Ellin,
Although I am using a lurker on this list...your thoughts and comments
were amazing to me. My frustration is in that I am required to teach
from a basal, within a pre-defined framework of 30 minutes of whole
group instruction and 60 minutes of center time-while I am teaching
small groups. I am moving from third to fourth grade and find myself
more and more frustrated with teaching literacy.
I believe that my lower level students are not being served in a way
that meets their needs, and my higher level students are not either. I
am not sure how to engage the ones that truly struggle to read, and
therefore hate to read. I am also not sure what to do with the
students that read above grade level, yet are required to read the
basal on their grade level.
Can anyone on this list provide any ideas on how to improve my
instruction so that everyone's needs are being met? I too have
struggled with the idea of breaking down my own reading, so that I
understand what the struggling reader must be thinking when they read.
Rosie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ellin Keene <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, Jun 27, 2009 2:18 pm
Subject: [MOSAIC] explicit comprehension strategies, Readicide and the
Reading Zone
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.
