Not exact matches
A company that
early on
understood the relationship between
reader enthusiasm and selling stuff?
This story reminded the
early church
readers that not even the disciples
understood what was happening in their midst.
If the
readers of texts in both the Jewish and Christian communities took their responsibilities seriously and
understood that they were making a significant contribution to worship, we too can recapture the enthusiasm for public reading which the
early Christians enjoyed!
Perhaps now that I have described them, the
reader will better
understand why, in my own analysis, neither involves an abrupt discontinuity with my
earlier life and thought, even though each has made for a different and, I should hope, more adequate
understanding.
I realize this may not be clear or meaninful to some
readers and I can't take the space here to go into it other than to say that a good segment of biblical scholarship for a couple decades at least, has properly broadened its pursuits in an interdisciplinary manner, into probing for better
understandings of the nature and formative, growth processes of the
earliest groups of Jesus followers and how they ultimately became Jewish Christian groups, or started as mixed Jewish / Gentile groups (as via Paul, et al.).
And, if we go on, how do we tell which meaning or meanings was or were intended by the author or
understood by his
readers,
early or late?
That's why I've included page by page lesson plans, guided practice worksheets, and text specific
reader's notebook prompts for the following strategies: Visualizing Determining Importance Asking Questions
Understanding Text Structure Synthesizing I also created an Extension Activity for
early finishers.
That's why I've included page by page lesson plans, guided practice worksheets, and text specific
reader's notebook prompts for the following strategies: Making Inferences Visualizing Determining Importance
Understanding Text Structure Synthesizing I also created an Extension Activity for
early finishers.
Both Toppo and Vogel — whose piece was published in late February and reviewed here in
early March * — approached their topics through the lens of charter schools, which is an understandably newsy but problematic strategy when it leaves
readers with a confused
understanding of the problems being described.
Recently, experts at the organization Defending the
Early Years issued a report focusing on one of these bad standards: the standard calling for kindergartners to «read emergent -
reader texts with purpose and
understanding.»
They leave the
reader with a clear
understanding of the myriad of ways in which high - quality
early childhood education programs matter in the
early years, and they matter a lot.»
Or, if not redeemed, that
readers should be given more reason to like and
understand them a bit
earlier.
As a developmental editor working with authors on
early drafts, I frequently go back to find and help fill in the spaces, so the
reader can
understand a character's private process that leads to new behavior.
I spent a lot of time in
earlier threads showing what climate science could do to rescue itself (and there was even some reluctant acceptance from some quarters here) but the brand is badly damaged, and the press and their
readers understand that.
While
early text
readers sounded robotic and were hard to
understand, Google's DeepMind ® AI allows computers to mimic the human voice in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable from a real human voice (Listen to some sample audio files and read more about how they are created).
Without Cappelli's Lexicon, it would be impossible for modern
readers of
early manuscripts to
understand what is written or referred to, even if we can read the letters.