[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: I found this announcement in my monthly NPR/PBS print magazine

Tue Sep 29 02:55:33 BST 2020

I will join here on Moddy’s side. So called strategy instruction has become
memorizing verbal recipes. The term habit captures the idea of something a
child does, although the word has behaviorist origins.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 8:09 PM Camille Blachowicz <CBlachowicz at nl.edu>
wrote:

> Moddy, are you talking what some would call skills when you use the word
> “habits” and David and Peter arei talking “strategies?” This has always
> seemed like a false dichotomy to me In that one should enable the other.
> Some kids seem to start and one end and others at the opposite- with good
> readers winding up with both. In clinic, I have seen kids who struggled to
> put all those bits of experience together to generalize a strategy they
> could depend on and others who struggled because they could not move from a
> strategic concept to actually applying it in practice
>
>
>
> I will also say that we should all be reminding  folks about strategic
> instruction that does the exact kind of habit and resource building you are
> talking about, Moddy.  DRTA, anyone?? Seeds and Roots?? Language
> Experience?  KWL?
>
>
>
> I agree with David that placing strategy instruction in conflict with
> content-rich instruction is just dumb- another shot across the bow.
>
>
>
> As an aside, a lot of us HOF  grandparents and parents are now teaching
> our own little kids and grandkids.  It would be interesting to see some
> communal conversations about this.
>
>
>
> Hope all are well and safe,
>
> Camille
>
>
>
>
>
> Camille Blachowicz, Ph.D.
>
> Co-Director,
>
> The Reading Leadership Institute
>
> Distinguished Research Professor Emerita
>
> The National College of Education
>
> National Louis University
>
> 806  Colfax St.
>
> Evanston, IL 60201
>
> cblachowicz at nl.edu
>
> ph-847-708-6280    fax-224-233-2558
>
> http://nl.academia.edu/CamilleBlachowicz
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of
> "Mckeown, Margaret G" <mckeown at pitt.edu>
>
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2020 at 2:08 PM
>
> To: David Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu>, "Peter P. Afflerbach" <
> afflo at umd.edu>
>
> Cc: reading hall of fame <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: I found this announcement in my
> monthly NPR/PBS print magazine
>
>
>
> This email came from an external source.
>
>
>
> David,
>
>
>
> Your minitreatise makes perfect sense!  :  I love the notion of
> comprehension vs comprehension-solving. Two points, though:
>
>
>
> Point 1. But maybe comprehension and comprehension-solving are not that
> distinct. Comprehension is more automatic, but the other just uses those
> same interactions, but slowed down to consciousness. I still would
> characterize what’s needed not as “embedded strategies” – but as
> internalized habits & resources built from experiences encountering
> problems/misunderstandings during reading.  Understanding that if
> sense-making fails, you may need to reread, go back to earlier text, etc. I
> think a key distinction is reading that builds resources rather than
> teaching individual nuggets.
>
> I would also suggest that McKeown, Beck, & Blake 2009, in RRQ, provided a
> start on how to promote a comprehension-solving approach not based on
> isolated strategies.
>
>
>
> Point 2: I agree on your knowledge view – build knowledge to aid
> comprehension, preferably as a part of reading, but not as a separate
> enterprise. Or in Peter’s words: school is (still) about learning from text.
>
>
>
> PS to Ray – I did not mean for students to rely on social support, but
> that situations of interactive reading & discussion of text instill habits
> that can be called on when reading independently.
>
>
>
> PS to Peter – I agree that good readers are strategic, but I don’t think
> that necessitates explicit strategy instruction.
>
>
>
>
>
> Moddy (again)
>
>
>
>
>
> From: P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu>
>
> Date: Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:22 PM
>
> To: "Peter P. Afflerbach" <afflo at umd.edu>
>
> Cc: "Mckeown, Margaret G" <mckeown at pitt.edu>, reading hall of fame <
> reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: I found this announcement in my
> monthly NPR/PBS print magazine
>
>
>
> Moddy (and Peter),
>
> To be clearer than (obviously) I have been, let me invoke a metaphor from
> Donna Scanlon and Kimberly Anderson's RRQ piece on Context as an Aid in
> Word Solving in the recent RRQ on SOR.  I want to distinguish between word
> recognition and word solving.  If the word reading pedagogy reviewed by
> Linnea Erhi in her piece in the same SOR issue is doing its job, then lots
> of Word Reading will be either automatic processing mode or will make very
> few attention-intensive cognitive demands on the reader to get to accurate,
> maybe even fluent word reading. The reader can click along without many
> clunks. But when clunks get in the way, the reader shifts to a problem
> SOLVING mode and uses any and all resources available, including contextual
> clues (using 3, 4, or N cuing systems--any and all that care to generate a
> plausible hypothesis).
