Re: [MOSAIC] Language arts block length and serendipity

[Patricia Kimathi]

How I miss teachable moments and principals who understood them.  I  
still do teachable moments but no one but the children understand why.   
Sad
Pat K

"to be nobody but yourself -- in a world which is doing its best, night  
and day, to make you like everybody else -- means to fight the hardest  
battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting."

e.e. cummings

On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:19 AM, Renee wrote:

> In the good old days, long before NCLB and when teachers were treated
> more like people who actually knew what they were doing, we used to
> have what were called "teachable moments." When my son, (now age 32)
> was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who lived well outside
> the box. I was helping in class one day during reading time when there
> was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out a child to find
> out what was going on. The student came back to say that there were men
> working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity went off. The
> teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened. Lots of
> responses, all over the board. So the teacher suggested they call the
> electric company. He sent a child to the office to make the call (in
> those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms). Of course, the
> child came back with a note from the secretary wanting clarification,
> yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call. What did kids
> learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and effect. etc etc
> etc.
>
> I shudder to think what happens these days when teachers are mandated
> to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and to teach *this*
> skill on *this* day.
>
> Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so nit-picky about
> discrete things and looked at education with a larger view. In general.
>
> Just thinking on a Saturday morning
> Renee
>
> On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:
>
>> Hi Mary-
>> If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps they have more than one
>> teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the lesson be broken down in
>> parts over two or three days?  
>
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: Mary Manges
>>   Hi everyone,
>>   I'm wondering how long most of you have each day for teaching
>> language
>>   arts?
>
>
> "The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in
> a thing makes it happen."
> ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[suzie herb]

n the most wonderful refuge 
for me in finding like minded
 professionals, bent on continually working to find the best way for and with 
their kids, and I thank you all for listening if you got to the bottom of this 
rampage.  Yes, last week at school was a tough one.  


--- On Sun, 28/9/08, Beverlee Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: Beverlee Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Language arts block length and serendipity
> To: "Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group" 
> 
> Received: Sunday, 28 September, 2008, 1:59 AM
> Our school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly
> dubbed
> drive-bys by many on this list) and here is one of the
> things we heard
> yesterday at our "debriefing."
> 
> Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or
> somewhere and your
> children should know why they're learning
> such-and-such.  It will increase
> their learning 29-44% if you do that.  And you should be
> teaching that
> objective only!!  Research tells us that children learn
> only one thing at a
> time.
> 
> I'm not sure where she's reading that research
> (which she liberally
> sprinkles in comes from "Bob Marzano" (I
> don't think so), but what the whole
> meeting made me want to do was to research retirement.  I
> never, ever in my
> wildest dreams imagined I would retire to get away from
> education.  I
> thought there would come a time when I was ready to do
> something else, but
> that it would always be so hard to leave classrooms.  Now I
> just don't
> know.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Renee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > In the good old days, long before NCLB and when
> teachers were treated
> > more like people who actually knew what they were
> doing, we used to
> > have what were called "teachable moments."
> When my son, (now age 32)
> > was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who
> lived well outside
> > the box. I was helping in class one day during reading
> time when there
> > was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out
> a child to find
> > out what was going on. The student came back to say
> that there were men
> > working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity
> went off. The
> > teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened.
> Lots of
> > responses, all over the board. So the teacher
> suggested they call the
> > electric company. He sent a child to the office to
> make the call (in
> > those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms).
> Of course, the
> > child came back with a note from the secretary wanting
> clarification,
> > yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call.
> What did kids
> > learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and
> effect. etc etc
> > etc.
> >
> > I shudder to think what happens these days when
> teachers are mandated
> > to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and
> to teach *this*
> > skill on *this* day.
> >
> > Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so
> nit-picky about
> > discrete things and looked at education with a larger
> view. In general.
> >
> > Just thinking on a Saturday morning
> > Renee
> >
> > On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mary-
> > > If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps
> they have more than one
> > > teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the
> lesson be broken down in
> > > parts over two or three days?  
> >
> > >   - Original Message -
> > >   From: Mary
> Manges<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >   Hi everyone,
> > >   I'm wondering how long most of you have
> each day for teaching
> > > language
> > >   arts?
> >
> >
> > "The thing always happens that you really believe
> in; and the belief in
> > a thing makes it happen."
> > ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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.


  Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! 
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail

___
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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[CNJPALMER]

 
So, Bev, It seems I have yet to find something we disagree on! :-)  LOL
 
Lesson study was such an Ah hah to me last year because I have always  
believed, as you do, of the interconnectedness of learning...that real  
learning 
requires the brain to make connections and see patterns. My  problem was trying 
to do to much of that in a single lesson--I tried to force  the connections by 
bringing in too much to begin with. I can give you an  example from lesson 
study that illustrates your point exactly. It  was an introductory lesson---at 
K, 
the kids had never been invited to  create mental images before, at least in 
a school setting. We used the  wonderful wordless Carl books to model creating 
mental images. If you know  the books, Carl is a dog who is left in charge of 
a baby for the day when mom  goes shopping. The baby, riding on Carl's back 
gets into all kinds of  shennanigans---going down a laundry shoot, getting into 
the refrigerator,  etc.  When we sent the kids to try to visualize on their 
own, we gave them  two photocopies of two drawings from the book that followed 
each other  immediately in the text but with a blank sheet of paper in between 
on which  to draw what they saw in their minds in between. (Think of it like 
a tiny scroll  as you would use for text mapping.) We got amazing pictures and 
amazing  thinking. At our debrief, we teachers had a very rich conversation 
about what we  really ended up teaching...mental images or INFERENCES-? Was our 
objective for  mental images really met or did we teach something other than 
what we thought we  were teaching. Truly, they were inferring what happened 
inbetween the two  pictures we gave them.  In the end we decided that it didn't 
really  matter...because our overall goal for the lesson study process was to 
help  children learn to think more deeply...and of course, these five year 
olds were  doing a great job of that. You can see how this illustrates your 
points...there  was some great learning here...but not exactly what we  
expected.

 
When we eventually got into modeling inferences with K, we certainly  built 
on the thinking they had done with the Carl lesson and had a fine-tuned,  
discreet outcome for several lessons that our students would understand the  
connections between the two strategies. Keeping the objective narrow for a  
particular lesson helped but over an entire unit we provided opportunities for  
those 
connections to be built. Does this make sense to you? I am still wrapping  my 
head around it all.
 
It really seems to me that what is getting under your skin is an  underlying 
philosophical difference about learning and teaching between you and  your 
administrators. You are a facilitator at heart--and you believe in the  
partnership of teachers and students in the learning process. You seem to be  
offended 
by the thought that what is learned and taught comes only from the  adults in 
the room. Please don't leave the classroom...maybe you need to find a  school 
where there is a better fit for your beliefs...
Jennifer

<>

 



**Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.  (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001)
___
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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[Beverlee Paul]

I would agree with most of what you said as well.  I do think that scattered
teaching won't get us anywhere in depth and that we need to draw out the
depth of thinking in a concentrated manner.  And an analogy appears to me
for what you're talking about.  I know so little about cameras that I'm not
sure how to word this, however, but I hope I'm understandable even so.

It appears to me that there would be a distinct advantage first in a
photographic study of something, let's say disease among certain trees, to
shooting something with a wide-angle lens at first.  Perhaps in this case it
would be a forest with some trees dying and other healthy.  Then we could
picture two trees side by side that look very different.  But, in order to
really concentrate on this problem, we'd need to use a close-up lens which
would show leaves from both trees, but where you could show small insects on
the diseased one.  And that is where you would need to focus in order to
truly understand the problem.  I, being me, would probably "finish up" a
presentation with a wide-angle lens again in order to generalize what we
have focused on. (But that's probably a learner trait of mine more than
anything else.)

Somewhat counterintuitively, in order to generalize we often need to focus
deeply on one issue and I believe that's why Ellin writes so powerfully
about the necessity of deciding what's essential.  One of my favorite parts
is "What outcomes are common when children and adults comprehend what they
read and are able to RETAIN AND REAPPLY what they have understood?"
(capitals mine)  I love it!  We spend so much instructional time
"reteaching" when there's no RE about it; they never dwelled in it long
enough to have ever gotten it.

And then we spend even more instructional time teaching content as discrete
pieces without ever finishing up with a wide-angle lens, so it's only a few
of the fortunate ones that make the leap into deeper understanding that is
necessary for reapplying--or actually applying, I'd say.

So my current understanding about what Ellin is saying in To Understand is
that we must get into something deeply in order to truly understand (and
comprehension strategies are some of the key vehicles), so that we can then
help learners to generalize for reapplication.

