[MOSAIC] Another mosaic: The reading-writing connection

[elaine garan]

ONE THING I'VE LEARNED IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RECURSIVE 
SO IT
IS NOT LINEAR BUT AN ONGOING INTERWEAVING.  IS THIS A HELPFUL WELL TO 
THINK
ABOUT IT  ALL?

Hey, Sally! Good to hear from you again. I agree with what Beverlee 
said about reading being expressive too. she and I got into a long 
dialogue off list and I think what we settled on is it comes down to 
(thanks to Beverlee's insights) whether reading is viewed as receptive 
or a combination of receptive and expressive depends on whether we use  
behaviorist versus a constructivist view of reading. If it's 
behaviorist, then the reader is the receptacle, the receiver. If it's a 
constructivist view, then the reading is also expressive because the 
reader doesn't just receive information but interacts with the text. We 
also pretty much decided that the lower two levels of comprehension on 
Bloom's taxonomy are pretty much just receptive. Just gathering and 
regurgitating facts is not expressive unless you're being forced to 
take some end of the chapter or other type of reading test and you're 
thinking "This is really boring and stupid"-- I guess in that sense 
then, even low level reading could be expressive too.

In other words, reading from a constructivist perspective is 
interactive. I owe Beverlee Paul for that insight so don't credit me 
for it.

I'D LOVE TO SEE SOME OF YOUR EXAMPLES. HAVE YOU WRITTEN THEM UP?

As for my writing examples, I have them at the office but I don't have 
a scanner so there's no way I can send them. I have a couple in my 
second book (but it's not worth buying it for just those writing 
samples). Send me your address and I'll copy and send them to you. I'm 
trying to avoid the office because it's a tar pit. I can never just 
sneak in and get something and leave and it's going to be 105 here in 
Fresno today.

I'm going to check to see if my article with Maria Ceprano is online. 
It was really pretty cool tracing back the style of the first grader to 
the style of writing of the university student. Sally if you send me 
your address, I'll send you the article if it's not online and I kind 
of think it isn't. I posted the citation for it so it is available in 
the library but who wants to go trudging out just for that. It is a 
really fascinating article. It also shows how using invented spelling 
helped kids write with more voice but we also traced the number of 
correctly spelled words from the pre to the post data analyses. Maria 
and I constructed rubrics for assessing voice and other aspects of 
writing too.

I have an amazing article by Ann Dyson that is on line and I have on 
file. It traces the thinking of 2 little boys who alter and extend 
their thinking through art and conversation. She does such a clear job 
of documenting the process. I'll send you that whether you want it or 
not.

Beverlee and I were also debating whether writing is both receptive and 
expressive. I thought of how it's recursive, but I think that refers to 
the act of rereading and revising. What I'm working through in my head 
but haven't settled on yet is that maybe the act of  writing is 
receptive also (or maybe a better word is interactive) because-- and 
this to me is the big point-- the act of writing extends thinking as 
does speech. So we are not just constructing language, we are receiving 
or re-receiving those thoughts at some level and reordering and 
extending them. I haven't quite worked that out yet and I'm not ready 
to say "ta-dah" now I know.. but I'm easing toward that notion.

>
> CONNIE WEAVER SUGGESTS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IN READING AND WRITING ARE 
> OFTEN
> QUITE PARALLEL (WE PROBABLY KNOW THAT) BUT THAT SOMETIMES THE READING 
> LEADS
> THE DEVELOPMENT AND WRITING FOLLOWS.  AT OTHER TIMES THE WRITING LEADS 
> AND
> READING FOLLOWS.  I WENT TO A PRESENTATION AT THE CLAREMONT READING
> CONFERNENCE WHERE(I'LL THINK OF HER NAME LATE THIS EVENING I'M SURE - 
> WHOOPS
> I THINK IT'S SHARON ZINK - HOPEFULLY) DEMONSTRATED THIS WAS TRUE WITH
> CONCRETE EXAMPLES FROM HER STUDENTS.  SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD B E 
> IMPORTANT
> FOR US ALL TO CONSIDER.

Oh, yes-- I agree-- that sometimes reading and writing are parallel and 
sometimes reading leads writing and vice versa-- but I do think that 
usually reading comes in advance of writing maybe because of the way 
it's traditionally taught. My little 5 year old grandaughter can write 
better than she can read. Maybe this is because she uses invented 
spelling and so can approximate while with reading she is more word 
bound-- or she should be-- except she memorizes text quickly and way 
too often looks at me instead of the words (and yes yes-- I have a Ph.D 
in reading and I know, I know- what to do about that but I live 6 hours 
from her.

I didn't want to clutter up the list with a lot of theoretical 
ramblings but since a couple of people have responded it appears that 
there is some interest in thinking through these issues. Maybe Beverlee 
will post her views on this which are quite brilliant.

  WENT TO A PRESENTATION AT THE CLAREMONT READING
CONFERNENCE WHERE(I'LL THINK OF HER NAME LATE THIS EVENING I'M SURE - 
WHOOPS
I THINK IT'S SHARON ZINK - HOPEFULLY) DEMONSTRATED THIS WAS TRUE WITH
CONCRETE EXAMPLES FROM HER STUDENTS.

OH-- and Sharon Zinke-- she is amazing. She's so funny too, So exactly 
who she is, no pretext, no phoniness or wishy washing shifting with the 
political winds. She is a true original. Youi're lucky to have heard 
her.


THANKS FOR THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO THINk

Back atcha! I think my IQ has gone up about 50 points since joining 
this listserve.
On Monday, July 2, 2007, at 10:50 PM, thomas wrote: