Dear Renee (who's in kind of a mood)-- I'm smiling as I write that: You said,
"Frankly, I don't think we need "research" to back up everything we say and I'm tired of having my own classroom observations and experience tossed aside because some obscure "research".... especially that research which is done by the company which wants to sell its product..... says that "this" is the "best" way to do something." > I agree one hundred percent with you that the judgments of teachers is > devalued and their role is trivialized all in the name of "research"-- > I have been screaming this for years now! In much of my writing, I put > quotes around "scientific" when it refers to research. What I've done > in my books and articles is show how the federal research has been > misused, and misrepresented to sell programs and books. While I agree > that we shouldn't need research to back up every breath we take and > that a lot of research (particularly the way it's reported and used) > is a bunch of baloney, it is nevertheless a bunch of baloney that is a > hard reality for many teachers. > So what I do, is analyze the research (the FEDERAL research) and find > the truth in it. I try to help teachers who are bullied and bludgeoned > by the 'research" to talk back to the claims. More importantly, I try > to give them the tools to "think back" to the "research says" claims. And you are so right that research has become a convenient selling point for publishers and authors. And teachers are easy targets because so many don't have the time or the expertise in some cases to parse through all the "scientific" research that gets slung at us! I just need to add that I have no dog in the fight. I have no stake in any commercial reading program, nor do I have any stake at all in the outcome of any of the research. None. Over the years I have turned down offers to become involved in commercial reading programs and other endeavors. In fact, instead of worrying about if I'll ever be able to retire, I'd be more secure financially than I am if I'd swum downstream and gone with the flow, instead of fighting the power of those who are using the government to promote their own agendas. Many believe in what they are doing, but I think it's also possible to become blinded by and to cherry pick the research when the researcher has a financial stake in the outcome. As for your example of teaching fluency and your anecdote-- I totally, heartily agree. Not that you need my seal of approval but I believe you were absolutely right in the way you approached it. You are right also about balance. Unfortunately some fluency programs and assessment measures etc either do not stress comprehension, or even if they pretend to, comprehension is eclipsed in the KIDS' mind by the timed tests, and the push to read faster with expression. So yes, I totally agree that the big fluency debate should be about balance. And that's what I'm trying to add to the mix. None of this is either or. But I would add that it also has to be about what's happening in the kids' heads-- not what we THINK we're doing, but what THEY -- the students-- think we are telling them. Often there's a disconnect there. WE think we are making the goal clear, but to kids, they get tangled in the surface features because that is what is focused on. I believe that is what's happened with phonics. Strong phonics based, commercial programs are sold as making phonics the means to the end. However, because of how it's presented, the way the workbooks have kids practice it, and the FOCUS of those programs, no matter what we SAY, to the kids, reading is about sounds and words and the surface features of language. I will stand by my statement that as soon as we time kids, we have put their focus and their anxiety on speed and intonation too-- to the detriment of comprehension. So it is, as you say about balance, but the truth is, fluency is easy to teach, to assess and is therefore easy to sell. If we don't keep the balance in mind then it's easy to get swept up in the illusion of progress and believe that if kids read faster and with more expression, we have achieved the ultimate goal of reading. That's all I'm saying. I'm NOT anti fluency. And I don't think Tim and I are arguing. I think we're refining our thinking. So, what I'm adding to the mix here is that it's not what we think we're doing and it's not about what messages we think we're sending. The issue is that the way we present material, the focus we put on it (particularly timing kids as they read) sends them hidden messages that we do not intend. So, peace and love to all from Elaine who is in a procrastinating mood and had better get busy here. Thanks for posting, Renee _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
