It is not uncommon to find students disengaged with activities and learning taking place in a classroom. Likewise, it is not uncommon to find kids highly engaged with video games at an arcade. How the latter can be used to improve the former is discussed in the article, "What Happens in the Arcade Shouldn't Stay in the Arcade: Lessons for Classroom Design" by Kathryn Whitmore and Lindsay Laurich. Though the idea may seem surprising at first glance, the article ultimately discusses aspects of literacy and the classroom that are addressed in other scholarship, not related to video games, in which students are given agency within the classroom.
The authors of this article observed multiple arcades in order to see what principles can be applied to the classroom, while also working with a classroom teacher, Jeff, to analyze his classroom and implement what was learned from the arcades. Initially, Jeff's classroom was assessed according to Loughlin and Martin's the Survey of Displayed Literacy Stimuli (SDLS) and Wolfersberger, Reutzel, Sudweeks, & Fawson's Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile (CLEP). From those assessments, Jeff's classroom was found to be quite lacking. Much of the classroom space was "owned" by the teacher, including a bookshelf meant to model the active reading life of the teacher at the expense of a more robust classroom library for the students. Additionally, the provisioning of literacy tools was inadequate, as was the access to environmental print and display space. This came as a shock to Jeff and he was committed to making a change.
The lessons learned from the arcade observations were centered around three areas: clustering and collaborating, inversion of power structures, and reconstituting access and ownership. Clustering and collaborating was exemplified by a vignette in which one child assisted another at an adjacent arcade game and then offered to join in. That child was the expert and taught the other child, facilitating his advancement in the game and his enjoyment thereof. The physical design and social expectations of an arcade set up an environment in which children can naturally scaffold the learning of other children.
The inversion of the power structure is addressed via a vignette in which the arcade employee is asked to come over and join a player in a game. In order to do so, the employee gives the responsibility of watching the desk to a nearby child. Here the roles and identities are fluid and children are trusted. Additionally, the authors note that the arcade goers opinions can have an impact on the layout and arrangement of games in the arcade.
Finally, the issues of access and ownership are introduced by a vignette in which kids arrive at the arcade after school, make a request of the manager, who then wheels out a table from a back room where many kids complete schoolwork and socialize throughout the evening. Clearly, this accommodation by the arcade helps the children to feel that this is their space. Additionally, notes are made of the volume of the arcade as compared to that of a classroom, and how the role of expert changes according to the game being played.
The application of these concepts to the classroom are applied first and foremost in letting the students have a say in the layout and design of the classroom. Students created maps individually and in small groups of an ideal classroom. Jeff then tried to incorporate student wishes as best he could. This both addresses student ownership and power structures within the classroom. Jeff also created more spaces for students to share their information and make reading suggestions via a graffiti board, thus shifting the expertise and again creating more space for ownership. Students were involved in creating new class rules, Jeff allowed students to address their bathroom and drinking fountain needs without permission, and students were asked to teach their classmates about areas of their interest in which they could be the expert or teacher. The literacies the students brought to the classroom from outside the school setting were given more value. Additionally, a higher tolerance for room volume was adopted, seeing it as social learning rather misbehavior.
With all these changes, Jeff experienced difficulties. Both the managing of the classroom itself was different, plus managing the expectations of his school and district was strained in light of a classroom that appeared so differently than that of his peers. Over time, Jeff had to reign in some of the freedoms initiated, but nevertheless the change seemed to have a positive result on his students engagement.
Similar to my recent work and reading on a Literacy Playshop, these efforts involved valuing students own literacies. Beyond that, the message seems to be placing more value overall in what our students bring to the classroom. Thinking of students as partners in their own education and empowering them seems to be one way to try and foster greater engagement in the classroom. Though it brings with it its own challenges in management, it does sound like a worthwhile goal.
Laurich, L., Whitmore, K.F. (2010). What happens in the arcade shouldn't stay in the
arcade: Lessons for classroom design. Language Arts. Vol. 88 (1). 21-31.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
The "untaught" story
I can easily imagine the "untaught" story interpreted to mean the subtext or information conveyed in a book that is not the story's narrative. While that is something to keep in mind, it is not what Patricia Cooper is referring to in her article "Children's Literature for Reading Strategy Instruction: Innovation or Inference." Here, Cooper is concerned about using stories for the teaching of reading comprehension strategies to pre-k, kindergarten, and first grade students, which is currently a common practice in education.
It is quite common for teachers to use real children's books to highlight strategies for comprehension via lessons and mini-lessons, rather than just basal readers or text created for the purpose of language arts instruction. Cooper is concerned that this focus on treating children's literature as something to dissect, analyze, work strategies upon, takes away from its enjoyment for its own sake. Consequently, the "untaught" story is the story that is used just for aesthetic purposes, not efferent ones.
Cooper feels that, particularly at young ages, children should be engaged in stories to foster and satisfy children's imagination - not their comprehension. It is this imagination that will allow students to go beyond the text, rather than simply their comprehension. Another of her concerns seems to be the teaching of strategies that proficient readers do. It seems that she's concerned that students at these ages will indiscriminately use these strategies, unlike proficient readers, and it will cause them to get bogged down rather than be aided in comprehension, much less enjoyment.
In my own teacher training program, the use of these strategies was discussed most often in regard to higher elementary (or intermediate) classrooms. I can't say that I disagree with Cooper's suggestion that much of early elementary students should be spent with stories as untaught engagements. Getting students engaged with reading, getting them to love it and read as many words as possible should be the goal. Cooper acknowledges that she is not trying to indicate that children's literature can never be used for strategy instruction, but rather should it be. She suggests using different texts for skills instruction and saving quality children's literature for story time (which should be the bulk of the day's engagement.) It is an interesting idea that goes against some of the current trends. But with the idea of keeping enjoyment and engagement at the forefront of our students' interaction with books, I can't say it's a wrong-headed idea.
