I just want to clear this up: I did not mean to say strategy instruction should just be for struggling readers: " I sometimes think the reading strategies were meant for educators so that we could become better teachers of reading, particularly for our struggling readers, and I think we have taken it too far and use it in all cases."
I meant that as a teacher the strategies gave me, the educator, a tool kit to help instruct all readers, but they are truly helpful for those children who struggle to read and understand. The strategies give students access to the thinking that strong readers engage in when they approach text. I guess I am questioning how "prescribed" readers workshop is becoming (shared lesson, guided groups, independent reading), so much so, that there is a movement in high performing districts to return to basals. If we are following a prescribed program I guess then why not a basal? I imagine it would make life a lot easier for the teacher, but wasn't there a reason why we left basals behind? I have enjoyed great results in my classroom year after year with children of all levels and I have turned some, not all, children into passionate book lovers. That should count for something. I have always taught with small, individualized and flexible groups. I agree with whomever said not all workshops and presenters are the end all of education. There is no one right way, so why do we keep searching for one? I understand the importance of giving children the language to talk and think deeply about text, but you also have to give them the time and freedom to express those feelings with others (and not in a letter to me). I guess it depends on what "studying schema and connections" means. It sounds like your kids are strengthening their schema and connections through a rich literate environment and discussion. I think I taught the strategies without giving them their proper names until I read Mosaic, but now I see good teaching being equated to a daily diet of strategy instruction without the rich group discussion. I think good teaching empowers children to engage in rich dialogue about what they are reading. And good teaching also allows them the time to do so. I think a passion for reading is the greatest gift I try to give all my students. Leslie R. Stewart Grade 3 Teacher [email protected] 203-481-5386, 203-483-0749 FAX ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Beverlee Paul [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:16 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] philosophical wonderings I think we are extremely fortunate that Ellin remains open to new learning and committed to our new learning as well. When I read To Understand, I thought she was writing to tell us that comprehension strategy instruction is necessary, but not sufficient. And that it's probably not wise to consider Zimmerman and her original thoughts as the best there is. The best is yet to come. Add to that the fact that we as educators have to construct our own understanding of strategy instruction and what you have is a subject that is endlessly fascinating and never complete. > Here's a story. I moved from 3rd grade to 5th grade this year. A few weeks > ago our Lit Coach came for a surprise visit to observe reading. She later > told me she was "shocked at first" to see that we were studying Schema and > Connections in 5th grade; she thought they would be well past that. Then she > took in the lesson, the depth of their understanding and discussion, and she > was amazed by their engagement and insight. _______________________________________________ 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.
