Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak /response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-21 Thread Jan Sanders
Jennifer, I have a couple of quick questions...
Is the student ELL?  If so, what level?  Maybe the questions are out of her
English Language Development "zone".  If worded differently, she may be able
to answer them?
Also, what reading level is she?

Maybe she doesn't know how to put her thoughts into words?  Response
starters could be used,  or scaffold the questions until she can respond to
the one you want her to.  This does take time.
Jan
Unless we reach into our studentsĀ¹ hearts, we have no entry into their
minds.
-Regie Routman
>  
> Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a
> question for all the wonderful minds on this list.
>  
> I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with
> her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about
> reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That
> Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that
> she  doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other
> children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really
> affects  how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text.
>  
> I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about
> applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions.
>  
> Can you all help me think this through?
> Jennifer







___
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] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-20 Thread Sheryl Gowan
Kristin, it makes perfect sense to me.  I had the same experience my 1st
year as a literacy coach.  My principal was not on board with any of
this "fluff"  A 3rd grade teacher approached me and told me that
something I said in one of our study groups made him realize that he
didn't know how to teach kids to read or help his struggling readers.  I
suggested he begin with independent reading - we took Dominie scores and
organized materials accordingly - so he could guide his readers.  I
conferenced with some of his students (to model) --needless to say - the
next fall when we got state test scores back, his class scored the
highest in reading - the principal scratched his head and said I don't
know what he did - when I explained - no comment - that quickly went by
the wayside as it was not viewed as instruction and we quickly adopted
direct instruction - every year it is another "program"  - the analogy I
used was -- reading is like playing football or learning to ride a bike
- if you don't practice it everyday - you don't get very good at it :) 
sorry for the epistle - just my thoughts about independent reading

>>> Kristin Mitchell  2/20/2009 9:39 am
>>>
Elisa and others,

I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure
many are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to
bring it up again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm
almost 6 months pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!).  Last
month's issue of The Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which for
me is simply Independent Reading...it's what kids do while I do guided
reading).  For me, the premise of the article was how federal dollars
will most likely never be used to support something like SSR because
they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it works.  Even though
I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided Reading" using
their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire 5th grade year. 
As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots of choice
independent reading time from me and their reading scores went up. 
While this is not "reasearch" that can prove anything,
 it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to
upper grades.

Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching
reading to be tested quantitatively.  Which, is not a reality in
schools.  There is no fair playing field when it comes to research on
teaching reading.  Until "outsiders" (non educators who direct our
policies whether they be gov't or buisness) realize that schools are NOT
clinical places where you can have strict control groups this will
always be the case.  Things like Mosaic of Thought will not have support
until someone can magically produce a control group of kids that can be
tested "fairly."

I hope I made sense!

 Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO 
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Ghandi



 Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning
based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and
research (expert and teacher).
Elisa

Elisa Waingort


  
___
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.



Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-20 Thread Renee
It isn't that the feds NEED programs and other methods of teaching  
reading to be testing quantitatively. It is that they WANT them to be.  
When the National Reading Panel met, they started out by systematically  
throwing out all research that didn't meet their overall,  
already-established phonics-first philosophy, then went on to use terms  
like "scientifically proven" to drive home their goal of turning  
classrooms back into what they remembered from the 1950's, with the  
teacher in charge of "delivering instruction" and turning Whole  
Language into a divisive, politicized term based on lies, myths, and,  
at best, misunderstanding of the process. NCLB functions under the  
philosophy of a "daddy knows best" kind of paradigm, where everything  
is "either/or" and "good/bad" and children are reduced to numbers,  
rankings, and ratings while teachers are demeaned, deprofessionalized,  
and defeated, perhaps in the hope that public school as we know it will  
bite the dust and privatization can rise up in the education field. All  
this from an administration which consistently altered scientific  
research in other areas, such as global warming and environmental  
standards, in order to reward big business with more money and more  
power. In the education field, big business has been rewarded mightily  
by NCLB. Follow the money.


As for "scripted instruction" well, frankly, I think the phrase is  
an oxymoron.


