Below is a cross posting from a mosaic discussion on math instruction and what it has to do with discussion on comprehension...I am adding it to our list because Jennifer asked me to, but also because maybe it will elicit dialogue on the nature of understanding content and Keene's representation of what it means to understand.
:)Bonita Sorry Jennifer, I always forget that the Mosiac list tries to keep true to reading comprehension. When a topic is raised where I have thoughts or passion, I tend to jump in. That said, I will now make the connection between all this math talk and reading comprehension. Do teachers require materials that dictate day to day instruction in order to teach reading comprehension (in any subject) and teach it well? Is comprehension something in which we are so versed we do "not need" the support of a specific text? Is comprehension so fundamentally different from other subjects (like math or science) that we should be left to fish around and do it our own way without articulation through the grades? I ask this honestly, because I do not know or even have an idea of the answer. The difference, to me, it seems, is that reading comprehension does not develop in any sort of linear fashion. That we are all teaching "all of comprehension" at all grade levels. Am I correct in this thinking? I am playing devil's advocate here. I know, Jennifer, that you are involved in lesson study on comprehension, a very in-depth process of professional development that is teacher-driven (not district "assigned"). Would such teacher development be enough to assure quality comprehension instruction at all grade levels? Could it inform us where, developmentally, certain comprehension should and should not be taught? :)Bonita--trying to get back on track ;) _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
