[CALIBK12] More on reading

[Mary Ann Harlan]

* If students cannot read our content, we need to help them learn how to
read the content.*

I would agree with this.  However, we need to teach how to read different
content, different strategies to approaching different types of content.
And I am not sure how this works with creating life long readers because on
the surface it doesn't.  And I know that is overly simplistic.  Yesterday I
read "Online Literacy is a Lesser
Kind<http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i04/04b01001.htm>"
, and leaving aside the judgmental nature of the title, he makes some good
points that are similar to Doug's, particularly about the need for deep
reading - which is where many of us find pleasure in reading.  It is also
where many people and some of us (I'm thinking of Tom K.'s post) get turned
off to fiction - the expectation we read like English Lit majors.  I am not
a fan of the author but I recommend the article - its not horribly long
(4-5pages) and it is interesting if for no other reason that it illuminates
how people read web pages.
Since I asked the question - yes the medium matters.  I am just concerned
that we get hung up on one medium over another, and pass judgment on that
which we consider lesser, rather than assessing what the best medium is for
the purpose.
Meanwhile, and what really prompted this post is that the  *Teachers'
Strategy Guide - Reading in a Participatory Culture* came across by RSS
reader this a.m . and the book they use - Moby Dick which they refer to as
The Great (Unread) American Novel. (teehee).  It is from Project New Media
Literacies a research initiative based within MIT's Comparative Media
Studies <http://cms.mit.edu/> program.  Information and resources can be
found at http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/
It seemed tangentially relevant to this thread.
Oh and just for fun since I mentioned Moby Dick can I recommend MC Lars'
Ahab available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW76mvaaXEc

Mary Ann




On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Doug Achterman
<DAchterman at sbhsd.k12.ca.us>wrote:

>   I have been following this thread with interest, and MaryAnn's comments
> prompted other thoughts that connect with the entire debate about AR.
>
>
>
> MaryAnn said, "if there is pleasure in the information, does there have to
> be pleasure in the medium?  And how much do we approach the concept of
> people not finding reading pleasurable because of how we define reading
> early on?  For instance - as someone mentioned previously they enjoy audio
> books which is technically listening, but which *may* cause the same
> affective reaction that reading does."
>
>
>
> I think there is a natural tendency among educators—myself included-- to
> substitute other means of communication in place of reading to help low
> readers master content. While this may help students with that particular
> content, it works against the goal of creating lifelong readers. While using
> a variety of formats and media works well to supplement text, in K-12
> I think it's often a bad idea to use other media as a substitute. If
> students cannot read our content, we need to help them learn how to read the
> content.
>
>
>
> Students approach digital content differently than they do print. In fact,
> many students will not read more than a paragraph of text before they've
> hyperlinked elsewhere. I know that's not earth-shattering news, but what are
> the implications?
>
>
>
> This is where Dr. Krashen's mantra, "Amount counts," comes into play.
> Results of SSR studies are mixed, but the data on a few elements are pretty
> clear: SSR changes attitudes and behaviors. Because students have regular
> practice sitting still and reading long passages of text--text they have
> chosen to read by themselves--they develop positive attitudes toward this
> activity and the behavior becomes acceptable or even habitual. To me, these
> are paramount goals. I can see how AR might accomplish these, but as Dr.
> Krashen has stated, no study has broken out the testing component of that
> program to evaluate its impact on reading comprehension. Given the kinds of
> questions on the AR tests, I'm skeptical they're of any value in this
> regard. I would much rather spend that money to buy more high-interest
> materials for students in support of a school-wide SSR program.
>
>
>
> Teacher-librarians are uniquely positioned at school sites to observe
> literacy behaviors, raise questions, and lead staff toward effective
> strategies and approaches that make our students better readers in all
> formats. What are you doing at your site in this regard?
>
> Add your story about building literacy to the *California School Libraries
> Work!* site. Help strengthen the case that our school libraries make a
> difference. Go to http://caschoollibraries.pbwiki.com , request access to
> the wiki, and tell your story.
>
>
>
>  Doug Achterman
> San Benito High School
> 1220 Monterey St.
> Hollister, CA  95023
> dachterman at sbhsd.k12.ca.us
> http://www.sbhsd.k12.ca.us/sbhslib/library.htm
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* calibk12-bounces at lists.sjsu.edu on behalf of Mary Ann Harlan
> *Sent:* Wed 12/17/2008 11:02 AM
> *To:* mhofwriter at aol.com; Calibk12
> *Subject:* [CALIBK12] More on reading
>
> I was going to merely respond to Mary's last post directly to her but I had
> some other things to comment on so if the first paragraph is confusing go
> back to her response to me.
> I've been thinking about this quite a bit, and I agree that it is
> semantics, and that semantics are important.  I find this type of
> conversation frustrating on a list serv because I am quite interested in it,
> but it lacks fluidity however that is beside the point.  So here is the
> question - if there is pleasure in the information, does there have to be
> pleasure in the medium?  And how much do we approach the concept of people
> not finding reading pleasurable because of how we define reading early on?
> For instance - as someone mentioned previously they enjoy audio books which
> is technically listening, but which *may* cause the same affective
> reaction that reading does.  I think one of my earlier points was that in my
> anecdotal experiences students who say they hate reading often do so because
> of their semantic interpretation of reading, which is not mine. That being
> said, reading for pleasure in any form is not for everyone. (Gasp!  I know)
> I have never had a 100% success rate in turning reluctant, aliterate teens
> into avid readers.  Although I have success stories that warm my heart, and
> that surprise me, and that keep me active in trying to find that one right
> book that will turn that reader on.
> Which brings me to another point - which is to second Joy's recommendation
> of Quick Picks.  As a former committee member what struck me most about
> promoting QPs to my students is that I would begin the year with a cadre of
> strong reluctant readers who would say - I haven't finished a book since
> elementary school, I hate reading, etc.  By the end of the school year I
> would have to find new reluctant readers because the majority of the
> students I worked with were now "actually reading" - their term.  They were
> more avid readers, reading on their own nor for class, and searching for
> books for me to nominate for QPs.  It was a transformational experience in
> my understanding of teen's reading habits. QPs is constantly searching out
> high interest non-fiction, and not all of it is narrative.  We talked a lot
> about caption literacy, visual elements, and gateway books.
>
> --
> Mary Ann Harlan
> maryann.harlan at gmail.com
>



-- 
Mary Ann Harlan
maryann.harlan at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.sjsu.edu/pipermail/calibk12/attachments/20081218/acac3aa8/attachment.html