While I don't think it is good practice to test a student's ability to name a strategy, I am wondering if being able to name a strategy makes it easier children to talk about what they are doing to understand text. As I read later chapters of To Understand, Ellin describes sessions where children teach each other. Shouldn't we encourage a common language so that kids can describe their thinking to each other? I am thinking that it is most important to use the strategies, but I also think kids should be metacognitive...and be able to share what they are thinking about. They need the words to describe what they are doing in their heads and to describe how these strategies help them to understand. So...don't we need to name the strategies to do that? It is just keeping the naming in proper perspective...not the end goal but a means to the end. What do you all think? Jennifer In a message dated 3/24/2008 6:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. . . It reminds me of the argument I still have with some teachers about naming the parts of speech being an essential in teaching writing. It is not...using the parts of speech correctly when constructing sentences is the essential. So... maybe using the strategies, whatever we call them, is the essential. Having a common language is important, but it shouldn't be more important than...well, understanding!! Cathy **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001) _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
