I never considered that when I am reading a paper or article and I don’t understand it, it is because I either haven’t triggered the right “key” for my pre-existing schemata, or I don’t have any prior knowledge to the subject area at all. I blew my mind when the text gave an example of not understanding a text, triggering a schema, and instantly understanding the text. This made me realize why when I was in grade school I was so lost when the teacher assigned us to read a chapter before leaning about. I guess teachers assume that students have some sort of previous knowledge that would help us understand the textbook, but really I was just reading and nothing was clicking.
If teachers would teach a basic level of a subject and then assign the readings, students’ comprehension would soar beyond what was possible in the traditional technique. And going even further, if a teacher were to take time and decode complex texts in class with small group lessons where the students can work together and combine their previous knowledge, ask each other questions, and draw conclusions, then like the Daniels and Zemelman said, teachers would be “teaching your subject matter andthe reading strategies at the same time. That is, you’re getting a two-fer.”
217 Words
217 Words
I also thought this concept of having the proper schema to even begin understanding passages was interesting! As a college student, I can usually figure out parts of a difficult text, but for middle schoolers learning about RNA it might be close to impossible, especially if they’re learning the material for the first time. I liked when Nick talked about getting middle schoolers in groups to help each other figure out the material; I think it would be both a fun and rewarding activity if everyone contributed a different piece of the puzzle to decipher a text. (word count 97)
ReplyDeleteGood.
ReplyDelete