Renee


On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Kristin Mitchell wrote:


Elisa and others,

I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure  
many are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to  
bring it up again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm  
almost 6 months pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!).  Last  
month's issue of The Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which  
for me is simply Independent Reading...it's what kids do while I do  
guided reading).  For me, the premise of the article was how federal  
dollars will most likely never be used to support something like SSR  
because they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it works.   
Even though I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided  
Reading" using their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire  
5th grade year.  As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots  
of choice independent reading time from me and their reading scores  
went up.  While this is not "reasearch" that can prove anything,
 it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to  
upper grades.


Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching  
reading to be tested quantitatively.  Which, is not a reality in  
schools.  There is no fair playing field when it comes to research on  
teaching reading.  Until "outsiders" (non educators who direct our  
policies whether they be gov't or buisness) realize that schools are  
NOT clinical places where you can have strict control groups this will  
always be the case.  Things like Mosaic of Thought will not have  
support until someone can magically produce a control group of kids  
that can be tested "fairly."


I hope I made sense!

 Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Ghandi



 Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning  
based on a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and  
research (expert and teacher).

Elisa

Elisa Waingort



___
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.


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect  
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the  
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings  
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this  
Constitution for the United States of America."




___
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] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-20 Thread Kristin Mitchell
Elisa and others,

I've been following this conversation with much interest (as I'm sure many 
are!) and I think I've already piped in with this, but I need to bring it up 
again (it's possible I never did in the first place, I'm almost 6 months 
pregnant and I left my brain at about 8 weeks!).  Last month's issue of The 
Reading Teacher had an article about SSR (which for me is simply Independent 
Reading...it's what kids do while I do guided reading).  For me, the premise of 
the article was how federal dollars will most likely never be used to support 
something like SSR because they cannot do "medical research" to PROVE that it 
works.  Even though I've seen test scores go up from a group that got "Guided 
Reading" using their SS textbooks (I wish I were kidding) their entire 5th 
grade year.  As 6th graders they recieved Guided Reading and lots of choice 
independent reading time from me and their reading scores went up.  While this 
is not "reasearch" that can prove anything,
 it's pretty strong evidence for me to continue how I teach reading to upper 
grades.

Unfortunately, the feds need programs and other methods of teaching reading to 
be tested quantitatively.  Which, is not a reality in schools.  There is no 
fair playing field when it comes to research on teaching reading.  Until 
"outsiders" (non educators who direct our policies whether they be gov't or 
buisness) realize that schools are NOT clinical places where you can have 
strict control groups this will always be the case.  Things like Mosaic of 
Thought will not have support until someone can magically produce a control 
group of kids that can be tested "fairly."

I hope I made sense!

 Kristin Mitchell/4th/CO 
"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Ghandi



 Each child is different and deserves different approaches to learning based on 
a solid philosophy backed up by pedagogical principles and research (expert and 
teacher).
Elisa

Elisa Waingort


  
___
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] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-20 Thread Waingort Jimenez, Elisa
Amy,
Thanks for the research link suggestions.  I will look them up.

I think the big difference is whether the developers of Direct Instruction 
programs, who also produced their own research saying their programs work, made 
profits from their programs based on their research results and marketing 
ploys.  Someone else who has a better handle of the research out there might 
want to address this question:  what does the independent research say about 
Direct Instruction programs and, since you brought it up, Reading Recovery?  
Also, I don't know that Stephanie Goudvis, et al are making any claims as far 
as test gains, etc because people are applying their ideas in their classroom.  
BTW, Strategies that Work is not a program.  Unfortunately, my experience with 
proponents of DI is that they see everything as a program.  Life is broader 
than that.  Teachers are smarter than that.  A program, especially one that 
needs to be followed with "fidelity" (what the heck does that mean???), is an 
insult to teachers' intelligence and professionalism.  While you claim that 
teachers may deviate from the script, children are different and throw us curve 
balls every once in a while, you imply that this is the exception rather than 
the norm.  To me, I want it to be the norm.  Each child is different and 
deserves different approaches to learning based on a solid philosophy backed up 
by pedagogical principles and research (expert and teacher).
Elisa

Elisa Waingort
Grade 2 Spanish Bilingual
Dalhousie Elementary
Calgary, Canada

The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. 
They must be felt within the heart. 
Ā—Helen Keller

Visit my blog, A Teacher's Ruminations, and post a message.
http://waingortgrade2spanishbilingual.blogspot.com/


Second, (and this is a bit more harsh, but true  non-the-less)  that someone 
profits financially from selling their well  researched books and workshops.

