新儿教

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区


搜索
热搜: 儿童 教育 英语
查看: 7541|回复: 10

【转帖】为什么长期自主阅读不能提高阅读水平?

[复制链接]
发表于 2013-4-27 21:39:53 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn’t Work

June 25th, 2011 | Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist


O.K. So my title is a good hook. I’m an ELAEnglish Language Art teacher, so you’d expect no less. However, I’m also an MA reading specialist, so you’d expect me to be passionate about getting students to read and read well. I do believe that independent reading is vital to reading improvement. So why am I writing an article titled Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn’t Work?
First, let’s get on the same page about what most of us mean when we talk about SSR. SSR does have a variety of pseudonyms: FVR (Free Voluntary Reading, DEAR (Drop Everything And Read); DIRT (Daily Individual Reading Time);SQUIRT (Sustained Quiet Un-Interrupted Reading Time), WEB (We Enjoy Books), and USSR (uninterrupted sustained silent reading). I’m sure there are more. Essentially, SSR is based upon these assumptions:
  • Reading is a skill which improves with practice.
  • Students should be allowed to select their own books to read.
  • SSR should not include instructional accountability.
  • SSR is best accomplished within the classroom with the teacher as a silent reading model.
Now, of course, not every teacher implements the program in the same way; however, even with teacher tweaks, SSR just is not an effective use of class time. Why so? Here are 8 reasons Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn’t Work.
1. Reading Research Does Not Support SSR
According to the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), the experimental design studies on SSR indicate no statistically or educationally significant differences between those students who do SSR and those students who do not. Now, to be fair, the reading research does not invalidate SSR. There are just too many variables to isolate and no teacher would ever agree to participate in a study in which a control group of students was not allowed to read.
Some educational researchers have criticized the findings of the National Reading Panel, arguing that long term correlational studies do suggest that students doing SSR gain more in reading than those who do not. However, correlation does not imply causation.
My take regarding reading research is that we should prioritize our instruction to focus on the instructional strategies that both experimental design and correlational studies support. In other words, let’s teach what works for sure. To devote significant class time to an instructional strategy with a questionable research base shouldgive educators pause, especially when there is an alternative which achieves better results than SSR advocates purport to achieve.
2. There is Not Enough Class Time for SSR
There just are not enough minutes in the day to achieve the results desired by proponents of SSR. For example, to achieve year to year vocabulary growth, elementary students need to read a minimum of one million pages; secondary students need to read a minimum of two million pages. Do the math. Many secondary teachers only have four hours of class time per week. No conscientious secondary teacher would allot half of instructional time to SSR. True that many students read in other content classes and some outside of school, but also true that with normal instructional interruptions there are many weeks with less than four hours of class time. In other words, an hour of SSR per week is just not going to make much of a dent in the amount of independent reading that students need to achieve significant reading growth. The “some is better than none” response is just not acceptable.
Additionally, all instruction is reductive: teachers cannot add on without taking away. Should elementary teachers give up teaching science or social studies to add on SSR? Of course not. Furthermore, with the increasing rigor of the language and writing strands of the ELA/Reading Common Core State Standards, both elementary and secondary teachers will be hard-pressed to teach the grade level standards and differentiate instruction as mandated.
3. Free Choice Reading in SSR Does Not Maximize Reading Development
Free choice reading is an essential tenet of SSR proponents. However motivating self-selected reading may be, there are significant downsides. Students often choose books with reading levels far below or far above owntheir reading levels and so do not experience optimal reading growth. Most reading experts suggest a 95-98% word recognition level as being necessary for comprehensible input and vocabulary acquisition. To be crass, allowing students to choose their own reading material, without any guidance, lets the lunatics be in charge of the asylum.
4. SSR is NotTeaching
Yes, incidental learning does take place when students are in engaged in SSR. Some SSR advocates go so far as to claim that “Free reading appears to be the source of much of our reading ability, our writing style, much of our vocabulary knowledge, our spelling ability, and our ability to handle complex grammatical constructions (Krashen, 1993; Elley, 1991, 1998).
However, having a credentialed teacher model silent reading while 36 students choose to read or not read independently does not avail students of that teacher’s expertise. It’s not a question of which is better: a teacher-centered or student centered classroom. It’s an issue of educational priorities, efficiency, and effectiveness. SSR devolves the responsibilities and applications of reading strategies, comprehension or vocabulary development, and literary analysis to children. I’m not saying a teacher should exclusively assume the role of “sage on the stage,” but a “guide on the side,” should guide, not merely model.
Additionally, SSR is not appropriate for all students. SSR does not magically differentiate instruction. For example, some students (even secondary learners) need oral fluency practice, not independent silent reading. Other students already read extensively at home and do not need more independent reading time.
5. SSR Does Not Hold Students Accountable for Reading
Reading researchers Von Sprecken and Krashen concluded that children were more likely to read during SSR when certain conditions were in place: When there was access to interesting reading in the classroom and students are not required to bring their own reading material, when teachers read while students are reading, and when teachers made efforts to promote and discuss certain books the researchers found that 90% of students were reading. Even in a class in which none of these conditions were met, however, Debra Von Sprecken and Stephen Krashen found that 80%of the students were reading when observed. (California Reader,1998, 32(1): 11-13) Not many teachers I know would be satisfied with a classroom instructional strategy in which from 4to 9 of their 36 students (10-20%) did not participate.
