[MOSAIC] explicit comprehension strategies, Readicide and the Reading Zone

[rr1981 at aol.com]

I also teach in a district that is supposed to be using HM with 
fidelty.  We teach a story in 5 days.  However...
my principal does allow us some flexibility.  I supplement when needed, 
especially since many of the genres my students need to be exposed to 
are not in HM.  I am a relatively new teacher-this is my 8th year-so I 
don't know what it was like when teachers were actually able to teach .

Rosie
-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Matuga <Joan3teach at hotmail.com>
To: ellinkeene at earthlink.net; Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension 
Strategies Email Group <mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] explicit comprehension strategies, Readicide and 
the Reading Zone

I would love to see your notes.  I am teaching in a district with a 
"Full and complete commitment" to Houghton Mifflin.  We are restricted 
to the basal and have a 8-day schedule for each story with step by step 
lesson plans for each day.  We are not allowed to vary from this or 
supplement with other readings (with the exception of Gifted) until we 
have used every single piece of HM.

You talked to all teachers in our district several years ago.  I was 
awed by your presentation.  Your ideas seem to have been flushed down 
the toilet along with teacher responsibility for determining what is 
needed in her own classroom based on the students in the class.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ellin Keene<mailto:ellinkeene at earthlink.net>
  To: mosaic at literacyworkshop.org<mailto:mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
  Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 11:18 AM
   Subject: [MOSAIC] explicit comprehension strategies,Readicide and the 
Reading Zone


  Colleagues:

  I've picked up some of your posts related to whether or not to teach
   comprehension strategies explicitly and, more recently, your 
discussion
   about Readicide and Atwell's The Reading Zone.  I have not read the 
former,
   but have read the latter.  I'd like to make a couple observations 
about
   explicit strategy instruction here, but because I respect Atwell so 
much, I
   read and carefully considered her arguments in The Reading Zone.  I 
took the
   time, when the book came out, to get my thoughts into writing and 
should any
   of you want to read my responses, please feel free to email me 
separately -
   I would be happy to send you a document with my comments.  On to 
explicit
  strategy instruction:



  First, I fully agree that some teachers, but mostly publishers, have
   "basalized" strategy instruction, effectively dumbing it down and 
robbing
  from it what the original researchers and theoretical writers (myself,
   Zimmermann, Hutchins, Harvey and Goudvis, Miller, Tovani, and the 
list goes
   on and on. . .) tried to communicate about explicit strategies 
instruction.
  However, there really is no choice in terms of whether we teach
  comprehension strategies explicitly.  We have decades and decades of
   research (Pearson, Dole, Pressley, Duke, Beck and the list goes on 
and on .
  . .) to show that children (all children) comprehend more deeply and
   effectively when they receive comprehension strategy instruction.  To 
ignore
  such an enormous body of research would be irresponsible, at best.



   We absolutely do have a choice with respect to how we approach 
strategy
  instruction - how long we teach a strategy, whether we integrate all
  strategies simultaneously, teaching them cumulatively or one at a time
   (which we addressed in the second edition of Mosaic of Thought).   We 
can
   choose to "basalize" the strategy instruction or we can observe 
students
   carefully, understand their comprehension needs within the fuller 
context of
   what they need as readers and use strategies as tools to help them 
enhance
   and deepen comprehension and thus their engagement in and excitement 
about
   reading - the "zone". Obviously, the original researchers and 
theoretical
   writers have tried to promote the latter, sometimes with greater 
success, in
  some cases, much less clearly.



   Secondly, as Suzanne Lee points out in a post today, the reason I 
wrote To
   Understand is to directly address some of the problems I've observed 
and
   colleagues have expressed here and elsewhere related to over-reliance 
on
   comprehension strategy instruction. In it I argue that we must 
consider,
   through conversation and instruction with children, where strategies 
lead
   when students apply them.  Strategies are tools, so the question 
becomes,
  what do the tools help us do as readers?  A quick response is that
  strategies, well taught, can almost always help children reflect more
   deeply, become more engaged, understand more subtle themes and topics 
and
  recall and reapply more from what they read.



