Ellin, Elisa, Jennifer, and others (sorry if I forgot anyone who responded to
me in this conversation),
While I'd like to think that teachers at my very progressive school would
never do this, I am concerned that they might think that naming the strategies
is "the end goal" as Jennifer stated.
I'd like to thank all of you for helping me understand and think about my
question. All of you have expressed the essence of what I was getting at. Let
me see what I understand so far, please correct me and help me come to a deeper
understanding. It seems that the consenses of the conversation is the key to
strategy instruction is teachers having ongoing conversations with students. It
also seems we need to guide students to the knowledge and make sure the
guidance leads to a name that they can take with them. Scaffolding them to this
end is tricky.
We need a better method of talking about this with each other. We teachers
must be explicit yet guide discussions in a thoughtful manner. We also must
give them time to have these authentic duscussions with each other, and these
discussions need to cross subject lines. In some ways I think we are talking
about teaching kids tools for thinking and articulating their thoughts as well
as tools for reading.
Self expression is something my students struggle with, whether it is in
reading, math, or science. These are subjects where I require them to discuss
or write their thoughts and observations. I get so many blank stares at the
beginning of the year when I ask them to describe what they are thinking or
what they observed. Leading them to expressing their understanding can be quite
challenging.
I'm often amazed at who the "usual suspects" turn out to be. In my
experience, sometimes they are not who you would think. When I was teaching
second grade, the "usual suspects" were the ones who could provide the most
detailed synthesis of the story, despite the fact that they were struggling
mightily with decoding. They were able to think quickly and get to the heart of
the matter from the read aloud. What makes these kids different from the
students who could decode and were fluent readers, but were not fluent thinkers?
Now I wonder about my fourth grade students this year and last. (I've taught
2 years of fourth grade students that I had in second grade.) What has happened
to them in third grade so they come to me less able to think and articulate
than when they were with me the previous year? Am I feeling like I'm having to
work harder because my expectations are too high, or am I asking them to think
back to far?
It seems like the more I think about this, the more questions I have!
Joy/NC/4
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
How children learn is as important as what they learn: process and content go
hand in hand. http://www.responsiveclassroom.org
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
_______________________________________________
Understand mailing list
[email protected]
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