It is true that many teachers “band-aid” this component of SSR and both the International Reading Association and important reading researchers part ways with SSR purists with regard to accountability. For example, Fountas and Pinnell suggest keeping records on student reading (2001). Nancy Atwell’s Reading Workshop includes the following: “monitoring the type and the number of books students read; they may also administer assessments, keep reading checklists, and ask questions or encourage student discussion about books.” (Atwell, 2007; Gambrell, 2007; Reutzel, Jones, Fawson, & Smith,2008). Manning and Manning (1984) found that coupling SSR with peer discussions or teacher conferences led to improvements in reading achievement compared to a control group.” But these “band aids” avoid the fact that SSR necessitates such tweaking to even approach meaningful reading instruction.
6. SSR Provides No Opportunity for Reader Response
SSR is designed as a solitary activity. It is true that we want to equip our students to learn the discipline and enjoyment of the author-reader interaction. However, the simplistic notion that reading makes better readers ignores the fact that better reading makes even better readers. Reader response is critically important to making students better readers.
Students can be trained to become better monitors of their silent reading. Teacher think-alouds, reading journals, and comprehension starters such as the SCRIP comprehension strategies can encourage self-monitoring of reading text. SSR ignores the reading-writing connection. Plot diagrams, character webs, and comprehension questions aren’t just for teaching class novels. Narrative and essay response the same. The social context of reading development to build vocabulary and comprehension has been well-established both in research and practice. Social engagement increases reading motivation and accountability. Classroom reading discussions, literature circles, readers theater, book clubs, book reviews, and online discussion forums can be powerful motivators to encourage wide and thoughtful reading. Now for teachers thinking, “But we can have our cake and eat it, too” with SSR and Reader Response, I kindly suggest leaving the hypothetical and engaging the practical. See #2 above.
7. SSR Turns Recreational Reading into a School Thing
SSR advocates are keen on stressing how SSR is essential at their school because students do not have optimal environmental reading conditions at home or a lack of engaging books to choose from, or the distractions of video games-cell phones-family, et al. However, the fact that SSR in the classroom removes these distractions (highly debatable) sends a message and provides reading habits that require a structured school environment for independent reading. No teacher that I know takes the Free Voluntary Reading to mean “you can read if you want or not if you don’t want to,” whether the teacher enforces accountability procedures or not. Let’s face it. SSR is coercive and required in a contrived setting - hardly the conditions that will transfer to recreational reading out of the classroom. If our end goal is to get students to become lifelong independent readers outside of the school experience, shouldn’t we teachers work toward that end?
8. SSR Gives Up on Students, Peers, and Parents
To work toward the complementary goals of using class time to provide research-based reading instruction (#1, #4, #6) and assigning significant independent reading practice (#2, #3, #5,#7), I advocate abandoning classroom SSR and assigning independent reading as homework. “But they won’t do it. Students will not read for homework.” I have a different view and experience. Students will do independent reading as homework if a motivated teacher provides the leadership, appropriate carrots and sticks, gets parents to buy-in, and has the perseverance to ensure success.
Independent Reading Text Selection
Students choose any reading text that meets these criteria:
The motivational component of self-selection remains, but with appropriate oversight to ensure optimal reader-novel matches.
Independent Reading Accountability
But, how can teachers get students to read at home? How can teachers ensure that students really are reading? I require thirty minutes of reading and three minutes of discussion, four times per week. Student reading is monitored by reading partners, who also grade the quality of the student-led reading discussion. Parents typically serve as these partners. Of course, guardians, child care workers, grandparents, and older siblings can serve just as well. For older students, peer partners can certainly fulfill that role. Discussion partners grade the quality of each daily reading discussion, then total the points and sign the Reading-Discussion Log. I collect and record these logs bi-weekly and count this homework as 15% of the student’s overall grade. Do kids or discussion partners cheat on this? Rarely… and not as much as teachers might think.
Advantages of This Model
This reading-discussion model builds relationships, reinforces internal monitoring of comprehension, promotes reading as a dynamic process of conversation among reader, peers, and author, and motivates readers to read more. Reinforcement and feedback is immediate, not delayed as in the case other reader response assignments such as dialectical journals turned in at the end of each week or book reports completed after a novel has been finished. Students are required to apply the reading strategies we learn and practice in the classroom. For example, I pass out reading strategy bookmarks that that help students frame, but not limit, their book discussions.
What Kind of Results Can Teachers Get?
I get similar participation rates 80-90% (compared to the Von Sprecken, Krashen research) at my lower-middle, 70% free and reduced lunch, middle school, but remember that’s for homework, not for class work. I would guess that the few students who do not do the independent reading at home would be the same ones that would not do the SSR in the Von Sprecken, Krashen study. Both parents and students love my “only homework is reading” policy. Some of my students prefer to participate in online book clubs in lieu of the parental discussion. I require a daily posting and response to other book discussion colleagues. Hunger Games was big with my students this year. Of course, I get to eavesdrop on their discussions.
My results are a bit less than Book Whisperer, Donalyn Miller, achieves in terms of books read per year, but I’ve got a lot more time in class to teach other things I value because I don’t use SSR in my classroom.
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-4-28 14:55:59 | 显示全部楼层
哇,英文的长篇大论,希望有心情的时候仔细看看 。自主阅读不是所有的孩子都可以真正悟出文章中的精华的,很多铺垫很容易让孩子一掠而过,到最后不明白为什么是这样的一个结果,语文的学习还是需要优秀的教师来引导的,只有引导孩子关注细节和重点之后,孩子才能真正悟出作者的苦心以及人物结局的产生过程。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-4-28 15:07:34 | 显示全部楼层
为什么不起作用持续默读(SSR)

