Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h59DCgC18857; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:12:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <01a701c32e88$b7c86760$8bcdc418@pavilion> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Amy Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2350] Re: please advise X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 5306 Lines: 115 Last week the EFF Reading Project (EFFRP) development team was meeting in Louisville during the great discussion the list was having on reading. Our work relates to some of the points and questions folks were bringing up, so Meta invited the team to share our thinking. Here's a quickish synopsis. The EFFRP is drawing on the balanced approach to reading instruction that George mentioned and which is so richly evident in the work of Purcell-Gates. Two K-12 reading experts that we have also found informative are David Pearson, whom George mentioned, and Michael Pressley, who has done exceptional work and research with teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies to enhance reading comprehension. First of all, a note on the concept of balance: there is a growing understanding in (some parts of) the field that an "ecologically balanced" approach is a more effective metaphor of balance than one that uses the image of a fulcrum, positioning holistic learning opportunities and skills instruction as two opposing forces to be equalized. Pearson explains that the term *ecologically balanced* "suggests a symbiotic relationship among elements within a coordinated system. It is precisely this symbiotic potential of authentic activity and explicit instruction that I want to promote by using the term, balance." The EFFRP advocates this ecologically balanced approach through its emphasis on purposeful and contextualized reading instruction--that is, reading instruction that begins with the authentic reading purposes of learners and develops lessons on the key knowledge, skills, and strategies (related to alphabetics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension but also other things) within those contexts. Using the Read With Understanding standard and reading research to guide reading instruction, this balanced approach surfaces as one that makes a lot of sense. The first component of the standard reads, "Determine the reading purpose," and the rest of the components address the comprehension monitoring, fix-up, analytical, and integrative strategies that might be called upon to read for *that particular purpose*. Skilled readers have a bank of knowledge and strategies to pull from for maximum flexibility in meeting varied purposes for reading with different kinds of texts on a variety of subjects. As teachers, our task is to support adult learners in building their bank of strategies by 1) explicit instruction in the knowledge and strategies learners need and are ready for, through (as opposed to *and*) 2) lots of opportunities to read for (their) real purposes. So, when Meta (piggybacking off Rhonda Stone's posting) asks if our "discoveries lend themselves to auditory processing alone", the answer is no. Careful reading of the two research synthesis reports we use--Kruidenier's Research-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education Reading Instruction and its predecessor for K-12, the National Reading Panel report--suggest that they don't either. The comprehension sections emphasize the cognitive and metacognitive activity that skilled readers engage in and which requires instruction for a large segment of readers. This indicates more than an assumption that if you can just "get the words" you'll be a good reader. That said, the evidence is also strong that instruction in alphabetics and word analysis *is* important for many adult readers, as is instruction in fluency and vocabulary. What using the RWU standard offers is a way of bringing these "pieces" of reading together in a way that shows the interplay among all the pieces in getting meaning from and bringing meaning to text. It is the connecting piece between something as "small" as phonemic awareness and something as "large" as reading to accomplish my responsibilities as an adult. This is just a quick and general summary of where our thinking is, so feel free to follow-up either on or off the list if you'd like to probe a little more. If you are interested in more information about the EFF Reading Project, you may want to check out the website at http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/family/eff/effrp.html. Thanks much, Amy R. Trawick Coordinator, Equipped for the Future Reading Project North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 336-667-1910 atrawick@charter.net ---- Original Message ----- From: <MWPotts2001@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:18 PM Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2337] Re: please advise > > In a message dated 6/4/03 3:32:16 PM, RSStone74@aol.com writes: > > << I keep looking for that open door for dialogue and haven't found it yet. > Any suggestions? > > >> > > OK, List Members, can you help with this? What about the folks who have been > doing field work with the Read With Understanding Standard? Do your > discoveries lend themselves to auditory processing alone? > > And who can help us define more closely the three phases of the reading > process-- > 1. Before reading > 2. During Reading > 3. After Reading > > And I would like to ask Rhonda, *What has your work revealed about the person > who lacks intrinsic motivations to engage in reading? * > > Thanks for a most interesting post. > > Meta Potts, 4-EFF List Moderator > FOCUS on Literacy > Glen Allen, VA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:39 EST