   I certainly agree with Heather's post today: "if I had to stop every 
page to
   make connections, etc., it would probably make me hate reading", but 
there
   are two key issues she may not have addressed here: first, she is an 
adult
   proficient reader and does not need, but may certainly find that 
occasional,
   conscious use of the strategies might deepen her reading experience 
and
   secondly, that asking children to stop after every page (or anything 
like
   that practice) is simply poor comprehension instruction. It may well 
lead to
   students disliking not only the strategies, but reading! None of the 
writers
   I listed above has ever suggested that we ask children to do such a 
thing.
  This is one of many misinterpretations of the original research and
  theoretical writing.  My attempt in To Understand was to address these
  questions and push us to think about what the new horizons might be in
   reading comprehension instruction. Jennifer Palmer, who moderates 
this list
   serv, conducted a superb discussion on To Understand last year - it 
might be
  helpful to return to the archives to see how some of your colleagues
   discussed these issues at that time. To Understand is a direct 
response to
  some of the concerns you all have raised because I've had them too!!



  Thirdly, with respect to children using the strategies automatically
   (subconsciously would be a better term) when they are reading text at 
their
  level, I would suggest that if we have children reading a more-or-less
   steady diet of texts at their level, we are not challenging them to 
become
   better readers!! Children need texts at their level for fluency and 
word
   identification work (particularly very young children and children 
who are
   learning English as their second language), but I contend that they 
also
  (desperately) need to be challenged by texts in which, because of the
  complexity of the concepts, they will greatly benefit from using the
   strategies.  All children need strategy instruction and to be 
conscious of
   their strategy use in some texts.  I'm concerned that we may not 
challenge
   children (not just our most proficient readers, but all children) 
enough
   with the conceptual complexity of the texts they read. Complex, 
well-written
   texts (expository and narrative) are a huge part of what introduces 
children
  to the life of the mind and helps them feel intellectually able.



  I would also argue that, if texts are well chosen to enhance students'
   understanding of the world, they will certainly benefit from being 
more
  conscious - intentional - in applying the strategies.  Their reading
   experience will simply be more meaningful and memorable.  It is also 
true
   that strategies are effective tools for students when they are 
learning to
  read and write in a new genre.  Are our children reading a wide enough
   variety of genres?  As someone pointed out in a post today, sometimes 
we
   have little (I wouldn't say no) schema for a topic - hence we need to 
teach
   children to create, not just activate schema.  We have more research 
on this
   topic than nearly any other in comprehension and to fail to teach 
children
  to activate and create schema is again, not effective practice.



   As Heather questions in her post today, "is it enough to just let 
kids read?
  To talk about books with them?  To have them recommend books with each
   other. . . . " The response is a resounding no and I'm delighted that 
she
  and others on this list serv have committed to such a thoughtful
  conversation about the effective, intellectually engaging strategy
  instruction I know we all value.



  Most respectfully,

  Ellin Keene









  Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:18:03 -0400

  From: Heather Green <heathmck at gmail.com<mailto:heathmck at gmail.com>>

  Subject: [MOSAIC] Just Finished Readacide and The Reading Zone What do

              you       think the implications are...

  To: Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org<mailto:Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>

  Message-ID:

               
<1c5dafce0906261518t179f55daj7e98a2cd1fbc4897 at mail.gmail.com<mailto:1c5da
fce0906261518t179f55daj7e98a2cd1fbc4897 at mail.gmail.com>>

  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



   .... for lower elementary grades?  I wish there were a book written 
with a
   similar theme, but geared toward 1-2.  There are plenty of teachers 
at our
   school, include me last year, who taught "comprehension strategies".  
I am
   contemplating now-- is it enough to just let kids read? To talk about 
books
   with them? To have them recommend books with each other?  Is it 
enough in
  the younger grades to just get them to love reading? Do we teach the
  strategies just because we feel it gives us something to teach during
   reading workshop? In her book, Atwell mentions doing mini-lessons. I 
wonder
  what these are.  SO MANY QUESTIONS....!



  _______________________________________________
  Mosaic mailing list
  Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org<mailto:Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
  To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
   
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org<http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org>.

   Search the MOSAIC archives at 
http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive<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.