Thanks Bonita, What you say here is what I think I've been trying to say...but in a roundabout way. Elisa
Elisa Waingort Grade 2 Spanish Bilingual Dalhousie Elementary Calgary, Canada I remember learning from Sheffield (sp?), I believe--could be messing up the name, that vocabulary is best introduced after experimentation and even "self-naming" of an idea. So for instance in math, a student could grapple with lines across circles, talk about the different types of lines, establish that a certain type of line always starts on the sides and intersects the middle and that is how we find half. Then a teacher could label that line "diameter" and it is much more likely to stick as both a label and as a concept. So with the strategies, I think following sheffield's (sp) advice we ought to have some experimentation with how texts make us think about stuff and what kinds of stuff text makes us think about--then giving the name of connections and even text to text, text to self, text to world...after the understanding is achieved. The point of the naming is to give us a quick easy way to refer to something. We all then understand what we mean when we say it because we explored the idea to begin with. Does this idea of naming fit in this conversation? Bonita PS. Finally got the book and am immersing myself between papers...Wow, Ellin did it again!
_______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