June 25th, 2011 | Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist 2011年6月25日马克·彭宁顿MA读专科



OK So my title is a good hook. OK,所以我的标题是一个很好的钩。 I'm an ELA【English LanguageArt】 teacher, so you'd expect no less. 我ELA【英文LanguageArt】老师,所以你期待毫不逊色。 However, I'm also an MA reading specialist, so you'd expect me to be passionate about getting students to read and read well. 不过,我也MA阅读专家,所以你指望我热衷于让学生读,读好。 I do believe that independent reading is vital to reading improvement. 我相信独立阅读阅读改善是至关重要的。 So why am I writing an article titled Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn't Work? 那么,为什么我写了一篇文章,标题为“ 为什么持续默读(SSR)不起作用?
First, let's get on the same page about what most of us mean when we talk about SSR. SSR does havea variety of pseudonyms: FVR (Free Voluntary Reading, DEAR(Drop Everything And Read); DIRT (Daily Individual Reading Time);SQUIRT (Sustained Quiet Un-Interrupted Reading Time), WEB (We Enjoy Books), and USSR (uninterrupted sustained silent reading). I'm sure there are more. Essentially, SSR is based upon these assumptions: 首先,让我们的得到我们大多数人的意思我们谈论约SSR时在同一页上。SSR做这片各种假名:FVR(自愿免费阅读,亲爱(跌落的一切阅读);污垢(每日个人阅读时间); SQUIRT (安静联合国持续打断阅读时间),WEB(我们享受书籍),苏联(不间断持续默读)。我敢肯定,还有更多的, 从本质上讲,SSR是基于这些假设:

Reading is a skill which improveswith practice. 阅读是技能哪个improveswith实践。
Students should be allowed toselect their own books to read. 应该允许学生toselect自己的书来读。
SSR should not includeinstructional accountability. SSR不应该问责includeinstructional。
SSR is best accomplished withinthe classroom with the teacher as a silent readingmodel. SSR是最好的老师作为一种无声的readingmodel的教室完成withinthe。
Now, of course, not every teacher implements the program in the same way; however, even with teacher tweaks, SSR just is not an effective use of class time. Why so? Here are 8 reasons Why Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) Doesn'tWork. 现在,当然,不是每一位教师实现程序以同样的方式,然而,即使教师调整,SSR只是不能有效利用课堂时间,为什么会这样呢? 这里有8个原因持续默读(SSR)不' T工作。
1. 1。 Reading Research DoesNot Support SSR 阅读研究亘古不变的支持SSR
According to the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), the experimental design studies on SSR indicate no statistically or educationally significant differences between those students who do SSR and thosestudents who do not. 根据到国民阅读面板 (2000)的报告 ,SSR实验设计研究表明那些学生之间谁做SSR和thosestudents的谁不无统计学或教育显着差异。 Now, to be fair, the reading research does notinvalidate SSR. 现在,为了公平起见,阅读研究确实SSR notinvalidate。 There are just too many variables to isolate and noteacher would ever agree to participate in a study in which acontrol group of students was not allowed to read. 有太多的变数,隔离和noteacher会同意参加一项研究中,学生acontrol组读不准。
Some educational researchers have criticized the findings of theNational Reading Panel, arguing that long term correlationalstudies do suggest that students doing SSR gain more in readingthan those who do not. 一些教育研究者们批评调查结果阅读小组theNational,争论,长期correlationalstudies的不建议做SSR的学生获得更多的在readingthan那些谁不。 However, correlation does not implycausation. 然而,相关不implycausation的。
My take regarding reading research is that we should prioritizeour instruction to focus on the instructional strategies that bothexperimental design and correlational studies support. 我采取的有关阅读研究是,我们应该prioritizeour指令专注于教学策略,bothexperimental设计和相关性研究的支持。 In otherwords, let's teach what works for sure. To devote significant class time toan instructional strategy with a questionable research base shouldgive educators pause , especially when there isan alternative which achieves better results than SSRadvocates purport to achieve . 换句话说, 让我们教什么工作肯定 要投入大量的课堂时间TOAN教学策略与一个可疑的的研究基地shouldgive教育停顿 , 尤其是当有的ISAN替代达到更好的结果比SSRadvocates旨在实现 。
2. 2。 There is Not EnoughClass Time for SSR 是不是有SSR EnoughClass时间
There just are not enoughminutes in the day to achieve the results desired byproponents of SSR. For example, toachieve year to year vocabulary growth, elementary students need toread a minimum of one million pages; secondary students need toread a minimum of two million pages. Do the math. 只是有没有enoughminutes在一天所需的SSR byproponents的达到预期的效果。 例如,toachieve的一年到一年词汇增长,小学生需要探路者最低100万页,中学生需要最低的探路者200万页。算算。 Manysecondary teachers only have four hours of class time per week. 只有Manysecondary教师上课时间每周四小时。 Noconscientious secondary teacher would allot half of instructionaltime to SSR. Noconscientious中学教师配发一半instructionaltime的SSR。 True that many students read in other content classesand some outside of school, but also true that with normalinstructional interruptions there are many weeks with less thanfour hours of class time. 的确,许多学生阅读其他内容classesand一些学校以外的,也真正,与normalinstructional中断4家少小时的上课时间有很多周。 In other words, an hour of SSRper week is just not going to make much of a dent in theamount of independent reading that students need to achievesignificant reading growth. 换句话说, 一个小时的SSRper周刚不会在theamount独立阅读,学生需要阅读achievesignificant增长做出很大的改变 。 The “some is better than none” responseis just not acceptable. “有些是更好的比没有”responseis只是不能接受。
Additionally, all instruction is reductive: teachers cannot addon without taking away. 此外,所有的指令还原:教师不能插件没有带走。 Should elementary teachers give up teachingscience or social studies to add on SSR? 小学教师应该放弃teachingscience或社会的研究,以增加对SSR? Of course not.Furthermore, with the increasing rigor of the language and writingstrands of the ELA/Reading Common Core State Standards , both elementary andsecondary teachers will be hard-pressed to teach the grade levelstandards and differentiate instruction as mandated. 当然,与日益严格的共同核心州立标准英文/语言和writingstrands,not.Furthermore两个基本的andsecondary教师将捉襟见肘教授级levelstandards和分化的指令所规定的。
3. 3。 Free Choice Reading inSSR Does Not Maximize Reading Development 阅读发展自由选择阅读inSSR的不能最大化