Cooper, P.M. (2009.) Children's literature for reading strategy instruction: innovation or
inference. Language Arts. 86 (3) 178-187.
It is quite common for teachers to use real children's books to highlight strategies for comprehension via lessons and mini-lessons, rather than just basal readers or text created for the purpose of language arts instruction. Cooper is concerned that this focus on treating children's literature as something to dissect, analyze, work strategies upon, takes away from its enjoyment for its own sake. Consequently, the "untaught" story is the story that is used just for aesthetic purposes, not efferent ones.
Cooper feels that, particularly at young ages, children should be engaged in stories to foster and satisfy children's imagination - not their comprehension. It is this imagination that will allow students to go beyond the text, rather than simply their comprehension. Another of her concerns seems to be the teaching of strategies that proficient readers do. It seems that she's concerned that students at these ages will indiscriminately use these strategies, unlike proficient readers, and it will cause them to get bogged down rather than be aided in comprehension, much less enjoyment.
In my own teacher training program, the use of these strategies was discussed most often in regard to higher elementary (or intermediate) classrooms. I can't say that I disagree with Cooper's suggestion that much of early elementary students should be spent with stories as untaught engagements. Getting students engaged with reading, getting them to love it and read as many words as possible should be the goal. Cooper acknowledges that she is not trying to indicate that children's literature can never be used for strategy instruction, but rather should it be. She suggests using different texts for skills instruction and saving quality children's literature for story time (which should be the bulk of the day's engagement.) It is an interesting idea that goes against some of the current trends. But with the idea of keeping enjoyment and engagement at the forefront of our students' interaction with books, I can't say it's a wrong-headed idea.
Cooper, P.M. (2009.) Children's literature for reading strategy instruction: innovation or
inference. Language Arts. 86 (3) 178-187.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Moviemaking in First Grade
As part of my pre-service field experience, I've been working with a 1st grader in the area of literacy. In my class concerning literacy in the primary grades, we've recently discussed the taking advantage of the literacies children bring into the classroom - which are often not taken advantage of. Specifically, we have looked at play and storying using the interests and knowledge our students have.
The student I've been working with, a 1st grade boy who I'll refer to by the pseudonym Frank, told me he enjoyed watching Spongebob Squarepants. As I only have a passing familiarity with the program, Frank was my expert on the show. I explained to him that we were going to make drawings of the characters and background and make our own movie with those characters. Together we drew pictures of some of the characters from the show, and I had to look at pictures of the characters online in order to help. We discussed what the characters could do, and Frank suggested the characters could be outside Squidward's house. Since we ran out of time, I then created the backgrounds myself, and brought them to our next meeting for our filming.
I asked Frank what story we could make up with our characters and he immediately started to act it out, rather than really plan it. Attempting to catch up, I started filming his play. In this first story, Frank captured the antagonist relationship that I understand to really exist between Squidward and Spongebob. He also had Spongebob and Patrick go "jellyfishing", another activity from the show.
In his second story, I was able to prompt Frank to do a little more planning of what our story would be about, prior to playing it out. Here, there is "jellyfishing", but also quite a lot of karate chopping and fighting. Robotic, or bionic, arms also made an appearance. I asked Frank if this is the sort of thing that happens in the show and he claimed that it is, though I am skeptical - though, I am not the expert. My guess is that Frank used these characters in ways influenced from other media and stories he's experienced, rather than in strict accordance to the show's structure.
Finally, in the third story, Frank wanted to have jellyfish, so he quickly drew some to incorporate them into the play. Here, the jellyfish queen shocked Patrick, so that Spongebob then attempted and caught a smaller jellyfish instead. After storing it at Spongebob's house, Patrick went to Squidward's to harass him again. They knocked on his door and told him that they'd left him a present. Then the jellyfish queen was left outside Squidward's house, shocking him when he came outside. Finally, Spongebob reunited the jellyfish queen with her previously captured family member.
In the course of less than a half hour, Frank created three stories that included a variety of plot elements that took advantage of traditional and non-traditional story elements from the show. Additionally, characters were developed via they're interactions with each other. Comparing this to a writing sample this student provided my several weeks ago, he included far more detail and creativity in his spontaneous (and slightly planned) storying. I would be interested to have more experiences in this situation and see how an activity like this could affect Frank with a subsequent writing opportunity. As it is, with written language serving as the bottleneck for effective storymaking, using props and oral storytelling frees a young child like Frank to be much more creative.
The student I've been working with, a 1st grade boy who I'll refer to by the pseudonym Frank, told me he enjoyed watching Spongebob Squarepants. As I only have a passing familiarity with the program, Frank was my expert on the show. I explained to him that we were going to make drawings of the characters and background and make our own movie with those characters. Together we drew pictures of some of the characters from the show, and I had to look at pictures of the characters online in order to help. We discussed what the characters could do, and Frank suggested the characters could be outside Squidward's house. Since we ran out of time, I then created the backgrounds myself, and brought them to our next meeting for our filming.
I asked Frank what story we could make up with our characters and he immediately started to act it out, rather than really plan it. Attempting to catch up, I started filming his play. In this first story, Frank captured the antagonist relationship that I understand to really exist between Squidward and Spongebob. He also had Spongebob and Patrick go "jellyfishing", another activity from the show.
In his second story, I was able to prompt Frank to do a little more planning of what our story would be about, prior to playing it out. Here, there is "jellyfishing", but also quite a lot of karate chopping and fighting. Robotic, or bionic, arms also made an appearance. I asked Frank if this is the sort of thing that happens in the show and he claimed that it is, though I am skeptical - though, I am not the expert. My guess is that Frank used these characters in ways influenced from other media and stories he's experienced, rather than in strict accordance to the show's structure.
