I agree that it is extremely important to know how to use a strategy and there is some validity in being able to name it. I liked Peter and Jennifer's response earlier about keeping things simple. Letting the kids find ways to naturally categorize and name strategies, such as "text-to-movie" or "text-to-mom". Wouldn't that also provide a great segway into introducing the kids to the actual name of the strategies we all know and use such as "text-to-self connection"? This way the children are responding to and formulating their own thoughts and ideas, but can be guided into the strategy name to put in their background knowledge should they need it later. Just a thought...
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 3/24/2008 7:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Understand] Cathy 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 _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