Free choice reading is an essential tenet of SSR proponents.However motivating self-selected reading may be, there are significant downsides . 自由选择阅读的SSR proponents.However;激励自我选择的读数可能是一个重要的宗旨, 也有明显的缺点 。 Studentsoften choose books with reading levels far below or far above owntheir reading levels and so do not experience optimal readinggrowth. Studentsoften选择书籍的阅读水平远低于或远高于owntheir阅读水平,所以不遇到readinggrowth最佳。 Most reading experts suggest a 95-98% word recognitionlevel as being necessary for comprehensible input and vocabularyacquisition. 大多数阅读专家建议95-98%的字recognitionlevel作为所需的可理解性输入和vocabularyacquisition。 To be crass, allowing students to choose their ownreading material, without any guidance, lets the lunaticsbe in charge of the asylum . 粗鲁,让学生选择其ownreading材料,没有任何指导, 让负责的庇护lunaticsbe。
4. 4。 SSR is NotTeaching SSR NotTeaching的
Yes, incidental learning does take place when students are inengaged in SSR. 是的,偶然的学习确实发生,当学生们在SSR inengaged的。 Some SSR advocates go so far as to claim that “Freereading appears to be the source of much of our reading ability,our writing style, much of our vocabulary knowledge, our spellingability, and our ability to handle complex grammaticalconstructions (Krashen, 1993; Elley, 1991, 1998). 有些SSR倡导者走那么远,宣称“Freereading的似乎是我们的阅读能力,我们的写作风格,多源多词汇知识,我们spellingability,和我们有能力处理复杂的grammaticalconstructions(Krashen的,1993年;雅利德华,1991年,1998年)。
However, having a credentialed teacher model silent readingwhile 36 students choose to read or not read independently does not avail students of thatteacher's expertise. It's not a question of which is better:a teacher-centered or student centered classroom. It's anissue of educational priorities , efficiency, andeffectiveness. 然而,经有资格的教师模型沉默readingwhile 36学生选择读或不读独立不利用thatteacher的专长的学生。它不是一个,这是更好的问题:一个老师,为本或学生为本教室。 这anissue教育优先 ,效率,andeffectiveness。 SSR devolves the responsibilities and applicationsof reading strategies, comprehension or vocabulary development, andliterary analysis to children. SSR下放的职责和applicationsof阅读策略,理解或词汇发展,andliterary的分析,以儿童。 I'm not saying a teacher shouldexclusively assume the role of “sage on the stage,” but a“guide on the side,” should guide , not merelymodel. 我并不是说一个老师shouldexclusively承担的角色在舞台上的“圣人”, 但,“指南就在身边,”应该引导 ,而不是merelymodel。
Additionally, SSR is notappropriate for all students. SSR does not magicallydifferentiate instruction. 此外,SSR是面向全体学生notappropriate。,,SSR没有magicallydifferentiate指令。 For example, some students (evensecondary learners) need oral fluency practice, not independentsilent reading. 例如,一些的学生(evensecondary学习者)口语流利性的做法,不independentsilent的阅读需要。 Other students already read extensively at home anddo not need more independent reading time. 其他学生已经不在家努力挖掘自己已有广泛阅读需要更多的独立阅读时间。
5. 5。 SSR Does Not HoldStudents Accountable for Reading SSR没有HoldStudents的问责阅读
Reading researchers Von Sprecken and Krashen concluded thatchildren were more likely to read during SSR when certainconditions were in place: When there was access to interestingreading in the classroom and students are not required to bringtheir own reading material, when teachers read while students arereading, and when teachers made efforts to promote and discusscertain books the researchers found that 90% of students werereading. 研究人员阅读冯Sprecken Krashen的总结thatchildren更容易阅读在SSR当certainconditions到位的:当有访问interestingreading的在课堂上和学生自己的阅读材料不需要bringtheir,当教师阅读,而学生arereading的,当教师努力促进和discusscertain书的研究人员发现,90%的学生werereading。 Even in a class in which none of these conditions weremet, however, Debra Von Sprecken and Stephen Krashen found that 80%of the students were reading when observed. 然而,在没有这些条件weremet的,即使在一个类黛布拉·冯·Sprecken和Stephen Krashen的发现,80%的学生看书时观察。 (California Reader,1998, 32(1): 11-13) Not many teachers I know would besatisfied with a classroom instructional strategy in which from 4to 9 of their 36 students (10-20%) did notparticipate. (加州读卡器,1998,32(1):11-13) 我知道许多教师的课堂教学策略,即他们的36名学生从4到9(10-20%)notparticipate besatisfied。
It is true that many teachers “band-aid” this component of SSR and boththe International Reading Association and important readingresearchers part ways with SSR purists with regard toaccountability. 这是事实,许多教师“乐队援助”SSR和boththe 国际阅读协会和重要readingresearchers的部分SSR较真的方面toaccountability的方式与这部分。 For example, Fountas and Pinnell suggest keepingrecords on student reading (2001). 例如,丰塔斯和Pinnell建议keepingrecords的学生阅读(2001)。 Nancy Atwell's Reading Workshopincludes the following: “monitoring the type and the number ofbooks students read; they may also administer assessments, keepreading checklists, and ask questions or encourage studentdiscussion about books.” (Atwell, 2007; Gambrell, 2007; Reutzel,Jones, Fawson, & Smith,2008). Manning and Manning (1984) found thatcoupling SSR with peer discussions orteacher conferences led to improvements in readingachievement compared to a controlgroup.” But these “band aids” avoid thefact that SSR necessitates such tweaking to even approachmeaningful reading instruction. 南希艾特威尔的阅读Workshopincludes以下内容:“监控的类型和数字ofbooks学生阅读;他们也可以管理评估,keepreading清单,并问问题或鼓励studentdiscussion有关书籍。”(2007年艾特威尔,Gambrell 2007 Reutzel琼斯,曼宁和曼宁(1984)发现,Fawson和史密斯,2008)。thatcoupling SSR同行的讨论orteacher会议改善readingachievement到controlgroup相比。“ 但是,这些”带艾滋病“避免thefact的SSR必须调整甚至approachmeaningful阅读指令。
