"in an attempt to make students more aware of processing, we may have sometimes required students to name the strategies they are using. We do not see this practice as helpful. "Practicing" simple reading strategies such as "making inferences" or "calling visual images to mind" one skill at a time and labeling them can become an exercise that takes away from effective processing. In any reading lesson, even though our ultimate goal is to teach for effective processing strategies, we want to keep students actively thinking about the full meaning of the text rather than "practicing" a skill. A reader needs to engage a variety of complex strategic actions simultaneously to process a text well."This quote makes perfect sense, however it is not that simple. This statement makes me think of the book Reading with Meaning by Debbie Miller, where she talks about introducing the strategies used for effective processing through mini lessons and scaffolding control and use of the processing from the teacher to the students. This also makes sense. Vygotsky makes sense. I have always belived the statement that you have to make what invisisible visible to understand it. How much do you make students aware of these processes? How much new language and vocabulary do you require them to use? Fountas & Pinnell talk about practicing a skill vs having a natural conversation about the text. Are we trying to drill in too much vocabulary into our students and making reading boring and too complicated. Is it sucking the enjoyment out of reading? I am a firm believer that some students do not need explicit teaching of comprehension strategies. It slows them down and takes away from there natural flow. Some simple modeling and prompting works wonders when needed. How does this thinking effect reading teachers who try to break reading down for struggling readers in grades 2nd on up? Our ultimate goal is for students to be able to talk about, writing about and carry on a conversation about a text and apply to their own thinking, others thinking to their daily lives and enrich their lives. F&P's statement makes sense does it not?
I know there is a common ground here and we all know teaching anything completely in isolation is not effective, and reading is not a step by step process like math.
Let me know your thinking! Please remember that F&P go on to say and explain so much more in the book. I just want to hear from some different people and their thinking.