>
>
>
> My metaphor for comprehension, based on a dialogical-interactive reading
> of the Ehri and the Scanlon-Anderson pieces, is that just as there can be
> something like word reading/recognition and word solving, so there can (I'd
> say is) something like comprehension recognition and comprehension
> solving.  Having invoked appropriate knowledge domains and applying
> well-practiced monitoring standards (do the new ideas vying for a place in
> my situation model meet the dual standards of consistency with the text I
> have read so far and consistency with my currently invoked schemata), I
> just cruise along in a euphoric state of I get it, I get it!!!  Until the
> clicks get overwhelmed by the clunks.  And then I go into a comprehension
> solving mode, where I have to be intentional about whatever practices or
> routines or tricks of the trade I invoke to get unstuck.  Readers have
> strategies (or routines or heuristics or tricks of the trade) they invoke
> to get unstuck, and they know WHEN to invoke them.
>
>
>
> I know that in the distant past, in the late 70s and early 80s, I argued
> vehemently for explicit instruction or—to use the Duffy-Roehler
> term—explicit explanation for these strategies.  I have seen the light and
> found salvation, however.  Over time, as other evidence has become
> available, I have backed off providing a privileged position for explicit
> instruction, arguing for embedding strategies in the ongoing process of
> supporting making meaning, even a "strategy of the moment" approach (after
> Rand Spiro's "schema of the moment" approach within Cognitive Flexibility
> Theory) to find just the right puzzle-solving heuristic for this particular
> text, roadblock, and context (am I on my own or in a community of practice
> or outfitted with a set of digital scaffolds (akin to lifelines on the
> Millionaire show).
>
>
>
>  All this is by way of saying that promoting knowledge growth to aid
> comprehension and as a consequence of text comprehension are all fine by
> me, but NOT at the EXPENSE of promoting the development of tools that
> facilitate text comprehension and new learning in the face of challenging
> content that is not easily assimilated.
>
>
>
> The issue of whether, or under what circumstances, explicit instruction
> (or some viable alternative) to promote the development of these
> comprehension solving strategies (or for that matter word solving
> strategies) is necessary is a question for to be settled with
> well-conceptualized and well-designed pedagogical research.
>
>
>
> Hoping that this little mini-treatise doesn't confuse the matter even more.
>
>
>
> pdp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 2:05 PM Peter P. Afflerbach <afflo at umd.edu<mailto:
> afflo at umd.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
>
>
> Accomplished readers are unfailingly strategic. There is the massive
> think-aloud research data base which describes the strategic nature of good
> reading.
>
> And there is the decades old, regularly refreshed research base that
> describes the effectiveness of reading strategy instruction. Certainly,
> millions of folks
>
> learned to read prior to the existence of “reading comprehension strategy
> instruction,” so there’s the question of the absolute necessity of strategy
> instruction.
>
> I like to think that reading strategy instruction makes more efficient a
> developing reader’s path to being an accomplished reader. If strategy
> instruction moves
>
> that process along appreciably, it’s worth it.
>
>
>
> As for students needing knowledge to learn school content, David’s (and
> many others’) work on schema theory, scripts--all the way back to Bartlett
> reminds us
>
> of the prior knowledge requirement. But, my concern is this: if all that
> students need to have to read well in school is decoding and sufficient
> content area prior
>
> knowledge, where does reading fit in? Isn’t school (still) about learning
> from text? You see where this goes—how do students gain knowledge to learn
> knowledge?
>
> Is it a constant feeding of required prior knowledge so that students
> without reading comprehension strategies can learn? And at what point is it
> decided that
>
> enough new knowledge has been provided so that students can then learn the
> rest of the new knowledge? I’d like to think that at some point reading
>
> proficiency--including reading comprehension strategy use--frees students
> (and teachers and curriculum) from having to do massive front-loading of
> new material
>
> so that students can learn new material…
>
>
>
> I am also not sure how lack of attention to strategies will work in
> domains like history, where students learn to identify text sources, vet
> text contents, judge
>
> trustworthiness, figure out if the author is bogus or not, etc...or
> identifying claim and evidence in science, rhetoric, history, social
> studies...it's here that I think a
>
> big goal of literacy learning should be thinking strategically.
>
>
>
> Also, this APM work continues to frame reading development and reading
> achievement as a solely cognitive enterprise, ignoring affect and conation.