Finally, in the third story, Frank wanted to have jellyfish, so he quickly drew some to incorporate them into the play. Here, the jellyfish queen shocked Patrick, so that Spongebob then attempted and caught a smaller jellyfish instead. After storing it at Spongebob's house, Patrick went to Squidward's to harass him again. They knocked on his door and told him that they'd left him a present. Then the jellyfish queen was left outside Squidward's house, shocking him when he came outside. Finally, Spongebob reunited the jellyfish queen with her previously captured family member.
In the course of less than a half hour, Frank created three stories that included a variety of plot elements that took advantage of traditional and non-traditional story elements from the show. Additionally, characters were developed via they're interactions with each other. Comparing this to a writing sample this student provided my several weeks ago, he included far more detail and creativity in his spontaneous (and slightly planned) storying. I would be interested to have more experiences in this situation and see how an activity like this could affect Frank with a subsequent writing opportunity. As it is, with written language serving as the bottleneck for effective storymaking, using props and oral storytelling frees a young child like Frank to be much more creative.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Kindergarten and Writing Workshop
I just read an article, "Kindergarten is More than Ready for the Common Core State Standards" (Kelly, Kramer-Vida, Levitt, 2012), that discusses introducing writer's workshop into kindergarten classrooms. Initially I was surprised at the prospect of introducing writer's workshop to such young students. My introduction to the program was in relation to 4th to 6th grade classes, and I thought that it may be most effective for older elementary classes. However, these kindergarten classes were previously using a basal reader and the change to writer's workshop seemed appropriate. Using the basal reader program, teachers would write on the board the response a student gave to a question, and all the other students would copy what the teacher wrote. The turn to writer's workshop held hope that students would write (and draw pictures) that were individual to themselves, and based upon what they knew and brought to the classroom.
The school year's writer's workshop started out with students walking around the room and drawing pictures of what they saw, and then reconvene to share their drawings. Students also learned to label their illustrations as best they could with the letters they knew, or using resources that had been introduced to them, like a word wall. Later in the year, the kindergarteners learned about personal narrative and sequence in telling a story about a time they'd made a mess. Teachers gave the students paper that had three boxes on it and taught an accompanying mini-lesson. The students were encouraged to draw three pictures in the boxes, and write sentences that went with them, using the words beginning, middle, and end.
Throughout the school year, the kindergarteners had a variety of writing experiences. They wrote across the curriculum, incorporating shapes and colors into their writing. Halfway through the year, a checklist was introduced for the students to try and check that they had capitalized, included details, etc. The kindergarteners also wrote to a specific audience, like a friend, and wrote "All About" books. They also wrote how-to's which again used the sequential language which they had learned about previously. These and many more experiences were a part of their kindergarten experience. Eventually, there was the standard writing workshop celebration which the students wrote invitations to important people to attend, and they read their published pieces.
Through this process, the kindergarteners were able to write in ways to satisfy Common Core standards related to writing, such as "Standards for Writing 4 (“Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience”) and 10 (“Write routinely . . . for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences”) ) (p. 18)."(Kelly, Kramer-Vida, Levitt, 2012). In fact, these kindergarteners were completed work that addressed standards that are not expected till the third grade. Additionally, the teachers found their students worrying about whether what they wrote would make sense for the reader. Undoubtedly, these kindergarteners had a more authentic writing experience than what they would have had using the previous basal curriculum. Giving students the opportunity to write, draw, create, and respond in ways that are meaningful to them is key in getting them engaged in their learning, and this seems like a step in the right direction as they move away from a basal reader - even if the idea of writers workshop for kindergarteners may sound intense at first blush.
Kelly, S.P., Kramer-Vida, L., Levitt, R. (2012) Kindergarten is more than ready for the
Common Core State Standards. Language Arts. Vol. 90 (2).
The school year's writer's workshop started out with students walking around the room and drawing pictures of what they saw, and then reconvene to share their drawings. Students also learned to label their illustrations as best they could with the letters they knew, or using resources that had been introduced to them, like a word wall. Later in the year, the kindergarteners learned about personal narrative and sequence in telling a story about a time they'd made a mess. Teachers gave the students paper that had three boxes on it and taught an accompanying mini-lesson. The students were encouraged to draw three pictures in the boxes, and write sentences that went with them, using the words beginning, middle, and end.
Throughout the school year, the kindergarteners had a variety of writing experiences. They wrote across the curriculum, incorporating shapes and colors into their writing. Halfway through the year, a checklist was introduced for the students to try and check that they had capitalized, included details, etc. The kindergarteners also wrote to a specific audience, like a friend, and wrote "All About" books. They also wrote how-to's which again used the sequential language which they had learned about previously. These and many more experiences were a part of their kindergarten experience. Eventually, there was the standard writing workshop celebration which the students wrote invitations to important people to attend, and they read their published pieces.
Through this process, the kindergarteners were able to write in ways to satisfy Common Core standards related to writing, such as "Standards for Writing 4 (“Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience”) and 10 (“Write routinely . . . for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences”) ) (p. 18)."(Kelly, Kramer-Vida, Levitt, 2012). In fact, these kindergarteners were completed work that addressed standards that are not expected till the third grade. Additionally, the teachers found their students worrying about whether what they wrote would make sense for the reader. Undoubtedly, these kindergarteners had a more authentic writing experience than what they would have had using the previous basal curriculum. Giving students the opportunity to write, draw, create, and respond in ways that are meaningful to them is key in getting them engaged in their learning, and this seems like a step in the right direction as they move away from a basal reader - even if the idea of writers workshop for kindergarteners may sound intense at first blush.
Kelly, S.P., Kramer-Vida, L., Levitt, R. (2012) Kindergarten is more than ready for the
Common Core State Standards. Language Arts. Vol. 90 (2).
