--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00014 Date: 10/25/96 From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 11:48pm \/To: ORVILLE BULLITT (Read 1 times) Subj: HI! OB>With this message, I join the EDUCATOR Echo. My wife is a teacher OB>in her 30th year of teaching. Bless her! ;-) Welcome, and hop in whenever you've a mind to.... ___ * MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: Logic, not magic. --- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2 * Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00015 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:04am \/To: CARL BOGARDUS (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling By Routman CARL BOGARDUS spoke of SPELLING BY ROUTMAN to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-24-96 CB> DT> When I teach chess to my kids (my after school chess club of CB> DT> 1st-8th graders) I have them just play. I pare the beginners CB>together and I Hmmmmm, we have a chess club also -- I am not the CB>sponsor, but I can ask him if he wants to play an E-mail Chess game CB>if you are willing and he is willing. Ask your students. :) I'd be willing and think the kids would be too. However, since we only meet once a week we could never finish an e-mail game. I wouldn't mind chatting with the other coach and swap ideas. I could use a few.. Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00016 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:25am \/To: CARL BOGARDUS (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling By Routman CARL BOGARDUS spoke of SPELLING BY ROUTMAN to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-24-96 CB>I used (when I was in elementary) spelling lists, however I would CB>also let students that scored 90+ opt out of the Friday test. I approached it this way when I was a student teacher in 5th grade. My real object on testing was not to evaluate the students, CB>but my teaching on the "inbetween things" as you stated. I would love to teach an upper grade and put some of the ideas I believe in to work. At the kindergarten level I do many "inbetween things" but they of course are at a much lower level. We work more with language experiences which to me includes writing, speaking, listening, and reading (looking at books and in some cases reading the actual print). During the CB>last five years of my stint in 5th grade--I took what I could see as CB>workable and usable from WL and worked it into spelling and anything CB>else I could. I also tried to encourage a high quality in student's CB>work. The idea of encouraging high quality I think is very important. We discuss what quality work looks like. Some kids just want to get done with a project and play. If any of their work is just "thrown together" I have them begin again. I'm not interested in product so much as I am effort. Some kids are more capable than others. Still, even the lowest students should do their very best. What you've described here sounds good. I'm more inclined to accept a spelling list if the words are kid generated (taken from words they know and are having difficulty with and also taken from vocabulary that is used in the classroom such as literature). I still don't know if I would use a test-study-test approach but as I have said, the stuff in the middle is where it's at for me. I really do like the idea of kids picking words to learn. Giving students ownership in this way is important and probably increases their interest in spelling generally. Take care, Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00017 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:35am \/To: CARL BOGARDUS (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling By Routman CARL BOGARDUS spoke of SPELLING BY ROUTMAN to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-24-96 CB>I think they don't memorize them because its almost too late. The CB>addition and subtraction should be mastered in 1st and 2nd, the CB>times table in the third. In England, facts are mastered a whole CB>year ahead of the US as Kinder is for 4yr olds and 5yr olds are in CB>first. Probably would make some great observer roll over in his CB>grave. CB>This was true in England in the 50's and earlier, as my wife is from CB>there and I have questioned her "mum" as to earlier education CB>practices. CB>Don't feel bad about the higher math, the way our system has and is CB>set up, it weeds out those who don't understand (but could) and lets CB>only those that already understand go on. To me, that is a great CB>tragedy of our educational process. I wonder if we don't move some kids along too fast, going on to the next concept before the previous concepts are mastered. Some kids are always playing catch up and it is a very frustrating game. Your comments on England interest me and if I have an opportunity I'd explore them further. I'm not sure what "facts" you are referring to when you speak of kindergarten math and 4 and 5 year old children. My experience with 5 year olds is that many have difficulty with one-to-one correspondence. We do work on graphing, patterning, counting, sequencing, shapes, and other things on a simple level. It is my belief that beginning a year earlier would do little good. Children's cognitive development limits them in what they can conceptually understand. Still, children who come from homes where school matters and where learning is important (and they do stuff at home with the kids) these children come to kindergarten with a variety of skills and are usually ahead of their peers. I do have children who can do simple addition and all math concepts come to them quickly. I wonder how much our American culture (tv, nintendo, plethora of toys and gadgets to entertain) has hurt our kids in the long run? Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00018 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:39am \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling Research RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING RESEARCH to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-24-96 RM>DT>Since you seem so swayed by empirical research data, perhaps you'd RM>DT>like to support your last statement. Provide us with some RM>DT>replicated studies that clearly show the conventional spelling RM>DT>method is superior to whole language or any other approach. RM> RM>I don't have any, I am simply drawing a conclusion based on RM>personal observation (sound familiar ?)