It seems as though we are confusing the point of this conversation. To teach phonics or not teach phonics is not the real question. The real question is what and how to teach kids who aren't reading well (and reading well includes all 5 components of literacy). While comprehension is obviously the end result, there are many things that go into comprehension and how we get kids there varies with each child. DIBELS gets a pretty rough rap on here and I think it is because it is being considered an assessment rather than a screening. Would you all agree that a student who does perform well on DIBELS is well equipped to move forward in literacy instruction that focuses on deep comprehension? And a student who struggles on part of the DIBELS may need to be considered for further evaluation to determine what would best prepare that student for progress into the area of deep comprehenseion? I think there is a huge difference in looking at DIBELS screening for K-1 students and 2-6 stuents. Once we begin screening for fluency only, the entire focus of interventions changes and it is at that point when I feel the strongest need to identify the causes of fluency difficulties. Fluency is only a symptom of an underlying problem. I have worked with students who totally bomb the fluency screening on the DIBELS but can read and comprehend at a shallow level, but I have rarely seen a student who struggled with fluency be able to reach that deep comprehension we are looing for. They may be able to do it while being guided, but independently it just doesn't happen. They spend too much time and energy getting through the words to be able to synthesize meaning, too. I guess I have to say that, in my opinion, the fluency is still key to comprehension.
Debbie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" <mosaic@literacyworkshop.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:00:59 AM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] phonemic awareness/segmentation help wanted On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have been thinking about this post since it came up. When we are > teaching phonological awareness and phonics, aren't we still teaching > meaning? My interpretation of what we are doing with this instruction, > is always based on meaning. No, I don't think so... not particularly. I just finished a year in a Kindergarten in which the head teacher definitely did not include meaning in practically any of her phonics/phonemic awareness activities. It was nearly all isolated, without context. How much meaning is there in DIBELS assessments that require students to bark out nonsense syllables in record time? If the argument here is that isolated phonics instruction LEADS to meaning, that it is a step in the process of reading for meaning, then I would say it would be just as easy to address phonics and phonemic awareness in a meaningful way, in context, as PART OF the whole reason for reading in the first place. My two cents. Renee "We are here to infiltrate space with ideas." ~ Ramtha _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
