from using the > strategies. All children need strategy instruction and to be conscious of > their strategy use in some texts. I'm concerned that we may not challenge > children (not just our most proficient readers, but all children) enough > with the conceptual complexity of the texts they read. Complex, > well-written > texts (expository and narrative) are a huge part of what introduces > children > to the life of the mind and helps them feel intellectually able. > > > > I would also argue that, if texts are well chosen to enhance students' > understanding of the world, they will certainly benefit from being more > conscious - intentional - in applying the strategies. Their reading > experience will simply be more meaningful and memorable. It is also true > that strategies are effective tools for students when they are learning to > read and write in a new genre. Are our children reading a wide enough > variety of genres? As someone pointed out in a post today, sometimes we > have little (I wouldn't say no) schema for a topic - hence we need to teach > children to create, not just activate schema. We have more research on > this > topic than nearly any other in comprehension and to fail to teach children > to activate and create schema is again, not effective practice. > > > > As Heather questions in her post today, "is it enough to just let kids > read? > To talk about books with them? To have them recommend books with each > other. . . . " The response is a resounding no and I'm delighted that she > and others on this list serv have committed to such a thoughtful > conversation about the effective, intellectually engaging strategy > instruction I know we all value. > > > > Most respectfully, > > Ellin Keene > > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:18:03 -0400 > > From: Heather Green <[email protected]> > > Subject: [MOSAIC] Just Finished Readacide and The Reading Zone What do > > you think the implications are... > > To: [email protected] > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > .... for lower elementary grades? I wish there were a book written with a > similar theme, but geared toward 1-2. There are plenty of teachers at our > school, include me last year, who taught "comprehension strategies". I am > contemplating now-- is it enough to just let kids read? To talk about books > with them? To have them recommend books with each other? Is it enough in > the younger grades to just get them to love reading? Do we teach the > strategies just because we feel it gives us something to teach during > reading workshop? In her book, Atwell mentions doing mini-lessons. I wonder > what these are. SO MANY QUESTIONS....! > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
