Here are the responses to Jennifer's first prompt, gathered into one post. Jennifer's Prompt # 1: .After Ellin shares Jamika's story, Ellin writes on chapter 6 : "I realized that to understand is in some ways synonymous with the development of the intellect." What is your reaction to this statement? Do you agree with it? If so, what implications does that have for our work in classrooms?
Responses to Prompt # 1: I definitely agree with Ellin. Thinking back to my own experiences with intellectual engagement, they were few and far between. As I try to evaluate why, I'd say it was that I was always pushed for time, never really involved in a discussion with others' opinions, and hadn't experienced the "joy" of understanding. During my masters program, I throughly enjoyed discussions we had about relevant issues, so that prompted me to think and dig a little deeper. As for applications to the classroom, I think I'll have to make a priority for sufficient time (sounds good now, doesn't it?), much more discussion, positive feedback for intellectual engagement, and more expectation for those "ah ha" moments. Certainly this book is challenging me, so I would also add very thoughtful consideration of text used. -Jan Jan brings up her own experience and I also resonate with that. I remember being frustrated in HS with teachers that tried to get you to find more in a book or short story than was on the surface level. I also remember my Master's Program where someone said to me for the first time "what do YOU think" and expected me to have my own thoughts. It was really the first time that I had the amazing thought that I could actually have original thoughts! I often wonder if this is developmental and so when I hear complaints coming from kids about looking for deeper levels of meaning I just have to accept that they "can't think that way yet..." What do you all think? -Janice I have been struggling with this idea for years. Recently there was a post on Mosaic that made me rethink what is meant by 'developmental" . Development doesn't just happen. You can lead it by providing opportunities, modeling etc. Last year, as we worked on comprehension lessons in Kindergarten and first grade through the lesson study process, I saw tremendously high levels of thinking. What seems to be developmental is the way those thoughts are expressed...through movement or pictures. We saw that we needed to give the kids the words, the language, to express the high level thinking they were ALREADY capable of doing. I am still thinking this all through, because I know that physiologically the brain develops over time...so perhaps there are things that kids are not ready for...but now I am thinking that the environment we provide helps build the brain... – Jennifer Palmer Early childhood educators often discuss a "partner" of what you're saying, Jennifer - that which they call "representation of learning." I love that people of all ages and capabilities can represent their learning in so many different ways other than we middle-class college graduates see as traditional. Having taught two selectively-mute children (both happened to be Native American, not so coincidentally), I've become very aware that there are many ways people interact and "show understanding," not always with words and, many times, in innovative and creative ways, if we just leave the welcome mat out for them. Jennifer saw it in her young students and I'll bet anyone who's taught kids with CP or kids with autism or "weird" kids (as some would say) or kids who do not speak a common language, has seen it too. We all "show" comprehension in different ways, but sometimes noone is looking. If we open our eyes and our doors and invite multiple representations of learning, we're more and more likely to "see" evidence of understanding where none had been shown before. And we don't have to "differentiate" with easier and harder tasks (or worksheets); we just have to see and respond positively and supportively. Doing that models what we hope all students come to do-- to work together to create an deeper understanding. And understanding is not reserved for just a few of the "chosen ones." It's open to everyone. Which is one of the things special educators have been telling us for years. You know, we just haven't tried all that hard to figure out what we meant when we kept telling our students "to understand," I guess. –Bev Amen! It is so sad that differentiation has come to mean only levels of difficulty. To me, you can differentiate by learning styles, interests...etc etc. (And, Bev, maybe it won't surprise you, but before I became a reading specialist, I was an early childhood classroom teacher.) –Jennifer You know, THE TEACHER having the responsibility of adjusting the levels of difficulty is another problem. If she teaches in an open-ended enough fashion, it is most definitely a joint process by the teacher AND the student to "differentiate" -or what I would escribe as being invited to participate in a developmentally appropriate fashion. Developmental appropriateness includes both age-appropriate and individually-appropriate, so there's really plenty of room there for shared responsibility. - Bev _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