... Only sounds familiar because I have heard others say this very same thing. I include my self in that group although I am the more informed since I am on the front lines in the early childhood section. I observe it from a different perspective. So therefore my views count more. Right? My "conclusion" RM>would not stand up to scrutiny... Mine would....:) Dan ps....besides my conclusions are backed up by research. --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00019 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 10:46am \/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 2 times) Subj: Spelling By Routman RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING BY ROUTMAN to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-24-96 RM>DT>High scores on tests of word lists do not necessarily transfer to RM>DT>writing in context. RM> RM>RM>Which, of course, has nothing to do with spelling itself... RM>RM>I'd be willing to bet that high scores on word list tests RM>RM>translates into an ability to spell! RM> RM>DT>Hold on Ron,,,,high scores on tests of word lists do NOT transfer RM>DT>to correct spelling in the context of writing. RM> RM>Hold on yourself... The top statement does not say what you RM>are saying in the statement above... "Do not necessarily" RM>means, to me, that we really don't know... When I reread this it didn't make any sense and now I'm not even sure what I was thinking. One can never say tests on word lists DO NOT transfer to writing in context because there will be exceptions. Some kids (who are natural spellers anyway) do well on lists and do well in their writings. I was taking exception with your statement that "high scores on word lists translates into an ability to spell." I do not believe this is true. Students study and do well on these list but forget the correct spellings soon after. They are now concentrating on a new list. Don't you find this to be true? (generally) RM>DT>If a new teacher is relying on information posted here only for RM>DT>guidance then they are not using well what they were taught in RM>DT>college. RM>Agreed, but they're new, inexperienced; they will tend to RM>accept what appears to be "expert" opinion... Well, they have then come to the right place.... Dan --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00020 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:03am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Constructing Meaning State of the Art: Reading - November 1993 1. Children, when reading, construct their own meaning. The meaning constructed from the same text can vary greatly among people because of differences in the knowledge they posses. Sometimes people do not have enough knowledge to understand a text, or they may have knowledge that they do not use fully. Variations in interpretation often arise because people have different conceptions about the topic than the author supposed. (Anderson et al. 1985, p.10) Reading is comprehending, that is, the construction of meaning. Readers construct meaning by interacting with the text (Pearson et al. 1990) on the basis of their existing or prior knowledge about the world (Rumelhart 1980). The importance of prior knowledge in reading has been demonstrated through research based on schema theory (Anderson and Pearson 1984). According to schema theory, readers understand what they read only as it relates to what they already know. That is, their existing knowledge about a particular topic influences the extent to which they understand what they read about that topic. Because text is not fully explicit, readers must draw from their existing knowledge in order to understand it. Prior knowledge should be looked at in two ways by the teacher when developing lessons: first, as overall prior knowledge, and second, as specific prior knowledge. Overall prior knowledge is the sum total of learning that students have acquired as a result of their cumulative experiences both in and out of school. Specific prior knowledge is the particular information a student needs in order to understand text that deals with a certain topic. Specific prior knowledge is of two types: text-specific knowledge calls for understanding about the type of text-- for example, a story has a beginning, a middle, and an end; topic- specific knowledge entails understanding something about the topic--for example, knowing about dinosaurs before reading a book on prehistoric animals. Overall prior knowledge is expanded continually by a variety of means which include extensive reading and writing. The more students read and write, the more their prior knowledge grows which, in turn, strengthens their ability to construct meaning as they read. Teachers must not only recognize that independent reading and writing activities are crucial for expanding students' prior knowledge. They must also systematically include such activities in their literacy program. In addition, both text-specific and topic-specific prior knowledge play an important role in helping students construct meaning (Paris et al. 1991). Activating only students' topical prior knowledge without helping them to consider the actual structure of the text does not improve their meaning-making abilities (Beck et al. 1982). Conversely, teachers can effectively improve these abilities when they activate all levels of students' prior knowledge appropriately. -###- --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00021 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:09am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Reading Insturctiion State of the Art: Reading - November 1993 2. Effective reading instruction can develop engaged readers who are knowledgeable, strategic, motivated, and socially interactive. Our [National Reading Research Center's] overarching goal is to study how to cultivate highly engaged, self-determining readers who are the architects of their own learning. A unifying theme running throughout our research is that students will acquire the competencies and motivations to read for diverse aesthetic and academic purposes, such as gaining knowledge, interpreting an author's perspective, escaping into the literacy world, performing a task, sharing reactions to stories and informational texts, or taking social and political action in response to what is read. (Alvermann and Guthrie 1993, p. 135) Until recently, reading instruction focused almost exclusively on cognitive aspects--for example, the mechanics of reading. However, teaching students to become literate involves much more. Literacy depends on a myriad of factors related to the context of literacy activities (e.g., the kind of social interaction that takes place during a reading group discussion) and the child's personal attributes, including cognitive development. An engaged reader: 1) uses prior knowledge to gain information from new material; 2) uses a variety of skills in a strategic way to gain information independently; 3) is internally motivated to read for information and for pleasure; and 4) interacts socially to make gains in literacy development. The context of literacy instruction and personal attributes in addition to cognitive development influence children's reading success in profound ways. Therefore, when planning instruction, teachers must make provisions in daily lessons for factors such as students' motivation to read. For example, choosing to read is an important ingredient of engaged reading. It has been found that allowing students to choose reading material of interest to them is a powerful motivator that fosters independent reading habits. Effective teachers make use of this knowledge on a regular basis in planning and executing instruction. Engaged reading, wherein students construct their own knowledge, is a form of engaged learning. Engaged