6. 6。 SSR Provides NoOpportunity for Reader Response SSR提供读者反馈NoOpportunity
SSR is designed as a solitary activity. SSR被设计成一个孤立的活动。 It is true that we wantto equip our students to learn the discipline and enjoyment of theauthor-reader interaction. However, the simplistic notion thatreading makes better readers ignores the fact that better reading makes even better readers. Reader response is critically important to makingstudents better readers. 这是事实,我们想掌握我们的学生学习纪律和享受的theauthor读者互动,然而,简单化的观念thatreading更好的读者忽略了一个事实 阅读器的响应是非常重要的到makingstudents 更好的读者 更好的阅读,使读者甚至更好 。 。
Students can be trained to become better monitors of theirsilent reading. 可以训练学生成为更好的显示器的theirsilent阅读。 Teacher think-alouds , reading journals, and comprehension starters suchas the SCRIP comprehension strategies can encourage self-monitoring ofreading text. 教师认为-alouds ,阅读期刊,理解起动诸如以股代息的理解策略可以鼓励自我监测ofreading的文字。 SSR ignores the reading-writing connection . SSR忽略的读写连接 。 Plot diagrams, character webs, andcomprehension questions aren't just for teaching class novels.Narrative and essay response the same. 剧情图,性格网,andcomprehension问题不只是教学类novels.Narrative和作文一样的响应。 The social context ofreading development to build vocabulary and comprehension has beenwell-established both in research and practice. 的的社会背景ofreading发展建立词汇和理解beenwell建立在研究和实践。 Social engagementincreases reading motivation and accountability. 社会engagementincreases阅读动机和问责制。 Classroom readingdiscussions, literature circles, readers theater, book clubs, bookreviews, and online discussion forums can be powerful motivators toencourage wide and thoughtful reading. 的课堂readingdiscussions,文艺界,读者剧场,图书俱乐部,bookreviews,以及在线讨论论坛可以有力的激励因素鼓励着广泛和周到的阅读。 Now for teachers thinking,“But we can have our cake and eat it, too” with SSR and ReaderResponse, I kindly suggest leaving the hypothetical and engagingthe practical. 现在教师的思维,“但我们可以有我们的蛋糕和吃它,太”SSR和ReaderResponse,我好心建议离开假设engagingthe的实际。 See #2 above. 见上面的#2。
7. 7。 SSR Turns RecreationalReading into a School Thing SSR打开到一个学校的事情RecreationalReading
SSR advocates are keen on stressing how SSR is essential attheir school because students do not have optimal environmentalreading conditions at home or a lack of engaging books to choosefrom, or the distractions of video games-cell phones-family, et al.However, the fact that SSR in the classroom removes thesedistractions (highly debatable) sends a message and providesreading habits that require a structured school environment forindependent reading. SSR倡导者是热衷于强调如何的SSR是必不可少的attheir学校因为学生没有最佳的environmentalreading条件在家里还是一个缺乏从事书籍choosefrom的,或分心的视频游戏手机的家庭,等al.However的,事实上在课堂上,SSR删除thesedistractions极具争议发送消息和providesreading的的习惯,需要一个结构化的学校环境forindependent阅读。 No teacher that I know takes the FreeVoluntary Reading to mean “you can read if you want or not if youdon't want to,” whether the teacher enforces accountabilityprocedures or not. 没有老师,我知道需要的FreeVoluntary读的意思是“你可以阅读,如果你想要或不是,如果你不想要,”教师是否强制accountabilityprocedures,或不。 Let's face it. 让我们面对现实吧。 SSR is coercive and required in acontrived setting—hardly the conditions that will transfer torecreational reading out of the classroom. SSR是强制性的,并要求在设置几乎acontrived条件,走出了教室中转移torecreational阅读。 If our end goal is toget students to become lifelong independent readers outside of theschool experience, shouldn't we teachers work toward that end? 如果我们的最终目标是toget学生成为终身独立的读者以外的theschool经验的,我们不应该为此教师努力?
8. 8。 SSR Gives Up onStudents, Peers, and Parents SSR给人的onStudents,同伴和家长
To work toward the complementary goals of using class time toprovide research-based reading instruction (#1, #4, #6) andassigning significant independent reading practice (#2, #3, #5,#7), I advocate abandoning classroom SSR and assigning independentreading as homework. 要努力利用上课的时间提供紧固以研究为基础的阅读教学(#1,#4,#6)andassigning显著独立阅读练习(#2,#3,#5,#7)的互补目标,我主张放弃教室SSR和分配功课independentreading作为。 “But they won't do it. “但他们没有这样做。 Students will not readfor homework.” I have a different view and experience. 学生不会readfor功课。“我有不同的看法和经验。 Studentswill do independent reading as homework if a motivated teacherprovides the leadership, appropriate carrots and sticks, getsparents to buy-in, and has the perseverance to ensure success. 做Studentswill独立阅读作为一个积极teacherprovides的领导下,适当的胡萝卜和大棒,getsparents功课买的,有毅力,以确保成功。
Independent Reading TextSelection 独立阅读TextSelection
Students choose any reading text that meets these criteria: 学生选择任何符合这些标准的阅读文本:

