At the top of p 105, there is this statement:
Virtually any student can learn the mechanics of reading to decode grade-level text in about 100 days. That means virtually all could be reading shortly after mid-year of 1st grad...What they do need, immediately, are extended daily opportunities to read, much of it for pleasure. When we continue to teach reading skills, we prevent the rapid acquisition of knowledge and vocabulary - at a critical, formative moment in a child's education.
Do you agree? Why?
I was shocked/interested in this comment too. My first reaction was, "NO WAY! It sounds too good to be true." One side of me wants to put it to the test and if it does work then how wonderful; the other side wonders what would happen if I put it to the test and it doesn't work...what a waste of time and what are the consequences (state testing scores, etc)?
ReplyDeleteI agree with having students read and read and read! I always had (have) my nose in a book and I love to share my love of books and reading with my students.
In some ways I do agree. If the child is not reading for meaning what is the purpose? Word decoding is a necessary prerequisite, but should not be the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is meaning. It's how our brains are wired. If a child doesn't learn to enjoy reading, he/she won't read unless he/she is forced.
ReplyDeleteDeb Sheinman
I do agree with this statement and do think it's entirely possible..providing all students come to first grade with a ton of language, exposure to text and have had someone correcting them as they learn to read. The modeling piece is critical during early childhood!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the sentiment of this, and I like how it gives me direction with my class, I have to agree with Simone as well. If we are receiving kids without a lot of language and without people at home who sit with them and correct them as they read, there probably has to be an alternative plan. But for those who already have the basic skills, Schmoker strongly points out that continuing to teach skills can actually get in the way of rapid acquisition of knowledge and vocabulary for our kids. This is an interesting shift that we would be wise to discuss.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good to get into authentic literature as soon as possible. The basal rarely has the same appeal as a good book, and if a capable reader is camped out in the basal they may lose interest. Part of learning to read is about skill development, but it's also important to love reading - which propels you into reading more.
ReplyDeleteGetting into authentic literature, I liked Schmoker's idea about developing a notebook of say 30 one page, high interest science or history articles that support what's being taught in the textbook. What a simple, inexpensive way to spark student interest in history, current events, and recent discoveries in science.
I think there needs to be a balance. Outside of school, most of my students don't have opprotunities or materials for reading. If they have 90 minutes for reading a day I can't be teaching the whole time and expect their skills to grow. They need a chuck of time to experience reading on their own and learn to read for enjoyment.
ReplyDeleteWhile the situation of our students will always provide a challenge, I dream about the students who, given the opportunity might soar with this type of instruction. We have all read a good book that we could not put down. If students came to school with an excitement to consume text, words, and concepts because of a chapter book their learning would far surpass any worksheet drill lesson. Certainly, some students would struggle and need additional help to put all these concepts together to read. However, seeing why they should work toward learning how to read would be a far easier and more persuasive argument using Schmoker’s suggestions instead of telling them they won’t understand lesson 21 in Storytown.
ReplyDelete