I think the point of departure for me yesterday was not in knowing what we
were going to teach and why, not in telling the learners that so they'd have
the wide-angle lens view first and then dwelling deeply in that, it was the
implication (and, to me, arrogance) of thinking that we human could learn
only one thing at a time.  (Of course, I may have been oversensitive to the
message given.)  When you look at brain-research you see that it is the
findings of patterns and the having of more things to connect in more ways
that is the essence of learning.  So, Jennifer, I strongly agree with you
that you have to focus and concentrate on what you hope the learners learn
deeply, and I need to also remember that it takes the connections to be able
to retain and reapply, as I think Ellin says.

I think I need to better blend my background in integrated learning with
what I know about lesson study, etcetera, and I don't mean to imply that
they are at all mutually exclusive.  Many in-depth lessons will integrate
into a far-greater understanding than will dibbles and dabbles of discrete
information.

So I do essentially agree, Jennifer, with all you wrote.

What I disagreed with yesterday is the presumption that learners can learn
only one thing at a time and that we as teachers absolutely control what
they learn.  If we're doing our job as well as we can, they're taking their
particular schema and going in directions we could never predict.  And maybe
we'll end up in places we'd never thought to put on the board.  That doesn't
mean that we haven't planned carefully and well (and multiple times, as in
lesson study); it just means that while we focus carefully, we'll probably
end up in wonderful and sometimes unexpected places when we dive in!

I'm so glad we don't have to think in either/ors here.  I learn a whole lot
more that way.  Bev


On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> OK, Bev...
> I am going to be a devil's advocate hereI find that I rarely disagree
> with you, but I think this might be one of those rare instances. :-)
>
> One of the biggest ah-hahs that came through my five rounds of lesson study
> last year was that I tried to do too much in my lessons. I learned that
> when I
>  kept a tighter focus throughout my lesson (ie...what did I want the
> children
> to  learn about visualizing today...)my lessons were better. Children
> actually  internalized the strategies better and applied the comprehension
> strategies independently AND the thinking was deeper when I tried not to do
>  too much
> at once.
>
> I do agree that sometimes we need to be able to jump off on that teachable
> moment. I also know that we need to plan our

Re: [MOSAIC] Language arts block length and serendipity

[sessax1]

I really don't mind that walk throughs that our principals are doing becasue it 
is making me a better teacher.  Anyone can perfom for a formal evaluatiion but 
now teachers have to be on their toes at all times.  I have been taking classes 
on assessing students for learning, not of learning.  The main thing I have 
gotten is that we as teachers need to know what we want the kids to learn after 
every lesson so objectives are important.  I think we should look at some of 
the things we are being asked to do as good for the kids, which is why we are 
teachers right?  Granted their are some things that are absurd, but we need to 
weed through those and take the things that will help our kids and use them to 
make us better teachers. 
Lisa
 Beverlee Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Our school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly dubbed
> drive-bys by many on this list) and here is one of the things we heard
> yesterday at our "debriefing."
> 
> Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or somewhere and your
> children should know why they're learning such-and-such.  It will increase
> their learning 29-44% if you do that.  And you should be teaching that
> objective only!!  Research tells us that children learn only one thing at a
> time.
> 
> I'm not sure where she's reading that research (which she liberally
> sprinkles in comes from "Bob Marzano" (I don't think so), but what the whole
> meeting made me want to do was to research retirement.  I never, ever in my
> wildest dreams imagined I would retire to get away from education.  I
> thought there would come a time when I was ready to do something else, but
> that it would always be so hard to leave classrooms.  Now I just don't
> know.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Renee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > In the good old days, long before NCLB and when teachers were treated
> > more like people who actually knew what they were doing, we used to
> > have what were called "teachable moments." When my son, (now age 32)
> > was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who lived well outside
> > the box. I was helping in class one day during reading time when there
> > was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out a child to find
> > out what was going on. The student came back to say that there were men
> > working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity went off. The
> > teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened. Lots of
> > responses, all over the board. So the teacher suggested they call the
> > electric company. He sent a child to the office to make the call (in
> > those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms). Of course, the
> > child came back with a note from the secretary wanting clarification,
> > yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call. What did kids
> > learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and effect. etc etc
> > etc.
> >
> > I shudder to think what happens these days when teachers are mandated
> > to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and to teach *this*
> > skill on *this* day.
> >
> > Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so nit-picky about
> > discrete things and looked at education with a larger view. In general.
> >
> > Just thinking on a Saturday morning
> > Renee
> >
> > On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mary-
> > > If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps they have more than one
> > > teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the lesson be broken down in
> > > parts over two or three days?  
> >
> > >   - Original Message -
> > >   From: Mary Manges
> > >   Hi everyone,
> > >   I'm wondering how long most of you have each day for teaching
> > > language
> > >   arts?
> >
> >
> > "The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in
> > a thing makes it happen."
> > ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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. 

