I'm responding to the following posted by Ellin Keene: In terms of the developmental appropriateness of strategies like synthesis, I believe that we wouldn't even be asking questions like that if we had a different way of thinking about comprehension. I also wish those who are concerned about developmental appropriateness could observe, not only Debbie Miller's former first graders, but thousands of other very young children (including some I worked with this week in Northbrook and Midlothian IL) use strategies such as synthesis and inference to dramatically enhance their understanding. Why on earth would we withhold that kind of intellectual engagement from them?"
I work in Midlothian, IL and had the extreme privilege to watch Ellin work with our 1st graders last week. The focus was on inferencing, and I have no doubt that these strategies are perfectly appropriate for the younger grades. They not only can, but NEED, to know that there is more meaning in a text other than what the author & illustrator put into it. They need to know that the true understanding of a text lies within their own minds. Young children also can, and need, to know that their thoughts, their beliefs, their feelings, and their opinions change as they read and understand - the very heart of synthesizing. If we're not asking them to create their own understanding through inferring and synthesizing - then what ARE we expecting from them? I just don't believe that these strategies are developmentally inappropriate for them to use. I do know that their ability to use them grows more complex and sophisticated as their minds develop. But I agree wholeheartedly with Ellin - why would we want to withhold from them the great joy of uncovering meaning in a book? Why would we want to withhold from them the ability to truly understand why Solomon Singer kept visiting that cafe (An Angel for Solomon Singer), even when the author doesn't tell us?? She said instruction in those strategies should be brief through modeling and not something we need to do over and over again. I'm curious about the context of the above notes taken from the speaker at the reading conference in Michigan. It has been my experience that the more I model and return to the strategies, the more my students and I become adept at using them as the tools they are intended to be. I'm unsure as to what would the benefit of only brief modeling and few exposures? My only guess would be to make room for "other stuff" in the teaching of reading? I think this decision returns to Ellin's central question of: what are we really wanting our students to achieve when we teach for understanding. Dana Williams 5th grade Midlothian, IL _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