The text must be anovel. 该文本必须是看的小说。
The text must be at thestudent’s instructional/independent readinglevel. 该文本必须在thestudent 指导/独立readinglevel的。
The text must be parent andteacher-approved. 该文本必须是母公司批准andteacher。
The texts must vary ingenres. 文字必须变化ingenres。
The motivational component of self-selection remains,but with appropriate oversight to ensure optimal reader-novelmatches. 自我选择的动机成分仍然存在,但适当的监督,以确保最佳的读者novelmatches。
Independent ReadingAccountability 独立ReadingAccountability
But, how can teachers get students to read at home? 但是,教师怎样才能让学生在家里阅读? How canteachers ensure that students really arereading? I require thirty minutes of reading andthree minutes of discussion, four times per week. canteachers如何确保学生真正arereading?我需要30分钟的阅读andthree分钟的讨论,每周四次。 Student readingis monitored by reading partners, who also grade the quality of thestudent-led reading discussion. 学生的监测readingis阅读伙伴,谁也档次质量thestudent LED阅读讨论。 Parents typically serve as thesepartners. 家长作为thesepartners。 Of course, guardians, child care workers, grandparents,and older siblings can serve just as well. 当然,可以作为监护人,儿童保健工作者,祖父母,和哥哥姐姐一样好。 For older students, peerpartners can certainly fulfill thatrole. Discussion partners grade the quality ofeach daily reading discussion, then total the points and sign theReading-Discussion Log. 对于高年级的学生,peerpartners肯定能满足thatrole级质量ofeach每天阅读讨论,然后总点讨论伙伴,并签署theReading讨论日志。 I collect and record these logs bi-weeklyand count this homework as 15% of the student's overall grade. Do kids or discussion partners cheaton this? Rarely… and not as much as teachers mightthink. 本人收集并记录这些日志双向weeklyand的学生的整体成绩的15%算上这功课。, 做孩子或合作伙伴讨论这个cheaton?很少,而不是尽可能多的为教师mightthink。
Advantages of ThisModel ThisModel的优点
This reading-discussion model builds relationships, reinforcesinternal monitoring of comprehension, promotes reading as a dynamicprocess of conversation among reader, peers, and author, andmotivates readers to read more. 这个读数讨论模型建立关系,理解监测reinforcesinternal,,促进阅读读者之间的谈话一个dynamicprocess的同龄人,和作者,读者andmotivates阅读更多。 Reinforcement and feedback isimmediate, not delayed as in the case other reader responseassignments such as dialectical journals turned in at the end ofeach week or book reports completed after a novel has beenfinished. 加固的反馈isimmediate,不延误的情况下如在年底的周ofeach或读书报告完成一个小说有beenfinished的后转身辩证期刊其他读者responseassignments的。 Students are required to apply the reading strategies welearn and practice in the classroom. 在课堂上,学生都需要申请的的阅读策略welearn和实践。 For example, I pass outreading strategy bookmarks that that help students frame, but notlimit, their book discussions. 例如,我通过outreading战略书签,帮助学生帧,但notlimit,其账面讨论。
What Kind of Results CanTeachers Get? 什么样的结果CanTeachers获取?
I get similar participation rates 80-90% (compared to the VonSprecken, Krashen research) at my lower-middle, 70% free andreduced lunch, middle school, but remember that's for homework, notfor classwork. 我得到类似的参与率80%-90%(相比的VonSprecken,Krashen的研究),但请记住我的中等偏下,70%的免费的andreduced午餐,初中功课,notfor课堂。 I would guess that the few students who do not dothe independent reading at home would be the same ones that wouldnot do the SSR in the Von Sprecken, Krashen study. 我猜想,几个学生,谁不在家阅读dothe独立将是相同的wouldnot SSR在冯Sprecken的,Krashen的研究。 Both parents andstudents love my “only homework is reading” policy. 父母双方andstudents的爱我的“唯一的功课是阅读”的政策。 Some of mystudents prefer to participate in online book clubs in lieu of theparental discussion. 一些参加的mystudents喜欢在网上图书俱乐部代替theparental讨论。 I require a daily posting and response toother book discussion colleagues. Hunger Games was bigwith my students this year. 我需要每天发布和响应外本书讨论的同事,, 饥饿游戏 bigwith今年我的学生。 Of course, I get to eavesdrop on theirdiscussions. 当然,我得到窃听theirdiscussions。
My results are a bit less than Book Whisperer, Donalyn Miller,achieves in terms of books read per year, but I've got a lot more time in class toteach other things I value because I don't use SSR in myclassroom. 我的结果是少了几分,比书语,米勒说Donalyn,达到每年读的书, 但我有更多的时间在课堂toteach其他的事情,我的价值,因为我不使用SSR在myclassroom。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-4-29 10:55:04 | 显示全部楼层
原帖由 nannanmama 于 2013-4-28 14:55 发表
自主阅读不是所有的孩子都可以真正悟出文章中的精华的,很多铺垫很容易让孩子一掠而过,到最后不明白为什么是这样的一个结果,语文的学习还是需要优秀的教师 ...


