I always agree with Krashen! :)
Philomena Marinaccio-Eckel, Ph.D.
Florida Atlantic University
Dept. of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
2912 College Ave. ES 214
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-236-1070
Fax: 954-236-1050
-----Original Message-----
From: elwaingor...@cbe.ab.ca
To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group
<mosaic@literacyworkshop.org>
Sent: Wed, May 25, 2011 7:58 am
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Common Core - response to feeling the standards arealways
helpful
Hmm, Meena. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Krashen? I guess I'm wondering
what your "warning" is about?
Thanks,
Elisa
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Mena <drmarinac...@aol.com>
Sender: mosaic-bounces+elwaingortji=cbe.ab...@literacyworkshop.org
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:19:50
To: <mosaic@literacyworkshop.org>
Reply-To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group"
<mosaic@literacyworkshop.org>
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Common Core - response to feeling the standards are
always helpful
I love a dynamic conversation on Mosaic...I just have to contribute. I just
want
to add a warning that the standards don't result in more attention to testing
and remove attention to learning that is "acquired and not taught" as Krashen
would say..see his ed week blog s below...
> On 5/22/2011 11:41 AM, Stephen Krashen wrote:
> > This is my comment on an ed week blog. Mary Ann Zehr reports on a paper by
Robert Liquanti with suggestions for ELL assessment. Mr. Liquanti's paper, I
argue, makes perfect sense if we assume that we LEARN academic language
consciously. I suggest that most of academic language is ACQUIRED. I wonder if
the testing community is even aware of this possibility.
> >
> > Re: Robert Linquanti, WestEd, Strengthening
> Assessment
> > Posted on: edweek blogs
> > Liquanti assumes that academic language can be
> "defined, taught and measured explicitly" (p. 16). If we
> accept this assumption, it makes sense to describe the
> trajectory of skills to be mastered ("mapping out key
> academic competencies," p. 23) and confirm that students are
> learning them using formative tests. But this
> assumption is not supported by research or
> observation. The arguments and counterevidence have
> been in the professional literature for decades: The system
> is very complex: Linguists are still struggling to describe
> "academic language" and there are no known cases in which
> people have mastered more than small amounts of academic
> language through deliberate study.
> >
> > A better hypothesis is that nearly all of academic
> language is acquired, or absorbed, the way language in
> general is acquired: Through understanding message, or
> comprehensible input. This is confirmed by studies
> that demonstrate the success of sheltered subject matter
> teaching, classes in subject matter taught in English, with
> presentations and readings made comprehensible for second
> language acquirers. This is also confirmed by studies
> showing that students acquire an enormous amount of academic
> language through extensive reading, probably the most
> powerful tool for reaching advanced levels of English
> competence. I have argued that extensive pleasure reading is
> the bridge from lower to higher levels of competence, and
> brings students to the point where many difficult texts and
> aural presentations are comprehensible.
> >
> > If even some of academic language is acquired and not
> consciously learned, we have to rethink the entire testing
> situation. If it is true, we should invest in libraries, not
> more subtle (and expensive) means of testing.
> >
> >
> - comments
Philomena Marinaccio-Eckel, Ph.D.
Florida Atlantic University
Dept. of Teaching and Learning
College of Education
2912 College Ave. ES 214
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-236-1070
Fax: 954-236-1050
-----Original Message-----
From: kaui norton <kauinor...@yahoo.com>
To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group
<mosaic@literacyworkshop.org>
Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 10:36 pm
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Common Core - response to feeling the standards are
always
helpful
Mahalo Melinda. I appreciate all the comments I have read regarding standards.
I never realized it was such a hot topic. I suppose, in education, we will
always have differences of opinion which, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Isn't
thinking for oneself, being an independent learner and using critical thinking
skills important concepts we try to teach our students?
For me, however, the standards are not the enemy. How we teach them is. I
don't quite understand why so many believe we cannot teach and our students
cannot learn what they need to if we teach standard based lessons? I have
never
felt my hands were tied. I still teach the same, but in a more focused manner.
I don't believe being more focused is a bad thing. I think teachers need to
really take a look at how they are teaching if they are so frustrated with what
they are teaching.
I believe, every philosophy of teaching has it's problems. There is no ONE
right way. As an educator I try to figure out ways to meet the learning types
of each of my students. Having a more specific notion of what to teach doesn't
confine me, but instead, helps me to work what I am teaching around it. I
still
use all the same strategies. I still have whole group, small group, individual
groups. I still use art, music, and P.E. to help cement the concepts they are
learning.
Again, I am very appreciative of all the comments, but I would, still, have to
disagree with the idea that standards based learning is the problem with our
educational system. The picture is much bigger than that, and teachers play a
huge part in it.
Kau'i =-)
--- On Mon, 5/23/11, Melinda Jurus <mindy...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Melinda Jurus <mindy...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Common Core - response to feeling the standards are
always
helpful
To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group"
<mosaic@literacyworkshop.org>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
Hi all,
I'm enjoying reading all of the viewpoints on the Common Core Standards.
Here is a question that I've always had in regard to the standards. Either
my district, my state or my country is choosing the standards that our
students will be learning that year. So no matter what, someone is making a
decision on the course of learning for my grade level next year. What is
the difference if it's done by my district vs. the federal level? When I
compare the state/district standards to the Common Core they're not really
that different, other than the Common Core have less individual indicators.
Currently, I use my state standards. Soon I'll use the federal standards.
Either way, I'm teaching them what a citizen needs to do well in life and in
this country. With any standards I teach, I'm guiding them to question,
think and read. We don't learn the material for the test. We learn the
material because it's interesting, but also because more of their life will
make sense if they understand these key concepts.
I'm just wondering what I'm missing when I hear people upset that we'll all
have the same standards, even though each one of our students already
follows *somebody's* idea of what's important. Why not have it be common to
everyone? I don't feel like I'm not educating my students if I'm feeding
them the Common Core Standards. It's just a slightly different set of
standards.
I'm really curious about this, and hope it didn't come across as defensive.
Thanks in advance for your insight,
Mindy
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Maureen Morrissey <
maureen.morriss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sally,
> great response, I hope Kaui and others read it and it makes them think: why
> did I go into teaching in the first place? To spoonfeed pap to my students
> or to make a difference in their lives? To help them pass a test or to help
> them develop into lifelong learners, thinkers, readers. I'm afraid we
> cannot
> have it both ways. It's sad to me that the question authority days are
> over
> and many in the profession are deferring to the powers that be. We are the
> educated educators; we are the professionals who should be lifelong
> learners
> and reflective practicioners. We need to take back the educating of our
> students, even if we have to start grassroots again like in the '80s.
> Maureen
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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
