tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post3381765683677720837..comments2024-03-16T03:51:39.934-04:00Comments on Russ on Reading: Does Background Knowledge Matter to Reading Comprehension?Russ Walshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01999234982751919638noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-36480159838399280072013-05-24T13:12:36.047-04:002013-05-24T13:12:36.047-04:00Thank you for this post, Russ! We listen to oral c...Thank you for this post, Russ! We listen to oral communication IN CONTEXT, so why shouldn't we read written communication IN CONTEXT? I hope the so called new "common" "core" "standards" won't become common, core, or standards if they're going to proceed as you've so convincingly stated! Let's keep on fighting such malarkey! MamaSnuffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467698542999462423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-50709172124089779092013-05-22T13:42:51.214-04:002013-05-22T13:42:51.214-04:00Because of state and national mandates and the abs...Because of state and national mandates and the absurdity of "the testing" our children are having to endure, teachers are being forced to prepare students for all kinds of situations. These situations do not have to follow sound practice. The point of the test is to prove or disprove achievement. <br />Most teachers know the proper reading methods they just don't always get to use them. All to often non educators are deciding policy that is impacting the instruction and education of our children. <br />Thank you for your timely and well written article. Lois Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09302693361803384782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-39216982261343213902013-05-19T17:17:07.558-04:002013-05-19T17:17:07.558-04:00You, Heather, may not have seen anything in CCSS t...You, Heather, may not have seen anything in CCSS that explicitly says not to teach background materials, but as Russ says, the authors of the CCSS have repeatedly talked about "close reading" in crazy ways. Among other things, some of the authors started a Gates-funded non-profit that is supposed to develop lesson plans. Their close-reading lesson plans are pretty bad and do include instructions not to offer any background (http://literacyinleafstrewn.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-common-cores-supposed-emphasis-on.html). Worse, in my opinion, I have seen nothing in any Common Core materials that offers guidance on how to make sure students are actually reading more than the brief passages in the lesson plans. <br /><br />http://literacyinleafstrewn.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-common-cores-supposed-emphasis-on.htmlEChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14853888915441711738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-90629086129482483602013-05-19T14:44:25.219-04:002013-05-19T14:44:25.219-04:00As a social studies methods professor, I see these...As a social studies methods professor, I see these “close reading” activities invading the history classroom daily. The most unfortunate aspect of close reading from a history teacher’s standpoint, is that the strategy treats each piece of text as an isolated chunk of information devoid of context or connection. How does one read the “Gettysburg Address” or “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” without background knowledge or any attempt to weave in historical context? The notion that the author of any piece writes in a contextual vacuum is asinine, yet that’s how close reading activities treat each and every piece of text I’ve seen.<br /><br />Further, the literature on reading comprehension clearly states that prior knowledge is central to a students’ ability to comprehend text. Contextual clues are not always found within any single piece of text, but are often located in similar or related texts that students might come across at other points in time. To discourage students from making those connections is nothing less than throwing up a roadblock to comprehension. That may level the playing field, but only because it makes each student equally helpless in their attempts to understand an isolated and contextually devoid piece of text.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219857152231611706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-85687112871048550122013-05-19T13:53:48.505-04:002013-05-19T13:53:48.505-04:00Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of this C...Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of this CCSS dictum. Since reading requires the interaction of the reader with the text, it cannot be comprehended without the schemata required. As a teacher of English language learners, forced to align instruction with standards designed for monolingual English-speaking students who are assumed to have enrolled in kindergarten, the CCSS consigns ELLs to "the back of the bus" in myriad ways, and ensures that the "achievement gap" will only widen as the tests aligned with the new standards are implemented. Obviously, the writers of the CCSS have little knowledge of literacy development or of the intrinsic <br />challenges of acquiring second language literacy. The ethnocentrism that informs the CCSS is just one more aspect of its lack of a sound pedagogical research base.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-59718647790204897502013-05-19T13:52:00.341-04:002013-05-19T13:52:00.341-04:00Thank you for taking the time to read this and sha...Thank you for taking the time to read this and share your thinking. I wrote this because the authors of the CCSS have explicitly stated that students should read a text cold and struggle with the meaning. These statements are in the guidance they provide to teachers and has been made law in some states. Like you i want to support the professionalism of teachers and I am confident they will do the right thing.Russ Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01999234982751919638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-68663688130446352612013-05-19T13:38:40.794-04:002013-05-19T13:38:40.794-04:00Here is my take- First, I have not seen anything i...Here is my take- First, I have not seen anything in CCS that explicitly say NOT to supplement with background knowledge. Second, as PROFESSIONALS, teachers know how to teach their students. I know that some articles, yes my students will need background knowledge, and this other article, they won't. However, will they ever have to read something and not have much background knowledge about it? Yep. Therefore, as a professional, I know I need to teach ,y students how to make sense of a reading if they do not have much background knowledge of that topic. Furthermore, as a professional, I have also started having my students read an Article of the Week (from Kelly Gallagher) to build their background knowledge of current events.<br /><br />I really think that just because the CCS don't say something, that does NOT mean we ignore it. We are TEACHERS. We KNOW HOW to TEACH. Even if we are not told to do something. Playing into this notion that we won't do something because the freaking standards don't say it- that is just giving in to the stereotype that teachers are worthless and not professionals.Heatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07479095795525041519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-37473471825165049782013-05-19T11:57:02.117-04:002013-05-19T11:57:02.117-04:00Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of forcin...Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of forcing "students to rely exclusively on the text." To begin with, that's an impossible demand - it's exactly like asking someone to not think about an elephant.<br /><br />If it were possible, however, it most certainly would level the playing field - we'd all be illiterate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-83216167515042055462013-05-14T19:35:02.138-04:002013-05-14T19:35:02.138-04:00Thanks, Mickey. Good to hear from you.Thanks, Mickey. Good to hear from you.Russ Walshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01999234982751919638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4444387311759844041.post-83214616274841009232013-05-14T18:30:37.963-04:002013-05-14T18:30:37.963-04:00Well said, good sir!Well said, good sir!Mickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17625971301107415110noreply@blogger.com