> Leaving motivation
>
> and self-efficacy out of any account of development and achievement is
> partial science, IMO.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 4:33 PM Mckeown, Margaret G <mckeown at pitt.edu
> <mailto:mckeown at pitt.edu>> wrote:
>
> Dear P David and colleagues,
>
>
>
> I agree that decoding + knowledge + eyes on text are not going to cut it
> for many/most young readers.
>
>
>
> But I don’t agree that the only alternative is learning strategies to
> invoke when knowledge fails. You can also invoke habits, built deliberately
> through supportive, scaffolded experiences interacting with text. Read
> together, talk about the text and what it takes to make sense of it. And
> yes, it needs to be more, and, more systematic than “a little talk about
> text.”
>
>
>
> PDP – your personal ramblings are always welcome!
>
>
>
> Moddy
>
>
>
> Margaret G. McKeown, Ph. D.
>
> Clinical Professor Emerita, Instruction and Learning
>
> School of Education
>
> Senior Scientist, Learning Research and Development Center
>
> University of Pittsburgh
>
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>
> mckeown at pitt.edu<mailto:mckeown at pitt.edu>
>
>
>
> For more on reading and vocabulary, follow me on Twitter: @margaretmckeow2
>
>
>
> 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 P
> Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>>
>
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:34 PM
>
> To: reading hall of fame <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> <mailto:reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>
>
> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] I found this announcement in my monthly
> NPR/PBS print magazine
>
>
>
> Took this photo to share.  I guess they APM/NPR decided not to take us up
> on our offer to participate in planning or enacting future events on this
> issue.  I bet NPR has a contract with APM to carry X number of show per
> month.  Another example of outsourcing resulting from Congressional budget
> cuts for public broadcasting.
>
>
>
> I bet the report will say, stop teaching strategies. Just teach decoding
> and knowledge, and all will be well.  The logic will be, if they can decode
> any and all words they encounter and if they know a lot (that they can
> express in oral language), then they will get the reading comprehension
> pretty much for free--maybe a little talk about text thrown in for good
> measure.
>
>
>
> I like knowledge; I'd say I am a big fan of it.  And I spent 10 years
> working on Seeds and Roots on the premise that all the procedural stuff
> (practices, processes, skills and strategies) work better and are acquired
> more readily and without such arduous effort when they are picked up and
> fine-tuned in pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge and insight.
>
>
>
> But what do you do when your knowledge fails you, and there is no one or
> no "thing" there to help you out of your cul du sac?  I view strategies as
> the deliberate, intentional, often stepwise, procedures you invoke when
> knowledge is not able to motivate all the connecting and monitoring that
> goes on in the construction and integration phases of comprehension.
>
>
>
> That's why I am an advocate of "the full tool-box" and the "you gotta do
> it all" approaches to pedagogy.
>
>
>
> My personal ramblings aside, I wanted to alert all of you to this sequel.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> [Emily Hanford is Back.jpeg]
>
> --
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> P. David Pearson
>
> Evelyn Lois Corey Emeritus Professor of Instructional Science
>
> Graduate School of Education
>
> University of California, Berkeley
>
>
>
> email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
>
> other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto:
> pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com>
>
> website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org<
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdavidpearson.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmckeown%40pitt.edu%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=ByHIDCX1rhQt6sucpLgymo6AnzQqeMN%2FQxt%2FTGz4MaI%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> *******************
>
> Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses
>
> Home:  851 Euclid Ave
>
> Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
>
> iPhone:  510 543 6508
>
> ****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
>
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
>
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
>
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
>
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
>
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
>
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
>
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
>
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
>
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
>
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
>
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
>
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
>
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
>
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame<
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.nottingham.ac.uk%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freading-hall-of-fame&data=02%7C01%7Cmckeown%40pitt.edu%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=F%2BNOE%2Byux32MaSe2ycyEhJheF%2Bd4xx2g9RGEgHtlXDw%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> P. David Pearson
>
> Evelyn Lois Corey Emeritus Professor of Instructional Science
>
> Graduate School of Education
>
> University of California, Berkeley
>
>
>
> email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
>
> other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto:
> pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com>
>
> website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org<
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdavidpearson.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmckeown%40pitt.edu%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=ByHIDCX1rhQt6sucpLgymo6AnzQqeMN%2FQxt%2FTGz4MaI%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> *******************
>
> Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses
>
> Home:  851 Euclid Ave
>
> Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
>
> iPhone:  510 543 6508
>
> ****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
>
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
>
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
>
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
>
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
>
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
>
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

Richard C Anderson
University Scholar and Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois
Member, National Academy of Education
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200928/a1109010/attachment-0001.html>