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Watching the eyes
Having just completed a miscue analysis of a first grade student I've been working with, I found myself reading an article about a miscue analysis. The article, What a teachers hears, what a student sees: Eye movements from a phonics-taught second grader (Brown, Kim, O'Brien Ramirez), really resonated with me given my just completed analysis.
The article starts out critiquing some pre-service and in-service teachers shallow understanding of the reading process, which include the idea that reading is the sequential decoding of symbols. This understanding, which is also based on research they say claims to be 'scientific', reduces reading to a mechanical process. It doesn't appreciate the techniques readers actually use.
The means by which this is addressed is a second grader's eye-movement and miscue analysis (EMMA.) Though, my miscue didn't include eye-movement detection - and few could - it did make for an interesting result. The passage the student, Ali, read said, "Once upon a time there was a woodman who thought that no one worked as hard as he did. One evening when he came home from work, he said to his wife, "what do you do all day while I'm away cutting wood?" On the second sentence, she made the miscues "on every, one - every, when e-, one every-t-, e(h)ery-(th)ing, every-(h)in," followed by 9 seconds of silence.
In total, she spent 22 seconds on this section of text. Based upon the miscue, one could (and many teachers who were shown the video do) imagine that she is not attended closely enough to the letters and that is why she persists in pronouncing a "r." However, the authors analysis shows that during the first 13 seconds, she was looking at the area of "One evening," but for the 9 seconds of silence her eyes were scanning "when he came home from work." Ultimately, she corrected herself based upon meaning and context. The authors go on to say that the girl seemed to anticipate, "on every" as making sense with the story thus far, whereas "one evening" is more akin to another story start. Thus, Ali, was not struggling with the phonics but rather with the meaning and her anticipation for what should come next. The authors suggest she may be making a miscue due to the inadequacies of the text.
Another miscue occurred in the dialogue of the woodman, with Ali saying, "What does - what do", self correcting quite quickly this time. One could imagine that Ali noticed that she did not look enough, and then self corrected based upon visual cues. In fact, Ali's eyes were on the next word "you" when she corrected - indicating that she self corrected according to structure and meaning. She understood "what does you" didn't sound correct.
There's more to this article and I think it's worth reading. They go on to suggest that teachers have more appreciation for comprehension in reading. A focus on phonics, or any singular system isn't the answer. Additionally, DIBELS makes another appearance, criticized for the test featuring non-sense words. A test that indicates to children that reading is decoding and making meaning and understanding is not the goal - clearly not the message we want to send. Even without the eye movement detection, from my own recent miscue analysis, much can be learned from them, and I appreciate learning more about them to further my understanding of the reading process.
Brown, J., Kim, K., & O'Brien Ramirez, K., (2012). What a teacher hears, what a reader
sees: Eye movements from a phonics-taught second grader. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy. vol. 12 (2) 202-222.
The article starts out critiquing some pre-service and in-service teachers shallow understanding of the reading process, which include the idea that reading is the sequential decoding of symbols. This understanding, which is also based on research they say claims to be 'scientific', reduces reading to a mechanical process. It doesn't appreciate the techniques readers actually use.
The means by which this is addressed is a second grader's eye-movement and miscue analysis (EMMA.) Though, my miscue didn't include eye-movement detection - and few could - it did make for an interesting result. The passage the student, Ali, read said, "Once upon a time there was a woodman who thought that no one worked as hard as he did. One evening when he came home from work, he said to his wife, "what do you do all day while I'm away cutting wood?" On the second sentence, she made the miscues "on every, one - every, when e-, one every-t-, e(h)ery-(th)ing, every-(h)in," followed by 9 seconds of silence.
In total, she spent 22 seconds on this section of text. Based upon the miscue, one could (and many teachers who were shown the video do) imagine that she is not attended closely enough to the letters and that is why she persists in pronouncing a "r." However, the authors analysis shows that during the first 13 seconds, she was looking at the area of "One evening," but for the 9 seconds of silence her eyes were scanning "when he came home from work." Ultimately, she corrected herself based upon meaning and context. The authors go on to say that the girl seemed to anticipate, "on every" as making sense with the story thus far, whereas "one evening" is more akin to another story start. Thus, Ali, was not struggling with the phonics but rather with the meaning and her anticipation for what should come next. The authors suggest she may be making a miscue due to the inadequacies of the text.
Another miscue occurred in the dialogue of the woodman, with Ali saying, "What does - what do", self correcting quite quickly this time. One could imagine that Ali noticed that she did not look enough, and then self corrected based upon visual cues. In fact, Ali's eyes were on the next word "you" when she corrected - indicating that she self corrected according to structure and meaning. She understood "what does you" didn't sound correct.
There's more to this article and I think it's worth reading. They go on to suggest that teachers have more appreciation for comprehension in reading. A focus on phonics, or any singular system isn't the answer. Additionally, DIBELS makes another appearance, criticized for the test featuring non-sense words. A test that indicates to children that reading is decoding and making meaning and understanding is not the goal - clearly not the message we want to send. Even without the eye movement detection, from my own recent miscue analysis, much can be learned from them, and I appreciate learning more about them to further my understanding of the reading process.
Brown, J., Kim, K., & O'Brien Ramirez, K., (2012). What a teacher hears, what a reader
sees: Eye movements from a phonics-taught second grader. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy. vol. 12 (2) 202-222.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Overcoming bias/appreciating home and community literacies
I just read an article by a teacher-research study group in which they set out "to read, engage, and discuss how the group might identify, value, and utilize the multiple literacies of diverse students, especially in regard to classroom practice." (Hamel, Shaw, & Taylor, 2013) For the duration of nearly a year, this group including a kindergarten teacher, a first grade teacher, and a doctoral student met every other week toward that end. Though their goal was to develop classroom practices centered around home and community literacies, they found that much of their time was focused inward. Through readings, discussions, and self-reflection they confronted and addressed their own biases in the classroom. They felt like their real accomplishment was developing a new lens for viewing families, communities, and literacy while developing a "new mindfulness."
