This reference text is divided into two sections: "What we teach, How we teach, and Literacy" and "Curriculum, Instruction, and Literacy in the Content areas." If one was to read this book, you would not necessarily need to read it "cover to cover." I believe that Section I is important for all teachers or those who have a hand in education. Section II, because of the way it is divided, could be read based on interests. There are specIfic discussions about how to integrate literacy into content areas. I felt that the discussion of literacy in mathematics and science was extremely interesting.
Mike Schmoker's message was calling educators "back to the basics." As I read, I found myself scribbling in the margins, because the comments being made were so true they were almost "taboo." Schmoker contradicts the current "educational bandwagons" that so many administrators and districts may jump on. He quotes Pfeffer and Sutton, saying "leaders resist simplicity; they are often irrationally enamored by novelty and complexity" (p 16). It was refreshing to read such a strong argument for "pure, effective teaching." Regardless of the technology or other tools in the classroom, without a firm grasp on the ways to provide clear instruction, students will not learn.
I have already used sections from this text in my building's PLC time. Though I have not used a specIfic strategy, I opened the dialogue about what should "be in a good lesson." Schmoker encourages the "five minute limit" where lectures cannot span longer than that before students are given a moment to talk or write. Formative assessments need to be used throughout daily lessons in order for the teacher to be guided into the next portion of the lesson. I have started to integrate more of these checks for understanding into my teaching, and I have found that I catch more misconceptions sooner than I would have normally. I also see that sections I felt required more time were grasped at a faster rate than anticipated
Herbert , Thomas P., and Alexander P. Pagnani. "Engaging Gifted Boys in New Literacies ." Gifted Child Today . 33.3 (2010): 36-45. Print.
This article discussed the issue of the achievement gap between boys and girls reading abilities and habits. Girls have reading habits that are recognized and rewarded in schools, while boys read more nonfiction, science fiction, and action novels that are not valued as much. The article discusses how boys do not find dialogue, character interaction, and other literary devices as interesting as girls, and prefer to read for the sake of gaining information, and have plots that are action driven rather than character driven. Although the achievement gap between boys and girls with reading comprehension and leisurely reading is well known, the article points out that less attention is given to this achievement gap than the one that occurs in math.
Herbert and Pagnani discuss how high quality new literature is out there for boys to read, and can be incorporated in the classroom. This approach can lead to boys having a higher reading, writing, and comprehension level.
I found this article helpful for several reasons. First, I think it is imperative that teachers change their thinking about what is considered quality literature. You can hook boys with things that interest them, and then guide them slowly into literature that is considered part of the literary cannon later on when you have built up their confidence level and academic abilities. The reasoning behind boys literature preferences needs to be not only understood but respected by educators in order to teach them effectively. Secondly, my English classes are ten to one girls, and this scares me as I read this article. As many already know, people tend to teach the same way that they learn. if women and girls have the same reading preferences and appreciate the same things about literature, than many boys will be left to the wayside in English classrooms. I hope to learn more
