Re: [MOSAIC] (Mosaic) New Book
The description at Heinemann says it's for K-8. The site also has the first chapter posted for preview. (I am impatiently waiting for the copy I ordered.) I thought these words from Debbie Miller (in the Forward) were interesting. _To Understand_ is not a sequel to Mosaic of Thought. _To Understand_ challenges us to think beyond comprehension strategies; it invites us to ask what these strategies are for. Why should readers use them? What's our ultimate goal? http://books.heinemann.com/products/E00323.aspx I, too, am hoping there will be a book chat for this title. I like Keene's writing style. What she writes about is so thought-provoking, yet the way she writes makes her words so accessible. ___ 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.
Re: [MOSAIC] House Lesson
The complete title of Cris Tovani's book is I Read It, but I Don't Get It: Comprehension Strategies for *Adolescent* Readers. Stenhouse lists grade range 4-12 on the information page for the book. The first chapter is posted on their site. http://www.stenhouse.com/productcart/pc/viewprd.asp?idProduct=89r Diane -- Cindy Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:21:09 -0800 Thanks Diane, I didn't realize the lesson came from a book. That is really neat. I can see what a difference having a purpose makes in this passage. The book seems to be geared more toward middle school. Would it also be appropriate for second grade? I can see that this lesson would be fine, but what about the rest of the book? Cindy/VA/2nd ___ 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.
Re: [MOSAIC] House Lesson
Go to Google Books and search for Tovani's I Read It book. Then search within the book for The House. You can preview pages 25-26 to see the story activities. Or, if it works, try this link to Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=awCIngtgu4oCprintsec=frontcoverdq=tovaninum=30ei=rTKvR9uxD8nKiwHNlMWnBgie=ISO-8859-1sig=LfYaPsZJbqEIdLBIrcw3m5ej2XY#PPA25,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=awCIngtgu4oCprintsec=frontcoverdq=tovaninum=30ei=rTKvR9uxD8nKiwHNlMWnBgie=ISO-8859-1sig=LfYaPsZJbqEIdLBIrcw3m5ej2XY#PPA25,M1 ___ 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] Picture Book
The story of King Midas would be appropriate. *King Midas: A Golden Tale* by John Warren Stewig is a good version. In a message dated 2/3/2008 6:08:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am looking for a picture book to read to my 5th grade students before we start reading Tuck Everlasting. Something with the same element of fantasy or choice. Any suggestions? ___ 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.
Re: [MOSAIC] Accelerated Reading
On 9/2/07, Marg Epp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it tests kids on very literal comprehension, but it doesn't teach kids about how to think about their reading which is something we are working on. Is there anyone out there who uses AR in a way that supports Mosaic of Thought thinking? (I warn you, it has to be a VERY good argument to convince me). Here's what Renaissance Learning says about literal comprehension and higher-order thinking questions. http://research.renlearn.com/research/pdfs/39.pdf [Q]uestions focusing on higher-order thinking skills are prone to bias, more so than questions focusing on literal comprehension. Higher-order thinking skills may reflect students' backgrounds rather than their achievement. As noted by Popham (1999), questions intending to measure higher-order thinking might measure what students already know instead of what they learn in class. Additionally, ACT (2006) discovered that literal and inferential understanding did not differentially affect average percent correct on the ACT. In fact, the relationship between these two comprehension categories and average percent correct was nearly identical. Thus, the assessment of literal understanding is closely tied to inferential comprehension or higher-order thinking and would provide just as much information as assessments on higher-order skills. Popham, J. (1999). Why standardized tests don't measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15. ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines:What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. ___ 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.
Re: [MOSAIC] Accelerated Reading
I agree that this article doesn't give an argument supporting the use of the program. The original poster brought up the use of literal level questions. I think the independent research they cite to defend their use of literal-level questions is very interesting (and not just as related to AR). Krashen seems to criticize AR mainly because their is little research to support its use--not because it has been _proven_ to be ineffective or harmful. - He says, Despite the popularity of AR, we must conclude that there is no real evidence supporting it, no real evidence that the additional tests and rewards add anything to the power of simply supplying access to high quality and interesting reading material and providing time for children to read them. This survey thus comes to the same conclusions as a previous review (McQuillan, 1997). This is not to say that I have proven that AR is ineffective. I have only concluded that data supporting it does not exist. Although McLoyd's results suggests that rewards actually inhibit reading, we must withhold judgment until additional controlled studies confirm this. What we can conclude, however, is that the enthusiasm for AR is not supported by research. Before purchasing AR, and submitting students to tests, a more prudent policy might be to ensure that high-interest reading material is easily available to students, and that students have time to read and a place to read. Accelerated Reader: Does it Work? If So, Why? Stephen Krashen School Libraries in Canada, Volume 22 Number 2, 2002 My school uses AR but doesn't have a system in which the students trade points for trinkets or prizes of any kind. It is used by teachers to track students' reading. Students are recognized for reaching their reading goals and certain point levels. I wonder if recognition has the same effect on students as giving a prize. ???... On 9/3/07, ljackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically, I feel this is saying it is tough to teach and assess higher level thinking skills and I can't see that as a argument for supporting use of a program that does not. No surprise, either, that the research cited by Renaissance supports their program. Stephen Krashen has much to say about AR and cites plenty of research to suggest it is just not valid. Lori ___ 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.
