Joan, If it makes you feel any better, our district 10 years ago did the exact same thing. We are now using HM for shared reading and no longer use the assessments or practice books. Our district took the original position to get everyone on the same page (literally) since some teacher were using trade books, workshop approaches, themes etc. Now we have a literacy coach, strategies are being used, and I feel like a teacher again instead of a Stepford School! Hang in there! Donna
________________________________ From: [email protected] on behalf of Heather Green Sent: Wed 7/1/2009 8:05 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] explicit comprehension strategies,Readicide and the Reading Zone Joan, Uhg, I feel so sorry for you. How do they even call that teaching??? A robot could do that. How sad :( On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Joan Matuga <[email protected]> wrote: > I would love to see your notes. I am teaching in a district with a "Full > and complete commitment" to Houghton Mifflin. We are restricted to the > basal and have a 8-day schedule for each story with step by step lesson > plans for each day. We are not allowed to vary from this or supplement with > other readings (with the exception of Gifted) until we have used every > single piece of HM. > > You talked to all teachers in our district several years ago. I was awed > by your presentation. Your ideas seem to have been flushed down the toilet > along with teacher responsibility for determining what is needed in her own > classroom based on the students in the class. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ellin Keene<mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 11:18 AM > 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: [MOSAIC] Just Finished Readacide and The Reading Zone What do > > you think the implications are... > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Message-ID: > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org< > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org>. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive< > 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. > > _______________________________________________ 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.