Food for thought.



I hope  this information helps.



Amy  


___
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] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-19 Thread Melissa Kile
I Googled Phyllis Hostmeyer, and the website is www.PhylsQuill.com (two
L's).

Melissa/VA/2nd


On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:28 PM, W.Robertson  wrote:

> I wasn't able to get the link to work. Is the correct?
> Wendy
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org
> [mailto:mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org] On Behalf Of Christi Poteet
> Sent: February-19-09 7:20 PM
> To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group;
> mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
> Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was
> heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
>
> QAR would be awesome!!  Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and
> many other comprehension strategies.  Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com
>
>
>
> Christi A. Poteet
> Reading Specialist
> Delores Moye School
> cpot...@ofallon90.net
>
> 
>
> From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com
> Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM
> To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
> Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was
> heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery
>
>
>
>
>
> I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on
> "disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate
> research
> articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I  look
> forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be
> good
> practice for me as I work on my literature review for my  dissertation.
>
> There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is
> done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others
> have
> done research and then created programs or theories from their  research.
> Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be  validated by many
> others
> over time. The fact that someone makes a  profit on their research makes
> this
> validation process essential.
> I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see
> if
> there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in
> reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation
> studies,
> then I am afraid the jury is still out for me.
>
> Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a
> question for all the wonderful minds on this list.
>
> I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with
> her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about
> reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies
> That
> Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is
> that
> she  doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the
> other
> children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really
> affects  how she interacts with other children when they are discussing
> text.
>
> I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about
> applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions.
>
> Can you all help me think this through?
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> Hi  Elisa,
> I appreciate your question.  There is a helpful report from the  Wisconsin
> Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like
> several
> specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct  Instruction.
>  In
> addition to listing some independently reviewed  research, it also
> summarizes the
> highlights of Project Follow Through. If you  are not familiar with this
> study, Follow Through is often described as the  single most expensive
> education
> experiment in history.  The experiment  lasted from 1967 to 1976 and
> on-going
> data was collected all the way through  1995 on literally thousands of
> students.  Please see Bonnie Grossen's  Overview:  The Story Behind Project
> Follow
> Through.  You can find  Grossen's article on-line if you google it.  I
> would
> encourage anyone who  is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly
> or
> not, to take a look  at this info.
>
> The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can  be found by googling it.
> Once there, Go to the index and click on  "education k-12".  That will take
> you
> to the list of articles.  Look  for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of
> Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency  (March 2001, Volume
> 14,
> number  2.)  It's near the bottom of the page.  There are other more
> current

Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-19 Thread W.Robertson
I wasn't able to get the link to work. Is the correct?
Wendy 

-Original Message-
From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org
[mailto:mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org] On Behalf Of Christi Poteet
Sent: February-19-09 7:20 PM
To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group;
mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was
heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

QAR would be awesome!!  Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and
many other comprehension strategies.  Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com
 
 
 
Christi A. Poteet
Reading Specialist
Delores Moye School
cpot...@ofallon90.net



From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com
Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM
To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was
heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery





I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on 
"disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate
research
articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I  look
forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be
good
practice for me as I work on my literature review for my  dissertation.

There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is 
done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others
have
done research and then created programs or theories from their  research.
Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be  validated by many
others
over time. The fact that someone makes a  profit on their research makes
this
validation process essential.
I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see
if
there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in 
reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation
studies, 
then I am afraid the jury is still out for me.

Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a 
question for all the wonderful minds on this list. 

I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with 
her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about 
reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies
That 
Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that
she  doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the
other 
children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really
affects  how she interacts with other children when they are discussing
text.

I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about 
applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions.

