[Reading-hall-of-fame] RE: Reading-hall-of-fame Digest, Vol 42, Issue 1

[Arthur N Applebee]

David, 

I think you are touching on a central issue-the difference between
novice and expert may be a function of the knowledge of the domain
gained through cumulative experience, rather than the attainment of
specific knowledge or skills through direct instruction.  But we often
focus on the skills, rather than the guided immersion in the domain that
leads to productive cumulative experience.  We framed our AERJ study of
discussion-based approaches to the development of understanding in part
in terms of the literature on comprehension strategies, but the results
suggest that the process of sustained and focused discussion, without an
emphasis on specific comprehension strategies, has a powerful effect on
learning.   Our work was with middle and high school students, but I
think the general principle is true across ages.

Arthur

(Arthur N. Applebee, J. Langer, M. Nystrand, & A. Gamoran,
Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom
instruction and student performance in middle and high school English.
American Educational Research Journal 40:3, 685-730, 2003. )

________________________________

From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
[mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf
Of David Olson
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:54 PM
To: Jay Samuels
Cc: reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] RE: Reading-hall-of-fame Digest, Vol
42, Issue 1

 

Jay et al:

In my view "processing speed" is merely a reflection of one's knowledge.
But I think the question raises a more general question.  In reviewing a
bunch of papers on literacy, it occurred to me that there is a
considerable gap among experts (like ourselves) on the following issue:

Do tested differences between the good and poor readers, the literate
and the non/less literate, provide a reliable guide as to what should be
taught.  

I think not.  And that included speed of processing.  Whereas most/many
literacy researchers seem to think that if good/poor readers differ on,
say, short term memory for letters, vocabulary, sentence comprehension,
inferencing, etc. that implies that such  "skills" should be taught.
That assumption is taken for granted by most prescriptive reading
programs.  I don't agree.

How about you?

David 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20091103/a6e26884/attachment-0001.html