Re: [MOSAIC] Language arts block length and serendipity

[sessax1]

I totally agree with what you are saying!!  We aren't teaching children to 
learn but how to take tests.  I long for the day when I can get back to those 
teachable moments and the have the ability to roll lwith it!  
Lisa
 Renee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> In the good old days, long before NCLB and when teachers were treated 
> more like people who actually knew what they were doing, we used to 
> have what were called "teachable moments." When my son, (now age 32) 
> was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who lived well outside 
> the box. I was helping in class one day during reading time when there 
> was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out a child to find 
> out what was going on. The student came back to say that there were men 
> working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity went off. The 
> teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened. Lots of 
> responses, all over the board. So the teacher suggested they call the 
> electric company. He sent a child to the office to make the call (in 
> those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms). Of course, the 
> child came back with a note from the secretary wanting clarification, 
> yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call. What did kids 
> learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and effect. etc etc 
> etc.
> 
> I shudder to think what happens these days when teachers are mandated 
> to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and to teach *this* 
> skill on *this* day.
> 
> Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so nit-picky about 
> discrete things and looked at education with a larger view. In general.
> 
> Just thinking on a Saturday morning
> Renee
> 
> On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mary-
> > If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps they have more than one 
> > teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the lesson be broken down in 
> > parts over two or three days?  
> 
> >   - Original Message -
> >   From: Mary Manges
> >   Hi everyone,
> >   I'm wondering how long most of you have each day for teaching 
> > language
> >   arts?
> 
> 
> "The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in 
> a thing makes it happen."
> ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[CNJPALMER]

 
OK, Bev...
I am going to be a devil's advocate hereI find that I rarely disagree  
with you, but I think this might be one of those rare instances. :-)
 
One of the biggest ah-hahs that came through my five rounds of lesson study  
last year was that I tried to do too much in my lessons. I learned that when I 
 kept a tighter focus throughout my lesson (ie...what did I want the children 
to  learn about visualizing today...)my lessons were better. Children 
actually  internalized the strategies better and applied the comprehension  
strategies independently AND the thinking was deeper when I tried not to do  
too much 
at once.
 
I do agree that sometimes we need to be able to jump off on that teachable  
moment. I also know that we need to plan our lessons based on what our kids  
need...not by checking off items on the state curriculum list. I also know that 
 
reading strategies are interdependent...but I do think we need to focus 
tightly  for a while to build a depth of understanding. 
 
 I also think we need to tell kids why they are learning what they are  
learning. Think about how Ellin Keene suggests that we ask children (after they 
 
have applied a strategy) what they know now that they didn't know before.  
Isn't 
that what we are doing...showing them the purpose behind the strategy? We  
have had to have our objectives up on the board in my district since the  
beginning of time I think...for at least the past 20 years. When I student  
taught 
in Baltimore county, it was the same. I am not sure that it is strictly  needed 
to have the objective on the board, but I do tend to agree that lessons  are 
meaningless unless the child has a purpose for learning and we do have a  
responsibility to make things clear.
Jennifer
 
 
In a message dated 9/27/2008 12:01:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Our  school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly dubbed
drive-bys  by many on this list) and here is one of the things we heard
yesterday at  our "debriefing."

Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or  somewhere and your
children should know why they're learning  such-and-such.  It will increase
their learning 29-44% if you do  that.  And you should be teaching that
objective only!!  Research  tells us that children learn only one thing at a
time.

I'm not sure  where she's reading that research (which she liberally
sprinkles in comes  from "Bob Marzano" (I don't think so), but what the whole
meeting made me  want to do was to research retirement.  I never, ever in my
wildest  dreams imagined I would retire to get away from education.  I
thought  there would come a time when I was ready to do something else, but
that it  would always be so hard to leave classrooms.  Now I just  don't
know.








**Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial 
challenges?  Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and 
calculators.  (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall0001)
___
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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[Renee]

On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Beverlee Paul wrote:

> Our school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly dubbed
> drive-bys by many on this list) and here is one of the things we heard
> yesterday at our "debriefing."
>
> Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or somewhere and your
> children should know why they're learning such-and-such.  It will 
> increase
> their learning 29-44% if you do that.  And you should be teaching that
> objective only!!  Research tells us that children learn only one thing 
> at a
> time.

OH.  MY.  GOD.

Perhaps your principal is only able to learn one thing at a time.
Perhaps she is not fit to be a principal.

Renee

"Painting is just another way of keeping a diary."
  ~ Pablo Picasso



___
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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[Beverlee Paul]

Our school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly dubbed
drive-bys by many on this list) and here is one of the things we heard
yesterday at our "debriefing."

Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or somewhere and your
children should know why they're learning such-and-such.  It will increase
their learning 29-44% if you do that.  And you should be teaching that
objective only!!  Research tells us that children learn only one thing at a
time.

I'm not sure where she's reading that research (which she liberally
sprinkles in comes from "Bob Marzano" (I don't think so), but what the whole
meeting made me want to do was to research retirement.  I never, ever in my
wildest dreams imagined I would retire to get away from education.  I
thought there would come a time when I was ready to do something else, but
that it would always be so hard to leave classrooms.  Now I just don't
know.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Renee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In the good old days, long before NCLB and when teachers were treated
> more like people who actually knew what they were doing, we used to
> have what were called "teachable moments." When my son, (now age 32)
> was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who lived well outside
> the box. I was helping in class one day during reading time when there
> was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out a child to find
> out what was going on. The student came back to say that there were men
> working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity went off. The
> teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened. Lots of
> responses, all over the board. So the teacher suggested they call the
> electric company. He sent a child to the office to make the call (in
> those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms). Of course, the
> child came back with a note from the secretary wanting clarification,
> yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call. What did kids
> learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and effect. etc etc
> etc.
>
> I shudder to think what happens these days when teachers are mandated
> to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and to teach *this*
> skill on *this* day.
>
> Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so nit-picky about
> discrete things and looked at education with a larger view. In general.
>
> Just thinking on a Saturday morning
> Renee
>
> On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:
>
> > Hi Mary-
> > If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps they have more than one
> > teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the lesson be broken down in
> > parts over two or three days?  
>
> >   - Original Message -
> >   From: Mary Manges
> >   Hi everyone,
> >   I'm wondering how long most of you have each day for teaching
> > language
> >   arts?
>
>
> "The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in
> a thing makes it happen."
> ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Language arts block length and serendipity

[Renee]

In the good old days, long before NCLB and when teachers were treated 
more like people who actually knew what they were doing, we used to 
have what were called "teachable moments." When my son, (now age 32) 
was in third grade, he had a fantastic teacher who lived well outside 
the box. I was helping in class one day during reading time when there 
was a big racket up on the roof. The teacher sent out a child to find 
out what was going on. The student came back to say that there were men 
working on the roof. Soon after that, the electricity went off. The 
teacher asked the kids why they thought that happened. Lots of 
responses, all over the board. So the teacher suggested they call the 
electric company. He sent a child to the office to make the call (in 
those days, we did not have phones in our classrooms). Of course, the 
child came back with a note from the secretary wanting clarification, 
yadda yadda, but in the end the child made the call. What did kids 
learn here? Problem solving. Inferencing. Cause and effect. etc etc 
etc.

I shudder to think what happens these days when teachers are mandated 
to get *this* much done in *this* amount of time, and to teach *this* 
skill on *this* day.

Frankly, I long for the days when we weren't so nit-picky about 
discrete things and looked at education with a larger view. In general.

Just thinking on a Saturday morning
Renee

On Sep 27, 2008, at 8:11 AM, jan sanders wrote:

> Hi Mary-
> If the mini-lessons aren't mini, then perhaps they have more than one 
> teaching point?  Too much at once?  Could the lesson be broken down in 
> parts over two or three days?  

>   - Original Message -
>   From: Mary Manges
>   Hi everyone,
>   I'm wondering how long most of you have each day for teaching 
> language
>   arts?


"The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in 
a thing makes it happen."
~ Frank Lloyd Wright



___
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.