[MOSAIC] Context Clues

[Tami]

Pat Cunningham has an activity called "Guess the covered word".

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Suzanne" <sdb1021 at cox.net>
To: "'Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Listserv'" 
<mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] Context Clues


> Does anyone have any ideas on how best to teach context clues?
> Suzanne/VA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mosaic-bounces at literacyworkshop.org
> [mailto:mosaic-bounces at literacyworkshop.org] On Behalf Of thomas
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:47 PM
> To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Listserv
> Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] basal reading series
>
> The materials for analyzing literacy materials that come from Oregon - as
> these do - are based on a behaviorist, part to whole view of reading and
> literacy.  (and be certain in addition that they don't give any credence 
> to
> the importance of writing in general for its on sake or in support of
> reading or to the constructivist approaches to writing espoused by this 
> list
> serve.)  Be sure that you are aware of that deep bias.  It provides a very
> very narrow, rigid set of criteria, emphasizing phonemic awarenesss and
> phonics above all, rigid sequences expected and so on. If you use these
> materials you will come up with the "right answers" according to Reading
> First.  And hopefully you are aware of the findings of the Inspector 
> General
> with regard to this initiative not being carried out ethically in terms of
> bias for certain programs, educators, materials, and so on.
>
> I will send to this list tomorrow  (I have to find it at work) a set of
> criteria that originates from IRA/NCTE sources/educators and which is
> probably more constructivist in its assumptions though ( or in fact a
> constructivist approach would expect different perspectives, right?) it 
> sets
> out a FULL range of possibilities.    What I do like about the second 
> source
> is that it includes MANY aspects, issues of literacy to examine....and has
> users analyze how they would rank those aspects in terms of importance 
> etc.
> So it actually gives a full range instead of the very narrow range 
> provided
> by the criteria created by U of Oregon folk and cited by the Florida
> "research" center. It expects users to make/ analyze their own beliefs and
> priorities and to make assumptions from a full range.  So one could use 
> this
> list and come up with same outcomes recommended by the Oregon criteria
> document.  But at least one would have to then be explicit about the
> underlying assumptions.  Instead the Oregon document assumes neutrality
> (assumes that it is the right answer) which it doesn't exemmplify.
>
> I am not trying to set up a battle or argument here.  What is important 
> for
> me is approaches which even if they have a point of view - which in fact 
> we
> all do - recognize the range, acknowledge the range of points of view, and
> expect us as professionals to search for underlying assumptions,
> contradictions, and so on.  We need to know our positions and their
> assumptions.  We need to be HONEST.   We should not blindly accept 
> anything.
> So I am MORE open to materials, research, educators who can lay out the 
> full
> range of possibilities, understand the assumptions behind each, and THEN 
> can
> make a case for their particular conclusions.
>
> I hope that is what this list could support and I think it does.  I can
> respectfully disagree with perspectives on literacy which are not mine. 
> But
> educators better know the research, all the arguments, and have fully
> developed rationales, not just be arguing a perspective blindly.
>
> Sorry.  I always promise myself not to get "het up."  and why do I do this
> when I have so much to do?  And I may "het up" some others?   But I SO
> respect what the educators on this list are trying to accomplish.  And the
> respect with which those new to the list are given.  And I absolutely
> believe that EVERYONE on this list is dedicated to trying to do what is 
> best
> for children.  So to keep quiet is beyond my ability.  I've been blessed 
> (or
> cursed -smile) with the opportunity to see and know a much wider range of
> the research and the politics and so on than when I was busy in my 
> classroom
> and with a growing family and so on.  So I am going to go ahead and speak
> up.
>
> Till tomorrow. R emind me if I get caught up in busyness.  I actually need
> to dig it out for my new Reading Certificate class just beginning this
> semester
> sallhy
>
>
> On 1/11/07 11:47 AM, "Amy Williams" <Amy.Williams at acs-k12.org> wrote:
>
>> We face this decision next year and hope to be much wiser this time.  I
>> was given to resources at a seminar in December.
>> Florida Center for Reading Research http://www.fcrr.org
>> Oregon Reading First http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mosaic mailing list
>> Mosaic at 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 at 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 at 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.
>