I like how you call the teaching of individual steps as a "staircase to reading." This creates a useful image. It's great that you used this assignment to think through your reactions to Smith and that you weren't necessarily presenting conclusions. It shows you are open and activity trying to construct your own meaning from it. Your example of labeling things in an elementary classroom is a good one. You could easily argue that that is an example of using the world to teaching language. I think the point that he is trying to make, though, is that we shouldn't teach all of the small parts out of context (like the staircase to reading metaphor you used). That we should start with the big picture and teach the small parts in context of the big picture.
I see what your saying here regarding teaching within the big picture rather than out of context. So what does that look like in a K, 1st, 2nd grade classroom? Does that mean tackilng problems as they come along within reading certain materials?
I think my comment to Mike would really be appropriate to your reflections as well. I have seen in a K-1 classroom (where kids go to school year-round and start school about 6 months younger than we do here, and full-time for kindergarten), one way they teach is just to sit down and start reading with students. This can only be done in a small teacher/student ratio (which it was) and wouldn't be practical in larger settings unless there were additional adult aids or "expert" students to help like buddy readers, but it cuts right to the main point; reading. They also worked some on chunks of sounds and lots of writing, but mostly just flooded the students with reading. Improvement was in-line with quantity of words, sentences, chapters, and books. I do not pretend that this could solve a classroom of 27 1st graders issues, but once they were in leveled groups, I do think this process gets the kids volume and experience where they can pick up reading strategies.
I was a little torn when I read this section, as well. I agree with a lot of Smith's arguments, however, I struggled to identify ways in which certain practices within a classroom setting could be changed to better reflect his point of view. Overall, I think Jill make a great point regarding teaching the "big things" before we teach the "little things." It is a very well written piece and definitely inspires some serious thought about what you might see happening in the classroom and how it could be changed in the future!
What I can grasp from our different readings is that as teachers we need to first show that reading is and can be fun. Get the students interested in reading, which really is the path future learning. How could we learn any subject besides maybe art if we did not know how to read. I think Smith is focusing on the big picture in getting our students focused just on reading and making it easy. As the students learn to read begin to incorporate the small parts of contextual reading.
I like how you call the teaching of individual steps as a "staircase to reading." This creates a useful image.
ReplyDeleteIt's great that you used this assignment to think through your reactions to Smith and that you weren't necessarily presenting conclusions. It shows you are open and activity trying to construct your own meaning from it.
Your example of labeling things in an elementary classroom is a good one. You could easily argue that that is an example of using the world to teaching language. I think the point that he is trying to make, though, is that we shouldn't teach all of the small parts out of context (like the staircase to reading metaphor you used). That we should start with the big picture and teach the small parts in context of the big picture.
I see what your saying here regarding teaching within the big picture rather than out of context. So what does that look like in a K, 1st, 2nd grade classroom? Does that mean tackilng problems as they come along within reading certain materials?
DeleteI think my comment to Mike would really be appropriate to your reflections as well. I have seen in a K-1 classroom (where kids go to school year-round and start school about 6 months younger than we do here, and full-time for kindergarten), one way they teach is just to sit down and start reading with students. This can only be done in a small teacher/student ratio (which it was) and wouldn't be practical in larger settings unless there were additional adult aids or "expert" students to help like buddy readers, but it cuts right to the main point; reading. They also worked some on chunks of sounds and lots of writing, but mostly just flooded the students with reading. Improvement was in-line with quantity of words, sentences, chapters, and books. I do not pretend that this could solve a classroom of 27 1st graders issues, but once they were in leveled groups, I do think this process gets the kids volume and experience where they can pick up reading strategies.
ReplyDeleteI was a little torn when I read this section, as well. I agree with a lot of Smith's arguments, however, I struggled to identify ways in which certain practices within a classroom setting could be changed to better reflect his point of view. Overall, I think Jill make a great point regarding teaching the "big things" before we teach the "little things." It is a very well written piece and definitely inspires some serious thought about what you might see happening in the classroom and how it could be changed in the future!
ReplyDeleteWhat I can grasp from our different readings is that as teachers we need to first show that reading is and can be fun. Get the students interested in reading, which really is the path future learning. How could we learn any subject besides maybe art if we did not know how to read. I think Smith is focusing on the big picture in getting our students focused just on reading and making it easy. As the students learn to read begin to incorporate the small parts of contextual reading.
ReplyDelete