Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- comprehension_and_strategy_instruction [2021/02/20 16:18] – [History] jgmac1106
+++ comprehension_and_strategy_instruction [2021/02/20 16:32] (current) – [Criticism] jgmac1106
@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 ===== Criticism =====
+Recent theorists (Lemov, Willingham) have suggested we put to large of an emphasis on strategy instruction at the demise of increasing background and shared cultural knowledge (Hisrch, 1991). These researchers suggest a much larger role for oral language development in early literacy classes and a focus on a shared canon of knowledge.
+They also cite criticism of comprehension strategy research. While Rosheshine fund reciprocal teaching to have moderate to large effect sizes these studies varied in population and effect. Overall advanced and good reader benefit little from strategy instruction. The strongest gains are among students with special education services.
+For most students comprehension strategy instruction may have limited efficacy. The interventions have a low ceiling. Meaning learners reach maximum growth quickly and then flatten out. Strategy instruction also suffers from transfer problems. Moving from a text about baseball to volcanoes leads to the strategies not being used. The early studies also utilized many researcher created instruments which may have lead to larger differences in mean scores and thius bigger effect sizes.
-===== In the Classroom =====
 ===== FORT Study Guide Activity =====
+Look at the text structure of the articles on each comprehension strategy like [[summarize]]. Create a graphic organizer and then research a strategy. Write an article summarizing the strategy. Then share a reflection on your strategy use. Tip: keep a metacognitive notebook as you work.