Bonita said: 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?
Bev said: I think this captures much of what I believe RE the naming issue.
However, my "umbrella" is named differently--or else it's just a bigger
umbrella. I think it all goes back to learning theory and inductive/deductive
reasoning and what you believe about how kids learn--and that makes an enormous
difference to me!! There is an all-important basic, fundamental difference
between saying "Girls and boys, here is the definition of synthesis.... Here
is an example of synthesis.... Look at these eight paragraphs and mark in the
margin which ones are synthesis," and reading rich, interesting text to kids
many, many times while modeling your mental processes (often WITHOUT naming) of
how you're coming to understand, gradually releasing responsibility to the kids
for the process first in a group and eventually independently, and at some
point that comes naturally, naming the strategy, after which you all have a
handy, dandy communication tool to use when discussing synthesis.
Constructivists have an altogether different viewpoint than do those we see
writing our current systematic, explicit direct instruction materials. And I'd
hardly say those materials cause OR name much thinking. To me, naming is a
huge issue: in math (think Piaget and Kamii here), in literacy, and in all
learning. Premature naming doesn't enhance, and has the power to distract
from, children constructing understanding. So, to me, framing a discussion "to
name or not to name" is basically a false dichotomy. I believe the key is
becoming enough of a responsive teacher to consider WHEN and HOW to name.
Thanks for pulling that together for me, Bonita. Bev
_________________________________________________________________
Watch “Cause Effect,” a show about real people making a real difference. Learn
more.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause
_______________________________________________
Understand mailing list
[email protected]
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