Citing Brown and Langer (1990), the authors "describe mindful teaching as: a) seeing the world through multiple perspectives, b) honor the process of learning over outcomes, c) recognizing the evolving nature of learning, and d) valuing the fluidity of knowledge." With this in mind, the group sought to appreciate diversity rather than view it as a deficit."
One of the revelations of the group also struck me, though given my recent study, perhaps it shouldn't have. They felt they needed to broaden their definition of literacy to include "storytelling, talking, environmental print, looking up a phone number, reading a book, making a list, looking at pictures." It is easy to fall back into the school-centric view of literacy, so even when one has learned that literacy includes much more, it is useful to be reminded of that fact.
Examples the teachers experienced included letting a student use a large portion of the school day to share the stories and literacies he used while he visited family in India. Another teacher was able to make a connection with a student and his family when he was invited to share his race-car knowledge with the class. His parents brought a race-car in to show to the class, thus sharing some of their lives and becoming more engaged with the class and teacher. That teacher felt there were positive impacts on that family subsequent to that visit. It reminds me of a statement made by one of the teachers. Sally Shaw said, "I am trying to think about or trying to listen for things that [the children] enjoy, to things that they're good at."
The above example also illustrated overcoming a bias. That family had previously seemed unengaged with the class/teacher. It is not hard for a teacher to judge a family and think they don't care. Instead, what may be needed is a connection to build upon. Similar to finding things children enjoy and are good at, we can look for the similar things for our families to be able to share. That may help us to adjust our lens and appreciate home/community literacies.
Hamel, E. C., Shaw, S., & Taylor, T. S. (2013). Toward a new mindfulness: Explorations
of home and community literacies. Lanuage Arts, 90 (6), 428-439.
Citing Brown and Langer (1990), the authors "describe mindful teaching as: a) seeing the world through multiple perspectives, b) honor the process of learning over outcomes, c) recognizing the evolving nature of learning, and d) valuing the fluidity of knowledge." With this in mind, the group sought to appreciate diversity rather than view it as a deficit."
One of the revelations of the group also struck me, though given my recent study, perhaps it shouldn't have. They felt they needed to broaden their definition of literacy to include "storytelling, talking, environmental print, looking up a phone number, reading a book, making a list, looking at pictures." It is easy to fall back into the school-centric view of literacy, so even when one has learned that literacy includes much more, it is useful to be reminded of that fact.
Examples the teachers experienced included letting a student use a large portion of the school day to share the stories and literacies he used while he visited family in India. Another teacher was able to make a connection with a student and his family when he was invited to share his race-car knowledge with the class. His parents brought a race-car in to show to the class, thus sharing some of their lives and becoming more engaged with the class and teacher. That teacher felt there were positive impacts on that family subsequent to that visit. It reminds me of a statement made by one of the teachers. Sally Shaw said, "I am trying to think about or trying to listen for things that [the children] enjoy, to things that they're good at."
The above example also illustrated overcoming a bias. That family had previously seemed unengaged with the class/teacher. It is not hard for a teacher to judge a family and think they don't care. Instead, what may be needed is a connection to build upon. Similar to finding things children enjoy and are good at, we can look for the similar things for our families to be able to share. That may help us to adjust our lens and appreciate home/community literacies.
Hamel, E. C., Shaw, S., & Taylor, T. S. (2013). Toward a new mindfulness: Explorations
of home and community literacies. Lanuage Arts, 90 (6), 428-439.
Brown, J., & Langer, E. (1990). Mindfulness and intelligence: A comparison. Educational
Psychologists, 25, 305–336. doi:10.1080/00461520.1990.9653116
Monday, March 10, 2014
Misusing scientifically-based research
I recently read an article, though really it was a conversation between Dick Allington and P. David Pearson, called The Casualties of Policy on Early Literacy Development. Their conversation is very much a continuation of the podcast I listened to last week, also featuring P. David Pearson, which focused on Reading First. In this conversation, Allington and Pearson discuss policy like No Child Left Behind and Reading First, and their effects on instruction and learning literacy.
The section that jumped out at me was the critique of DIBELS, something I mentioned last week. Allington says the What Works Clearinghouse has stated that there are no studies that show DIBELS to improve reading achievement. Pearson, then adds that DIBELS website states that it is not a diagnostic tool, but meant only for progress monitoring.He goes on to point out that since these are the metrics people are monitoring, then that becomes the skills teachers assume ought to be taught. Thus, students will improve at the DIBELS test and progress. However, that is not the way the creators of DIBELS ever intended for it to be used.
I am reminded of a reading I did a few weeks ago, that spoke of the problems associated around leveling books. In that case, a good idea, was often implemented poorly. Here, there is debate whether DIBELS is a good idea to begin with, so implementing it poorly can only be worse. It places the focus on skills and consequently instruction that don't show evidence for improving reading. Time spent there is time taken away from students reading for meaning, something Allington and Pearson say that we know from research to be important for young readers. I suspect that the more time students spend with books, making meaning, and enjoying them, the better they will do at the skills DIBELS tests. However, designing a curriculum to address those skills isn't shown to work, isn't what DIBELS was designed for, and won't engage students in learning.
The section that jumped out at me was the critique of DIBELS, something I mentioned last week. Allington says the What Works Clearinghouse has stated that there are no studies that show DIBELS to improve reading achievement. Pearson, then adds that DIBELS website states that it is not a diagnostic tool, but meant only for progress monitoring.He goes on to point out that since these are the metrics people are monitoring, then that becomes the skills teachers assume ought to be taught. Thus, students will improve at the DIBELS test and progress. However, that is not the way the creators of DIBELS ever intended for it to be used.
