Comments on: Reading: quantity, nonfiction, knowledge

By: Nate Stearns

Nate Stearns — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:26:08 +0000

I’m curious. Every teacher I’ve ever met (as well as myself) has spent WAY more time working on background knowledge that reading strategies. If you’re teaching Mockingbird, you don’t spend 90% of your time with “find the main idea” it’s all Scottsboro boys and discussions and mock trials. That’s not in the Standards but its what we all do. Are we right despite ourselves or still sadly, sadly wrong.

By: Mueller Charter School Blog » Blog Archive » Prior Knowledge: A Window to the World

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:04:45 +0000

[...] Prior Knowledge: A Window to the World Uncategorized 02.10.2009 Joanne Jacobs wrote in a recent blog post: [...]

By: Tom Hoffman

Tom Hoffman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:58:22 +0000

Oh, and my full analysis is here: http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2009/09/10-reasons-why-you-should-care-about.html

By: Tom Hoffman

Tom Hoffman — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:57:37 +0000

The actual language on “quantity” is far weaker than Jago’s statement implies. Here’s the essence: “Students must have the capacity to handle independently the quantity of reading material, both in print and online, required in college and workforce training.” Is that college AND workforce training or college OR workforce training? How much reading do you need to do for workforce training. A binder?

These standards are far weaker than they appear to be at first blush. If you check the “international benchmarks,” they are far more narrow and lower than those used by high achieving countries and high achieving states.

Actually, since you brought it up earlier, which states do you think have the lowest standards for English Language Arts? I’d like to do a comparison.

By: dinosaurs are | U.S Trend Keywords

dinosaurs are | U.S Trend Keywords — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:01:16 +0000

[...] Reading: quantity, nonfiction, knowledgeThe common standards movement has sparked a useful discussion of teaching reading. Many critics like the newest draft of the standards, reports Curriculum Matters. Carol Jago, the president-elect [...]

By: Robert Wright

Robert Wright — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:38:36 +0000

I agree with the value of quantity and I believe it applies to writing too.

The primary reason that Accelerated Reading actually works is that students read more.

A club would work just as well but there are legal issues.

By: pm

pm — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:07:21 +0000

“In other words, kids who score well on reading tests are not really kids with good “reading skills”.”

I’m curious about this statement. Are the issues with “reading skills” only test related? Its seems straight forward to me that knowing the content for a test will give a big advantage over not knowing the content. But reading for the purposes of learning seems like it might be something different. Is it reasonable to think that there is either some knowledge that can be learned and applied with broad scope or some basic mental capacities that can be expanded? Or both? Is either of these or something else a skill?

By: Tom West

Tom West — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:49:46 +0000

I think that Willingham is spot on. Without that context, one might as well have been reading a foreign language. I still remember being dragged to a Shakespeare play 2 years after I had thought (hoped?) that I was done with the Bard forever.

But something had changed. Suddenly it all made sense! When had they rewritten the play. Of course, the only thing that had been rewritten in the previous two years was me…

Which means I do pity teachers today. it’s got to be an incredible challenge to find common cultural and more importantly emotional contexts in reading material.