I truly appreciate all of your suggestions. This is my first time teaching the comprehension strategies explicitly. My school focus more on teaching the comprehension skills. I teach fourth grade and most of my students have not received explicit instruction of the strategies. In fact, we had to discuss the general meaning of the word 'strategy'. They could only associate it with test taking strategies. Thank you again. I learn so much from all of you.
Evelia Sent from my Windows Phone -----Original Message----- From: Palmer, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:35 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Comprehension strategies We do have this debate from time to time on this list. I have done it both ways after reading much thoughtful discussion on this listserve... But now, I start by teaching individual strategies in isolation for a while. I get much deeper thinking when I spend time helping kids see how, when and why to use a strategy. This is my opinion based on experiences with my kids...what works for me in my settings. The big key is to help students understand how a strategy helps them understand, so I always, every single lesson, say "What do you know now that you didn't understand before?" OR in fiction, "What do you understand about this story that you did not understand before?" This way students understand that the END is not the strategy, the strategy is a means to an end...deep understanding of text. THEN, I have them use the new strategy with strategies previously taught and we study how they work together. What do I understand that I didn't understand before by using questioning and inferring? How do they work together? Do I always use them together? Can I use one without the other? I feel this metacognitive piece is very important for kids. Here is an analogy that explains where I am with this debate right now. I think of it this way. I know some fantastic teachers that are naturals... they just KNOW what to do that helps kids learn. They are great teachers and the kids make great progress. There are OTHER teachers, though, who can go above and beyond that. They know and can explain to others why they do what they do and how it helps kids learn. AND those teachers who can bring what they do naturally and automatically to a concrete level...they are reflective and metacognitive... they can name what they do, why they do it and how it helps. They can also use this conscious knowledge to adjust their thinking and actions when they need to based on how their kids present themselves. When those teachers are a part of a learning community, we ALL grow. We all learn from these teachers because they can explain their thinking, the conditions under which something works or doesn't work... and how it might work in another situation. I want this level of intellectual engagment for kids too. I want them to be able to understand how they can gain meaning from text... what works and doesn't under certain conditions. Yes, I want them to be automatic in use of strategies, I want them to use them seamlessly and easily... but I also want them to know how it works and why so that when they are faced with the higher level texts that are coming with common core, they will approach it fearlessly because they have a plan... they know what to do. So, I know I disagree with many on this list when I say that I DO care that kids can name the strategies they are using. I DO care that they can explain how to infer to others...because I like the intellectual rigor that type of discussion always brings, but I do not stop at process. And that is important. It is always, in the end, about making meaning from text... not just learning the strategy. I am eager to read more discussion on this. In the past, though, it has become a bit heated as some of us have some philosophical differences. So, this is a gentle reminder, keep an open mind. Ask questions of people you disagree with... and be aware that emails do not always carry your intended tone. It is easy to offend when no offense is meant. I want all to know, I am always open to learning...share what you think! I am always ready to grow... Jennifer List moderator Instructional Facilitator National Board Certified Teacher +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I always vote for "within a context" because language is communication and without context there is no meaning. my two cents... Renee On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Nicole Frederickson wrote: > Do you wonder if we should teach them in isolation or together > within a context? > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