从说谎与不说谎来看:

说谎,是需要高超的师傅,因为需要技巧,而不说谎,就不需要这些技巧,所以也不需要优秀的老师,只需要普通的老师即可。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2013-4-29 15:54:22 | 显示全部楼层
3楼是机器翻译的吧?
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-4-30 20:33:27 | 显示全部楼层
原帖由 ccpeter 于 2013-4-29 10:55 发表
的老师即可。

我干嘛要说语文的提高需要优秀的老师呢?我想说说我的感受。
我小时候学语文,要背书要分析原因,好像从来没有觉得语文是美的。我最近几年有幸听了一些语文老师的课。作为成人,如果没有语文老师引导,一篇文章看完也就看完了,在记忆中不会留下明显的回忆。经过语文老师精心的引导之后,对某些句子和段落多次仔细阅读之后,忽然发现很多不以为然的文字,被语文老师一启发一分析,居然有那么多深奥的东西藏在文字后面。我从来不喜欢的景物描写,居然都活灵活现地出现在我的面前,似乎我就在现场,我能听到看到闻到感觉到大自然细腻美好的一切。可能是因为我成熟了,但,我更想感谢那些帮助学生深刻分析的语文老师,只有悟道了字的内涵,提升了对文字的理解,才能真正感到文字之美,才能对作者对主人公有深刻的认识。
还有很多辩证地思考和分析问题的能力,更需要好老师来启发、引导和总结。

[ 本帖最后由 nannanmama 于 2013-4-30 20:38 编辑 ]

评分

参与人数 1威望 +20 金币 +50 收起 理由
Xieno + 20 + 50 我很赞同。期待更多的分享。

查看全部评分

回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-5-1 15:45:19 | 显示全部楼层
原帖由 nannanmama 于 2013-4-30 20:33 发表

我更想感谢那些帮助学生深刻分析的语文老师,只有悟道了字的内涵,提升了对文字的理解,才能真正感到文字之美,才能对作者对主人公有深刻的认识。


这实际恰恰是中文的作为一种语言的硬伤!

1911年前的中国,一直是儒家的贵贱有等、人人不平等,加上文言文这种文字与口语表达相脱离的语言表达方式,形成了一种独特的文风,至今“阴魂不散”,即借景喻人与事,借物喻人与事。

所谓“只有悟道了字的内涵,提升了对文字的理解,才能真正感到文字之美,才能对作者对主人公有深刻的认识。”,正是这种文风的体现。

文章作者不敢说实话,不敢讲人,不敢讲事,都是绕着圈子,讲风景,实际是说心情,讲花草,实际是比人与人,讲动物,实际是讲官场,象这种文风,实际是文明的倒退。可是语文老师却对此“津津乐道”,“乐此不彼”,这实质就是一种说谎,老师无形也是教孩子们说谎。

而反观英文的文风,表达方式却截然不同,英语基本上是以基督教为思想核心,遵循的是“公平、人人平等、爱人如已、不可说谎”,Jesus:“是就说是,不是,就说不是”,所以很少出现这种绕着圈子的说谎的文风,当然中文这种说谎的文风,也是历朝历代知识分子迫不得已的办法。

如果以不可说谎的方式来表达思想,学习和使用这种说谎的借物喻人,借景喻事的技巧又有什么用?所以不需要什么好老师,只需要有爱心的老师,即可。

[ 本帖最后由 ccpeter 于 2013-5-1 15:46 编辑 ]
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-5-11 02:02:27 | 显示全部楼层
好像西方文学作品里面这样的也不少吧?比如ANIMAL FARM之类的。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2013-5-12 14:56:55 | 显示全部楼层
原帖由 tequila_qq 于 2013-5-11 02:02 发表
好像西方文学作品里面这样的也不少吧?比如ANIMAL FARM之类的。


这些作品也只是动物嘴里讲出道理,而文学描写并非象中国文学这样隐晦难懂,比如下雨天,在美国小学教材中,也体现为主人公,不管是小学生,还是小动物,都不能出去玩,但是一定会讲出rain 对庄稼有好处,对粮食有好处,所以皆大欢喜,阴天下雨一定只是一种气象。

而中国的文学却并非如此,比如唐诗宋词,阴天下雨,一定不仅是心情,而且还与公正有关,与公平有关,与官场有关,等等,绝不仅是一种气象,而是有了特定的人的意思。

所以从小学唐诗宋词,也并没有什么好处。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2016-3-2 20:45:41 | 显示全部楼层
nannanmama 发表于 2013-4-30 20:33
我干嘛要说语文的提高需要优秀的老师呢?我想说说我的感受。
我小时候学语文,要背书要分析原因,好像从 ...

没错,非常赞同!字词的意思是语文的灵魂。可惜现在很多给孩子大量阅读的家长还意识不到这点,认为大量的阅读就可以解决语文问题。实际上,如果孩子 不注重对字词的理解,一方面,他觉得阅读也就浅浅带过,不需要深入理解’另一方面,他们会没法独立阅读逻辑性强的科目,譬如数学物理等。
[发帖际遇]: 小天8008 发帖时遇到新儿教富豪榜神秘人物关注,获得 2 金币,哇。 幸运榜 / 衰神榜
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

880|

小黑屋|手机版|儿童教育网  |赞助儿教-获取元宝-快速升级|广告自助中心  

GMT+8, 2020-5-26 20:07 , Processed in 0.132243 second(s), 39 queries .

Powered by etjy.com! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表