I am reminded of a reading I did a few weeks ago, that spoke of the problems associated around leveling books. In that case, a good idea, was often implemented poorly. Here, there is debate whether DIBELS is a good idea to begin with, so implementing it poorly can only be worse. It places the focus on skills and consequently instruction that don't show evidence for improving reading. Time spent there is time taken away from students reading for meaning, something Allington and Pearson say that we know from research to be important for young readers. I suspect that the more time students spend with books, making meaning, and enjoying them, the better they will do at the skills DIBELS tests. However, designing a curriculum to address those skills isn't shown to work, isn't what DIBELS was designed for, and won't engage students in learning.
Monday, March 3, 2014
On a Voice of Literacy podcast Dr. David Pearson talks about the efficacy of Reading First. Reading First was a part of No Child Left Behind, signed into law in 2002, and it included mandates about the type of curriculum should be adopted in regards to elementary reading and how that curriculum should be implemented -the assessments, pedagogy, etc. "It was also supposedly based upon scientifically-based reading research," says Pearson. The idea of basing reading instruction on the results of reading research certainly doesn't sound like a bad one.
However, the research into the results of this change in reading instruction has been split. If one looks at the data coming from individual states, the impression in positive. Students are showing gains and teachers are appreciating the development they've received. Literacy coaches have been hired to help teachers and share the updates in reading research. However, when there was a national review of Reading First, the result were not so encouraging. Why is that?
Pearson suggests that it is due to the fact that NCLB and Reading First are not implemented in one way across the country, but rather in as many ways as there are states implementing the changes. So, while in one state, there may have been an influx of energy to the educational system regarding reading instruction, and that renewed focus had positive outcomes for the students - in other states, the implementation may have been poorer. The national results thus display the averaging out of those disparate responses to Reading First.
I can certainly see where a reinvigorated and freshly developed staff would have a positive impact on the reading instruction of their students. Pearson talks of this a little more in his article, for which he was then interviewed on the podcast. The idea being that the change is important - the new hope and motivation to succeed by latching onto a new "research-based" system caused the improvement. While staff development is good, and refocusing on student reading is positive, I'm less certain about the various mandates. However, that is the path our education has been on. Thinking that we can judge everybody on the same criteria and mandates will get us to the benchmark levels of achievement so desired.
However, the research into the results of this change in reading instruction has been split. If one looks at the data coming from individual states, the impression in positive. Students are showing gains and teachers are appreciating the development they've received. Literacy coaches have been hired to help teachers and share the updates in reading research. However, when there was a national review of Reading First, the result were not so encouraging. Why is that?
Pearson suggests that it is due to the fact that NCLB and Reading First are not implemented in one way across the country, but rather in as many ways as there are states implementing the changes. So, while in one state, there may have been an influx of energy to the educational system regarding reading instruction, and that renewed focus had positive outcomes for the students - in other states, the implementation may have been poorer. The national results thus display the averaging out of those disparate responses to Reading First.
I can certainly see where a reinvigorated and freshly developed staff would have a positive impact on the reading instruction of their students. Pearson talks of this a little more in his article, for which he was then interviewed on the podcast. The idea being that the change is important - the new hope and motivation to succeed by latching onto a new "research-based" system caused the improvement. While staff development is good, and refocusing on student reading is positive, I'm less certain about the various mandates. However, that is the path our education has been on. Thinking that we can judge everybody on the same criteria and mandates will get us to the benchmark levels of achievement so desired.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Leveled books and readers
As I believe I've mentioned, last year I worked in a K-2 elementary school and though I assisted in language arts and mathematics, I was based out of the Literacy Lab. In that room, I was introduced to leveled books, as that was the method by which most of the books were organized. On multiple occasions I would look through a book of one level and compare it to a book of the next, or preceding level. Oftentimes there seemed to be very little difference from one level to the next.
That makes the anecdote from Glasswell's and Ford's (2011) Let's Start Leveling about Leveling all the more surprising. In it, they tell of a child who is denied the opportunity to read a D-level book because he is only at the C-level. Then, at his next assessment, he jumps to E-level books, and thus is still denied the opportunity to read the D-leveled book that he was so interested in. This story serves as the jumping off point to discuss how a good idea - matching readers to appropriate level reading material - can go wrong.
Clearly, one's reading level is not the only determining factor in whether or not a book is appropriate for a student. I myself have failed to read and finish books on multiple occasions, and not because I was a too low a level for the book in question, but rather because I lacked sufficient interest to continue. As teachers, we should always be ready to take advantage of a students desire to engage with a subject matter. Though we don't want our young readers to operate at the level of frustration too often, I would think that an intense interest in a subject might help a student to mitigate some of the frustration they may have from a more advanced text. Additionally, if that text is really too far outside a student's ability, then the teacher ought to try and find a book on the same subject matter that is more appropriately leveled.
However, the idea that the student is denied a book for being one level away from the level in which it is categorized is ludicrous. Reading is not just about levels, but many other things as Glasswell and Ford note. Background experience, vocabulary, motivation, subject knowledge, setting, format, emotional climate and many other aspects can determine whether an engagement with a book will be successful. Basing book selections solely on level is silly.
The authors also note that the manner in which levels are assessed and assigned to books is very complex and requires a lot of arbitrary and vague evaluations of text, thus drawing into question the true difference between one level and the next. Glasswell and Ford express other valuable ideas about leveled books, but through them all, the point is that the teacher needs to be actively aware of their students' interests and needs. Teachers should not rely on levels as the sole or main manner in which books are matched to students.
