I THINK you can get articles from IRA ONLY if you suscribe to that particular journal, not just be a member. Is that correct? Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel
-----Original Message----- From: thomas <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 09:39:48 To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Does strategy instruction inhibit comprehension?/Cross posting I had the RRQ - hadn't read it yet. Thanks for the alert. I don't have enough time today (since my kids start tomorrow and I am new to second/third - needless to say lots on my mind and plate) to give it the time I need to understand it fully. But just given the first few pages, I think I see a point to consider. They structured the study pulling apart I think what would be components of good instruction. For example I don't think working with content and text structure should be separate from strategy instruction. In fact all the approaches were designed to be whole class instruction of single texts. For me, I see strategy instruction to be a process over time involving modeling, gradual release of responsibility to other texts. I want children to be their own problem solvers in reading. So different aspects of strategy instruction take place at different times. Nothing would preclude me from having children join me in close reading of content text...noticing text structures...having spent time on strategies at other points of time. This part would be application....not metacognitive practice with the strategies. And I don't just let children use strategies to build their own interpretations of texts. We return to texts over and over and through interactive discussions gradually building our coconstructed knowledge. We don't ignore content knowledge. So perhaps once again, those who don't understand our social constructivist approaches have set up an experiment that doesn't necessarily model really effective teachers using strategy instruction??? This reaction is just based on the first few pages so I may need to reconsider as I read on. I do think a good dialogue on this would be useful to all of us. I wonder if there is any way to make the full article more available to more of us?? Maybe we could contact IRA???? Sally On 8/16/09 6:14 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > _Click here: Reading Research Quarterly : July/August/September 2009 : > Abstract of Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction_ > (http://www.reading.org/Publish.aspx?page=/publications/journals/rrq/v44/i3/ab > stracts/rrq-44-3-mc > keown.html&mode=redirect) > > I am more than one listserv. Within the past month, on one of the > listservs, someone posted the link to this recent article from Reading > Research > Quarterly. I read the abstract, sent the link to my students and printed out > the article. It is 37 pages long so it got set aside. Recently, I woke up at > 2:30 and couldn't get back to sleep. I decided that reading something on > the "dry" side might help me nod off. However, when I started reading this, I > was hooked. Although this is a small study, the repercussions of this > research project caused me some disequilibrium. I can't find the email with > the link that originally prompted me to investigate this, even though I've > searched the archives. It really doesn't matter. What I was hoping is that > others of you would take the time to read it in the next couple of days, and > then we could have an online conversation about it. Unfortunately, I believe > one has to be a member of IRA or have access to a university library in > order to get the complete article. You can read the abstract at the link > above. > > One more thing, in the notes at the end of the article, Tim Shanahan is > thanked for being "instrumental in the conception and design of the study." > Tim has chatted with us on the Mosaic list before, and I know some have > strong feelings about his beliefs in regard to literacy. If we decide to talk > about this research study, maybe someone could draw him, or one of the > authors, into our conversation. > > Just to cause a little provocation, as they say in Reggio, the research > that the article was written about suggests that strategy instruction is > possibly the least effective in helping children understand content area > reading as compared to a basal, or discussion with questioning, about the > content. The authors also suggest that strategy instruction might inhibit > comprehension because students ( 5th graders in this case) are thinking about > the > strategy rather than the content. > > Let me know if anyone is interested in having an online conversation > about this. > > Nancy > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