reading goes beyond a reader's interaction with text. It is a means by which one becomes a member of a community of readers and society at large. To be engaged readers, students must recognize the value of reading and their own potential as readers and learners. Teachers can help students develop this recognition by providing them with access to multiple sources of reading and resources for learning. Engaged reading develops in literacy classrooms where self- and mutual assessment are as routine as they are in everyday life. These assessments which promote engaged reading take a variety of forms, including: the constant, strategic monitoring of one's progress while reading (i.e.,metacognition); the comparing of one's opinions and reactions to what one has read with those of others; and the monitoring of other people's reactions to one's own constructions of meaning. When such processes become regular events during literacy instruction, assessment and literacy learning become intertwined, such that learning is supported at the same time that it is assessed. --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00022 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:14am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Phonemic Awareness State of the Art: Reading - November 1993 3. Phonemic awareness, a precursor to competency in identifying words, is one of the best predictors of later success in reading. Children's awareness of the phonemic structure of spoken words is an extremely strong predictor of their success in learning to read. Because useful knowledge of spelling-sound correspondences depends on such phonemic awareness, children who fail to acquire it are severely handicapped in their ability to master print. (Adams 1990, p. 412) Phonemic awareness--discerning that spoken language is composed of phonemes--is an important predictor of success in learning to read (Juel 1988). It involves a child's ability to hear the sounds in a word and to distinguish between words based on the different sounds. Phonemic awareness helps children learn the letter-sound correspondences needed to read and spell words. Studies (Ball and Blachman 1991; Lundberg et al. 1988) have shown that phonemic awareness training improves children's ability to read and spell. Unless word identification is effortless and automatic, the reader cannot devote attention to constructing meaning while reading. Phonics--instruction in the relationship between letters and sounds--can help children attain automatic, visual recognition of spelling patterns within words for word recognition. Efficient recognition of spelling patterns, in turn, depends on accurate and automatic recognition of individual letters. Studies of young children show that the most important precursor to success in learning to read is rapid recognition of the letters of the alphabet. Studies also show that the efficient use of sound patterns in speech depends on the awareness of phonemes in spoken language. This awareness relates strongly to success in beginning reading. Many children develop these prerequisites without formal instruction. This is likely due both to the frequency and quality of early experiences these children have with oral language and to the amount of exposure they have to print before entering school. Effective beginning reading instruction is that which contains a balance of activities designed to improve word recognition, including phonics instruction and reading meaningful text. Writing and spelling activities are also part of effective reading instruction because they affect overall reading ability in a positive way. Encouraging children to make invented spellings (to spell words as they sound) helps develop phonemic awareness as well as increase knowledge of spelling patterns (Clarke 1988). Effective teachers interweave these activities within their instruction and, above all, ensure that phonics teaching is not done apart from connected, informative, engaging text. --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEW00023 Date: 10/26/96 From: DAN TRIPLETT Time: 11:24am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Reading/Writing State of the Art: Reading - November 1993 9. Children's reading and writing abilities develop together. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that literacy in a society might entail reading and writing as separate or related entities (Clifford 1989). We believe strongly that in our society, at this point in history, reading and writing, to be understood and appreciated fully, should be viewed together, learned together, and uses together. (Tierney and Shannahan 1991, p. 275) Both reading and writing are constructive processes (Pearson and Tierney 1984). A similar, if not the same, level of intellectual activity underlies both reading and writing: interactions between the reader/writer and text lead to new knowledge and interpretations of text (Langer 1986; Martin 1987). Just as thoughtful readers read for a specific purpose by activating prior knowledge about the topic at hand, writers activate prior knowledge that relates to the topic and have a purpose for writing--to impart meaning to a reader. While reading, readers reread and modify meaning accordingly. While writing, writers think about the topic and the more they think, the better developed their writing becomes. They also think about what they've written, reread it, and make revisions to improve it. Lastly, readers finalize the meaning they have constructed so far. Writers do likewise: they settle on their final composition. The processes of reading and writing not only unfold in similar ways, they tend to be used together. This is natural because in everyday life reading and writing frequently occur together. For example, a person receives a letter--via the postal service or electronic mail--reads it, then answers it in writing, perhaps rereading portions of the letter while constructing the response. Moreover, learning about reading and writing takes place in a social context that contains written language and where people use and talk about written language. When reading and writing are taught together the benefits are greater than when they are taught separately. Research (Tierney and Shannahan 1991) has begun to show that writing leads to improved reading achievement, reading leads to better writing performance, and combined instruction leads to improvements in both areas. Moreover, research (McGinley and Tierney 1989) has shown that engaging learners in the greater variety of experiences provided when reading and writing instruction are combined leads to a higher level of thinking than when either process is taught alone. Since thinking is a critical part of meaning construction, students will become better thinkers if they are taught in classrooms where meaning is actively constructed through reading and writing. Teachers can be most effective in helping students to become better readers, writers, and thinkers when they weave integrated reading and writing activities into their literacy instruction. --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)