That makes the anecdote from Glasswell's and Ford's (2011) Let's Start Leveling about Leveling all the more surprising. In it, they tell of a child who is denied the opportunity to read a D-level book because he is only at the C-level. Then, at his next assessment, he jumps to E-level books, and thus is still denied the opportunity to read the D-leveled book that he was so interested in. This story serves as the jumping off point to discuss how a good idea - matching readers to appropriate level reading material - can go wrong.
Clearly, one's reading level is not the only determining factor in whether or not a book is appropriate for a student. I myself have failed to read and finish books on multiple occasions, and not because I was a too low a level for the book in question, but rather because I lacked sufficient interest to continue. As teachers, we should always be ready to take advantage of a students desire to engage with a subject matter. Though we don't want our young readers to operate at the level of frustration too often, I would think that an intense interest in a subject might help a student to mitigate some of the frustration they may have from a more advanced text. Additionally, if that text is really too far outside a student's ability, then the teacher ought to try and find a book on the same subject matter that is more appropriately leveled.
However, the idea that the student is denied a book for being one level away from the level in which it is categorized is ludicrous. Reading is not just about levels, but many other things as Glasswell and Ford note. Background experience, vocabulary, motivation, subject knowledge, setting, format, emotional climate and many other aspects can determine whether an engagement with a book will be successful. Basing book selections solely on level is silly.
The authors also note that the manner in which levels are assessed and assigned to books is very complex and requires a lot of arbitrary and vague evaluations of text, thus drawing into question the true difference between one level and the next. Glasswell and Ford express other valuable ideas about leveled books, but through them all, the point is that the teacher needs to be actively aware of their students' interests and needs. Teachers should not rely on levels as the sole or main manner in which books are matched to students.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Naming Strategies
There are a number of comprehension strategies I've become aware of in the course of learning about teaching literacy to elementary children. It had never occurred to me that it might be necessary to teach some of these techniques. The most obvious of which is simply rereading, but other include making connections, visualizing, asking question, activating background knowledge. As an adult, these types of behaviors occur naturally, and I don't recall learning them. However, perhaps if I'd had explicit instruction on them, I would have been a better reader sooner.
It's the manner of that explicit instruction that I'm interested in at the moment. In the book Catching Readers Before They Fall by Johnson and Keier, they seem to suggest not naming the strategies for the students, lest the focus be placed on the strategy itself and not on making sense of a reading. In my previous readings and again, most recently in a chapter on schema from Miller's Reading with Meaning: Teaching Comprehension in the Primary Grades, there are examples of introducing and talking about strategies by their names.
When, I first read Johnson's and Keier's reasoning, I thought it made sense. However, I also wondered whether it was so wrong to put a name to the strategies we use. I think that though their approaches differ slightly, all the above authors do try and maintain a focus on comprehension rather than the strategy. Johnson's and Keier's example about a heavy-handed approach to introducing visualizing to a class isn't less effective because the hypothetical teacher names the strategy, but rather because the teacher doesn't connect the strategy to meaning-making. Miller, in her example, names the strategy for the students, but she is always clear about how this helps to understand the story. She works with students to distinguish between connections that help understand the story, and those that don't.
That is clearly the point - the manner in which these strategies help to make meaning and aid comprehension. It is possible that naming a strategy can be a part of an instructional technique that incorrectly focuses on the strategy and not comprehension, but it is not necessarily so. Thus, I don't think I have to fear that I'm teaching strategies wrong because I explicitly name them for my students.
It's the manner of that explicit instruction that I'm interested in at the moment. In the book Catching Readers Before They Fall by Johnson and Keier, they seem to suggest not naming the strategies for the students, lest the focus be placed on the strategy itself and not on making sense of a reading. In my previous readings and again, most recently in a chapter on schema from Miller's Reading with Meaning: Teaching Comprehension in the Primary Grades, there are examples of introducing and talking about strategies by their names.
When, I first read Johnson's and Keier's reasoning, I thought it made sense. However, I also wondered whether it was so wrong to put a name to the strategies we use. I think that though their approaches differ slightly, all the above authors do try and maintain a focus on comprehension rather than the strategy. Johnson's and Keier's example about a heavy-handed approach to introducing visualizing to a class isn't less effective because the hypothetical teacher names the strategy, but rather because the teacher doesn't connect the strategy to meaning-making. Miller, in her example, names the strategy for the students, but she is always clear about how this helps to understand the story. She works with students to distinguish between connections that help understand the story, and those that don't.
That is clearly the point - the manner in which these strategies help to make meaning and aid comprehension. It is possible that naming a strategy can be a part of an instructional technique that incorrectly focuses on the strategy and not comprehension, but it is not necessarily so. Thus, I don't think I have to fear that I'm teaching strategies wrong because I explicitly name them for my students.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Alphabet knowledge and emergent reading
When I worked at a K - 2 school, I and a couple colleagues worked regularly with a small group of kindergarteners who were behind their peers in the categories or letter ID and letter sounds. So, we explicitly taught them the shapes, names, and sounds of the letters of the alphabet - particularly the ones with which they struggled. Though at times, the work we did could be monotonous and felt like drill, we did try to make the activities as entertaining as we could. We created games, watched videos, created coloring sheets, and more.
A podcast I just listened to, from the Voice of Literacy featuring Dr. Shayne Piasta, discussed alphabet learning and early literacy. She suggested that in addition to explicit instruction, alphabet learning can take place as a part of other literacy learning, like phonological awareness. If I could go back, I would have liked to have tried to take some of the drill out of our instruction.
Another aspect that was touched upon was the instruction parents can incorporate as a part of their time reading to their children. Parents don't usually include instruction on letters and print features when they read a story, but it is suggested they could without diminishing too greatly the enjoyment of the book. As a soon-to-be parent and teacher, I excited to learn so much about early literacy!
