Where I post assorted thoughts and links relating to learning, specifically learning difficulties, learning disabilities, dyslexia, dysgraphia, "dyscalculia" and all the other reasons people struggle with numbers and math and arithmetic, reading, Orton-Gillingham stuff and ... whatever!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

An advertisement that, I'm afraid, clearly broadcasts the idea that if students can't read, we need to keep them from having to. I see a lot of value in Stone Arch books and I like the stories, but this rationale makes my jaw drop. I see this type of book as a bridge to higher level reading. Frankly, this ad looks like we can't expect that of "certain students." I think that's a lousy message to send to anybody.

So: Let me state clearly that I'm groaning at the AD COPY, not the product. Ya know, like "Head-on! Apply Directly To THe Forehead!" (and the rest of that ad, which has someone 'interrupting' with "I hate your ads! But I love your products!")

Good readers:

• Understand the main point of the story. Stone Arch Books are free of multiple or confusing subplots or tangents. We stick to a strong, exciting, and understandable storyline.

So: good readers can figure out the main point of a story. We'll make it so easy that anybody can do it.

...
...
• Create a visual image in their head as they read the story. Our illustrations closely support the text.

So: good readers create a visual image in their heads (do they all have one collective head?). We'll put in illustrations so readers don't have to.

• Ask questions of themselves to better understand the text. Stone Arch Books provide on-target discussion questions and writing prompts to help the struggling reader think about what they read.

Again, we'll do it for you so you don't have to.


Upon thinking about it, there are key concepts missing from this that may, in fact, have been in the minds of the developers. (I reckon it's a big enough company so that the developers aren't writing the ad copy, but I could be wrong.) If they'd said good questions and visual images were *modeled* for students, so teachers could instruct students and teach them to do it independently, I'd feel like the instructional goals matched mine. Likewise, if those simpler main ideas were to be used as a bridge or scaffold, I'd be cheering.

As it stands, though, this verbiage says "we've dumbed it down for you."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home