hmmm...I think Smith actually does explain how learning new words happens without being taught letters or words one at a time. He is saying that children best make sense of words that are meaningful to them in context, and says "we have not become fluent readers by learning fifty thousand or more written words on sight; we have learned to recognize all these words in the process of becoming fluent readers, in the act of meaningful reading." From this quote I think it is clear that the he thinks the actual attempt of reading facilitates the learning of vocabulary and meaning making. He explains that discovering what a word is in the first place is usually most efficiently accomplished by asking someone, listening to someone else read the word, or using context for a clue. This makes sense to me. For example, kids read the same book several times with someone, connect the written words with the spoken words, memorize these words, so they become site words. That makes more sense to me than teaching the sounds and letters, then the words, then in context of a sentence. It's a chicken and egg type of debate though, isn't it?
I would have liked more examples of what you should do, as well. I did think Smith made some really good points about what not to do, though. He mentioned alternative things you should do, but he did not go into much detail. It would have been nice if he would have done that. As much as learning the words, rather than just the sounds and letters, is important to reading, I also believe learning the letters and their sounds and how they blend together to make a word is important for children who are learning to read, as well.
I will third that opinion that there needed to be more what-to-do examples. I wonder though; this reading is just one chapter from a book. What if he does cover some research and ideas of what exactly should be done, if the methods he doesn't believe in are not to be used? It would be interesting to see the rest at another time. I think that, as you say, it is sometimes necessary to have students separated into reading level groups, as that allows for data collection. However, I think perhaps there should be time for the levels to be mixed so students can learn from their peers. It is difficult to separate levels and not let on that there are lower and higher levels. Kids are smart. Even if you don't label the groups, they know who is more skilled.
hmmm...I think Smith actually does explain how learning new words happens without being taught letters or words one at a time. He is saying that children best make sense of words that are meaningful to them in context, and says "we have not become fluent readers by learning fifty thousand or more written words on sight; we have learned to recognize all these words in the process of becoming fluent readers, in the act of meaningful reading." From this quote I think it is clear that the he thinks the actual attempt of reading facilitates the learning of vocabulary and meaning making. He explains that discovering what a word is in the first place is usually most efficiently accomplished by asking someone, listening to someone else read the word, or using context for a clue. This makes sense to me. For example, kids read the same book several times with someone, connect the written words with the spoken words, memorize these words, so they become site words. That makes more sense to me than teaching the sounds and letters, then the words, then in context of a sentence. It's a chicken and egg type of debate though, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI would have liked more examples of what you should do, as well. I did think Smith made some really good points about what not to do, though. He mentioned alternative things you should do, but he did not go into much detail. It would have been nice if he would have done that. As much as learning the words, rather than just the sounds and letters, is important to reading, I also believe learning the letters and their sounds and how they blend together to make a word is important for children who are learning to read, as well.
ReplyDeleteI will third that opinion that there needed to be more what-to-do examples. I wonder though; this reading is just one chapter from a book. What if he does cover some research and ideas of what exactly should be done, if the methods he doesn't believe in are not to be used? It would be interesting to see the rest at another time. I think that, as you say, it is sometimes necessary to have students separated into reading level groups, as that allows for data collection. However, I think perhaps there should be time for the levels to be mixed so students can learn from their peers. It is difficult to separate levels and not let on that there are lower and higher levels. Kids are smart. Even if you don't label the groups, they know who is more skilled.
ReplyDelete