Being allowing and yet directive: Mindfulness meditation in the teaching of developmental reading and writing

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 (151) ◽  
pp. 51-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Garretson
Keyword(s):  
Mindfulness Meditation ◽  
Developmental Reading ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Developmental Reading And Writing

scholarly journals Leaning Into Difficulty: A Way of Building Knowledge in a Developmental Reading and Writing Course

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-59
Keyword(s):  
Literacy Practices ◽  
Developmental Reading ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Knowledge Bases ◽  
The Other ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Developmental Reading And Writing

Recognition of the interconnectedness of the reading and writing processes is not a new concept. Indeed, the developmental nature of reading and writing is shown to have evolved over time (Nelson & Calfee, 1998) and has been the focus of empirical research grounded on three basic theoretical models: shared cognition (two buckets drawing water from a common well), sociocognitive (envisioned as a conversation), and combined-use model (tools that can be used together to build something) (Shanahan, 2016). I am particularly intrigued by the sociocognitive model of reading and writing as a conversation as both mirror closely the spirit of Rosenblatt’s (2013) transactional view of the relationship among the text, the reader, and the author. The theory Rosenblatt promoted requires a paradigm shift that problematizes the dualistic notion of subjectobject, individual-social, and stimulus-response that are insufficient to represent the recursive, “one process” that the knower, the knowing, and the known enact, each conditioning the other in linguistic activities (pp. 926–927). For example, when a student transacts with a text, they draw from linguistic and experiential knowledge bases (reservoirs) to derive an interpretation. Difficulties can arise when knowledge bases are inadequate to form a clear understanding of a text, yet working through the difficulties results in structuring new meaning. The work involved in the struggle is generative (Bartholemae & Petrosky, 1986). Rather than an interaction that may close off the opportunity for students to build new knowledge, ‘“meaning’ happens during the transaction” (p. 929). Rosenblatt and others (i.e., Bakhtin, 1981; Gadamer, 1975; Iser, 1978) provided sound theories to justify designing fully integrated reading and writing (IRW) courses. To clarify, fully integrated as I use it here is distinct in that it references Rosenblatt’s notion of the similar processes that reading and writing share as well as the ideal instruction in which neither reading nor writing are privileged in service to the other but are considered interconnected literacy practices in a dialogically centered classroom. Such instruction, however, is another matter.

A Contextualized Curricular Supplement for Developmental Reading and Writing

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Perin ◽  
Rachel Hare Bork ◽  
Stephen T. Peverly ◽  
Linda H. Mason
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Reading ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Developmental Reading And Writing

Writing in Aphasia Rehabilitation: Cursive vs Manuscript

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Boone ◽  
Harold M. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Correct Response ◽  
The Other ◽  
Read Aloud ◽  
Writing Style ◽  
Reading And Writing ◽  
Manual Responses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Read Number

Reading and writing performance was observed in 30 adult aphasic patients to determine whether there was a significant difference when stimuli and manual responses were varied in the written form: cursive versus manuscript. Patients were asked to read aloud 10 words written cursively and 10 words written in manuscript form. They were then asked to write on dictation 10 word responses using cursive writing and 10 words using manuscript writing. Number of words correctly read, number of words correctly written, and number of letters correctly written in the proper sequence were tallied for both cursive and manuscript writing tasks for each patient. Results indicated no significant difference in correct response between cursive and manuscript writing style for these aphasic patients as a group; however, it was noted that individual patients varied widely in their success using one writing form over the other. It appeared that since neither writing form showed better facilitation of performance, the writing style used should be determined according to the individual patient’s own preference and best performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document