Talk:Self Paced Reading Labs

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Grammar" is misspelled in the page name. You may wish to use the move tab above to move the page to a correctly spelled page name. :-)--Rogerhc 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we may focus initially on Reading comprehension and related skills. Maybe vocabulary as well. We will get it renamed soon. Mirwin 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"... using Rayc's et. al. tests and quizzes ..." reference, please? I don't know what these are. Ben Armstrong 12:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I love how it's now "my" quizzes, even though other people did most of the work. :) I'll link Test and Quiz from the page, but that page will be undergoing a major overall once the new extentions are installed. (IF they are installed).--Rayc 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd focus less on dissecting reading into its constituent parts and evaluating the reading process by objective criteria, and instead encourage doing reading, enjoying reading and providing a comfortable, self-reaffirming, non-judging place for people to expand their reading skills without fear of failure. Students need to direct their own reading by whatever means they find work for them. So, instead of making tests and quizzes the tool for evaluation, offer it as one possible tool. Not everyone enjoys or benefits from using such tools. Ben Armstrong 12:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The introductory sentence on this page does not scan. It looks like you've merged two lists into one: the kinds of things in the lab and the kinds of people in the lab making use of those things. Ben Armstrong 12:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points above by Ben - I think that reading must first and foremost be (or encouraged to be) an enjoyable act. Often, asking thoughtful and provocative questions is a far more effective way to stimulate people's imagination than to ask questions to check comprehension (though this is just a different part/form of pedagogy). It's important, I think, to realise that meaning in/of a text is constructed by the reader - why not have a discussion about what the readers think it means (or even what it's about), instead of having them infer from a test that their understanding is "wrong"? (Though I'm not saying here that tests can't be used.)
Also, I wonder why we should limit reading to Wikipedia articles. There are many different writing styles (and levels) - I think reading should be as broad as possible - incorporating literature (fictional and non-fictional prose, poetry, drama), newspaper articles, journal articles, scientific texts, etc., etc. There is some fascinating stuff in Wikisource or Project Gutenberg for example..
I'd like to help out here - but first I'd like to know if it really is conceived as being as narrow as currently indicated - in which case I would set up a parallel page to work alongside this one. Please let me know! Cormaggio beep 13:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)