Can you all help me think this through?
Jennifer





In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes:

Hi  Elisa,
I appreciate your question.  There is a helpful report from the  Wisconsin
Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like
several
specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct  Instruction.  In
addition to listing some independently reviewed  research, it also
summarizes the
highlights of Project Follow Through. If you  are not familiar with this
study, Follow Through is often described as the  single most expensive
education
experiment in history.  The experiment  lasted from 1967 to 1976 and
on-going
data was collected all the way through  1995 on literally thousands of
students.  Please see Bonnie Grossen's  Overview:  The Story Behind Project
Follow
Through.  You can find  Grossen's article on-line if you google it.  I would
encourage anyone who  is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly
or
not, to take a look  at this info. 

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can  be found by googling it. 
Once there, Go to the index and click on  "education k-12".  That will take
you
to the list of articles.  Look  for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of
Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency  (March 2001, Volume
14,
number  2.)  It's near the bottom of the page.  There are other more current

articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins 
with a really good description of Direct Instruction.  Samples from the
research
are sited on pages 6-10.  There's a list of references on page  25.

Something to think about...
A common criticism of the research  supporting Direct Instruction and
Reading
Mastery is that this research comes  from the author, meaning Zig Englemann.
Indeed there is plenty of research  out there that was not conducted by
Englemann at all. 

But let's  stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction:  that if the
research  comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid.


In an  attempt to draw

Re: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-19 Thread Christi Poteet
QAR would be awesome!!  Phyllis Hostmeyer has a great website for QAR and many 
other comprehension strategies.  Her website is www.PhylsQuil.com
 
 
 
Christi A. Poteet
Reading Specialist
Delores Moye School
cpot...@ofallon90.net



From: mosaic-boun...@literacyworkshop.org on behalf of cnjpal...@aol.com
Sent: Thu 2/19/2009 8:23 PM
To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
Subject: [MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak/response 
to Reading Mastery





I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on 
"disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate  
research
articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I  look
forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be  good
practice for me as I work on my literature review for my  dissertation.

There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is 
done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others  have
done research and then created programs or theories from their  research.
Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be  validated by many others
over time. The fact that someone makes a  profit on their research makes this
validation process essential.
I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see  if
there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in 
reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation studies, 
then I am afraid the jury is still out for me.

Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a 
question for all the wonderful minds on this list. 

I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with 
her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about 
reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That 
Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that
she  doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other 
children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really
affects  how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text.

I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about 
applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions.

Can you all help me think this through?
Jennifer





In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes:

Hi  Elisa,
I appreciate your question.  There is a helpful report from the  Wisconsin
Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like  several
specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct  Instruction.  In
addition to listing some independently reviewed  research, it also summarizes 
the
highlights of Project Follow Through. If you  are not familiar with this
study, Follow Through is often described as the  single most expensive education
experiment in history.  The experiment  lasted from 1967 to 1976 and on-going
data was collected all the way through  1995 on literally thousands of
students.  Please see Bonnie Grossen's  Overview:  The Story Behind Project 
Follow
Through.  You can find  Grossen's article on-line if you google it.  I would
encourage anyone who  is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly or
not, to take a look  at this info. 

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can  be found by googling it. 
Once there, Go to the index and click on  "education k-12".  That will take you
to the list of articles.  Look  for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of
Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency  (March 2001, Volume 14,
number  2.)  It's near the bottom of the page.  There are other more current 
articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins 
with a really good description of Direct Instruction.  Samples from the  
research
are sited on pages 6-10.  There's a list of references on page  25.

Something to think about...
A common criticism of the research  supporting Direct Instruction and Reading
Mastery is that this research comes  from the author, meaning Zig Englemann.
Indeed there is plenty of research  out there that was not conducted by
Englemann at all. 

But let's  stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction:  that if the
research  comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid.


In an  attempt to draw some comparisons between authors/creators and their
research,  please respectfully consider this:
Marie Clay ...Teacher/  Researchershe spear headed the research that
eventually became Reading  Recovery. 
Fountas and Pinnell are considered the creators of Guided  Reading They
did 9 years of research.  This is according to their  book:  Guided Reading: 
Good First Teaching for All  Children.
Stephanie Harvey and 

[MOSAIC] Building comprehension of questions-was heartbreak /response to Reading Mastery

2009-02-19 Thread CNJPALMER
 

I am just finishing up the second of two courses in my doctorate on  
"disciplined inquiry". One of the things I have learned is how to evaluate  
research 
articles. I thank you, Amy, for posting the research links...and I  look 
forward to reading through your links when I get a few minutes. It will be  
good 
practice for me as I work on my literature review for my  dissertation.
 
There are many kinds of research in education...and yes...some research is  
done to create programs. Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell and many others  have 
done research and then created programs or theories from their  research. 
Marie Clay was my hero but even her work needed to be  validated by many others 
over time. The fact that someone makes a  profit on their research makes this 
validation process essential. 
I am particularly interested in looking at the studies you mention to see  if 
there is an improvement in comprehension scores...AND if improvement in  
reading skills holds over time. If there is no independent validation studies,  
then I am afraid the jury is still out for me. 
 
Now...Let's talk comprehension...the purpose of our listserv. I have a  
question for all the wonderful minds on this list.  
 
I just picked up a new little girl on my caseload today. When reading with  
her a couple of things became obvious to me. One: She isn't thinking about  
reading. (We all know what to do about that---time to pull out Strategies That  
Work...Reading With Meaning etc etc.) BUT another problem I detected is that 
she  doesn't seem to understand the questions posed to her by me or the other  
children...particularly questions that start with why and how. It really 
affects  how she interacts with other children when they are discussing text.
 
I want to teach her how to comprehend questions and was thinking about  
applying comprehension strategies to the genre of questions. 
 
Can you all help me think this through?
Jennifer
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 2/19/2009 7:49:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mcgovern_amy64042...@hotmail.com writes:

Hi  Elisa,
I appreciate your question.  There is a helpful report from the  Wisconsin 
Policy Research Institute that is worth looking at if you would like  several 
specific examples regarding the research supporting Direct  Instruction.  In 
addition to listing some independently reviewed  research, it also summarizes 
the 
highlights of Project Follow Through. If you  are not familiar with this 
study, Follow Through is often described as the  single most expensive 
education 
experiment in history.  The experiment  lasted from 1967 to 1976 and on-going 
data was collected all the way through  1995 on literally thousands of 
students.  Please see Bonnie Grossen's  Overview:  The Story Behind Project 
Follow 
Through.  You can find  Grossen's article on-line if you google it.  I would 
encourage anyone who  is being asked to teach Direct Instruction, willingly or 
not, to take a look  at this info.  

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute also can  be found by googling it.  
Once there, Go to the index and click on  "education k-12".  That will take you 
to the list of articles.  Look  for Direct Instruction and the Teaching of 
Early Reading.Wisconsin's Teacher-led Insurgency  (March 2001, Volume 14, 
number  2.)  It's near the bottom of the page.  There are other more current  
articles on Direct Instruction, but I am fond of this one because it begins  
with a really good description of Direct Instruction.  Samples from the  
research 
are sited on pages 6-10.  There's a list of references on page  25.

Something to think about...
A common criticism of the research  supporting Direct Instruction and Reading 
Mastery is that this research comes  from the author, meaning Zig Englemann.
Indeed there is plenty of research  out there that was not conducted by 
Englemann at all.  

But let's  stick with the critique used on Direct Instruction:  that if the 
research  comes from the author or creator, it is somehow not valid. 


In an  attempt to draw some comparisons between authors/creators and their 
research,  please respectfully consider this: 
Marie Clay ...Teacher/  Researchershe spear headed the research that 
eventually became Reading  Recovery.  
Fountas and Pinnell are considered the creators of Guided  Reading They 
did 9 years of research.  This is according to their  book:  Guided Reading:  
Good First Teaching for All  Children.
Stephanie Harvey and Anne Goodvis wrote Strategies that  Work.  They are 
listed in the back of their book as researchers.   

I think we may be able to agree on two things:
First, that all the  teacher/researchers listed above have only the best of 
intentions:  which  is to help children learn to read and to support teachers 
in their quest to  make this happen.

Second, (and this is a bit more harsh, but true  non-the-less)  that someone 
profits financially from selling their well  researched books and workshops.