A podcast I just listened to, from the Voice of Literacy featuring Dr. Shayne Piasta, discussed alphabet learning and early literacy. She suggested that in addition to explicit instruction, alphabet learning can take place as a part of other literacy learning, like phonological awareness. If I could go back, I would have liked to have tried to take some of the drill out of our instruction.
Another aspect that was touched upon was the instruction parents can incorporate as a part of their time reading to their children. Parents don't usually include instruction on letters and print features when they read a story, but it is suggested they could without diminishing too greatly the enjoyment of the book. As a soon-to-be parent and teacher, I excited to learn so much about early literacy!
Monday, February 3, 2014
Appreciating the developmental process
It is hard, as an adult so far removed from the earliest levels of language learning, to appreciate the successes of young children when they make so many mistakes. At this point in our adult lives, language and our use of it seems like such second nature, it is difficult to celebrate the incremental gains, and not just see all the misspellings and grammatical errors.
This topic of conversation came up in an article I read entitled Every Mark on the Page: Educating Family and Community Members about Young Children's Writing by Kate Foley Cusumano. Many parents express concern about their own child's early writing ability based upon the mistakes their child makes. Cusumano uses anonymous examples of student work and, in conferences or workshops, teaches parents and community members what is the normal range for children and how best to support them.
While reading this article, I was reminded of an exercise from a methods course in teaching mathematics in which we worked with numbers and problems in a base 5 system, rather than base 10. That exercise really drove home for me how much we take for granted knowing our number system as adults, and how becoming uneasy with a different system can help us to better help emergent learners. It a similar situation with reading and writing.
If all we do is focus on the mistakes that young learners make, and if we do not celebrate their successes, then we risk making that subject which is the focus of our critical gaze, into something that the child dislikes and feels frustrated about. I'm reminded of anecdote I heard years ago, in which a young child's creative writing is criticized for the errors it entailed. Subsequently, the child was able to create writing that had fewer errors, but was also much less creative. As educators and adults in children's lives, we want to encourage an enjoyment of learning behaviors and activities first and foremost. We want to celebrate what is great about what children are doing, and then bit by by address concerns of writing convention, for example. Understanding that there is a process to learning, students will make mistakes along the way, and encouraging enjoyment of the learning will lead to much better outcomes.
This topic of conversation came up in an article I read entitled Every Mark on the Page: Educating Family and Community Members about Young Children's Writing by Kate Foley Cusumano. Many parents express concern about their own child's early writing ability based upon the mistakes their child makes. Cusumano uses anonymous examples of student work and, in conferences or workshops, teaches parents and community members what is the normal range for children and how best to support them.
While reading this article, I was reminded of an exercise from a methods course in teaching mathematics in which we worked with numbers and problems in a base 5 system, rather than base 10. That exercise really drove home for me how much we take for granted knowing our number system as adults, and how becoming uneasy with a different system can help us to better help emergent learners. It a similar situation with reading and writing.
If all we do is focus on the mistakes that young learners make, and if we do not celebrate their successes, then we risk making that subject which is the focus of our critical gaze, into something that the child dislikes and feels frustrated about. I'm reminded of anecdote I heard years ago, in which a young child's creative writing is criticized for the errors it entailed. Subsequently, the child was able to create writing that had fewer errors, but was also much less creative. As educators and adults in children's lives, we want to encourage an enjoyment of learning behaviors and activities first and foremost. We want to celebrate what is great about what children are doing, and then bit by by address concerns of writing convention, for example. Understanding that there is a process to learning, students will make mistakes along the way, and encouraging enjoyment of the learning will lead to much better outcomes.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Competition in the classroom
In my schooling I often had a competitive aspect to my learning and desire to achieve. I was, and continue to be grade-motivated, though I am now more interested in the knowledge acquired than I ever was previously. But going back to the competitive drive - is that a good motivation for the classroom? This concept was discussed some last year in a graduate level education class I was in and it was a tangental point raised in a podcast I just listened to, concerning culturally responsive instruction.
In the podcast, Kathy Au tells us of her experience teaching K-2 students who were almost all of native Hawaiian ancestry. As a part of their culture, they were taught by their families to highly value cooperation. These children had struggles being in competitive classroom situations in which students were expected to show their superior intelligence by answering a question first. Kathy Au uses this point to explain that as a part of culturally responsive instruction, a teacher needs to create classroom situations that take advantage of the cooperative abilities and values that the students already bring to the classroom.
In my previous discussions on this topic, and in my own pondering, I wonder if there is a place for competition in the classroom. It is a classic tale of elementary school mathematics that students reflect in horror upon "mad minute math." I am one of the few that enjoyed it, which basically means I was good at math. Otherwise, it was a stressful activity that doubtfully improved anyone's ability or enjoyment of mathematics. If competition in class serves so few students and is despised by the rest, it is pretty clear that it probably shouldn't be included in curriculum.
The goal of any particular lesson is for the student to learn the information and/or process being taught. While there is the need for individual assessment of whether a students did indeed learn the material, why would it matter if that learning was done cooperatively. Additionally, as brought up in a discussion last year - what if a subject finally clicked for a student right after the test? What if at that point, it finally made sense? Should they receive a bad grade if that is what their test reflects? With learning as the goal, I would think not.
What of students though whose primary motivation is competition? Perhaps, they can find their own areas in which to compete even if a teacher isn't providing them. I'm sure some could argue that the world is a competitive place and we should prepare our children for it. However, I don't think that there will be any lack of informal instruction on competition in our students' lives, even if it is removed from the classroom. Though, removing competition from the classroom is easier said than done as it can factor into many areas, such as behavioral management. It is not uncommon to see clusters of students competing with other clusters for points, and thus awards, for exhibiting good behavior. Creating a pervasive environment of cooperation would likely require some in-depth reflection on one's own classroom and practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, Kathy Au also spoke of pair share and quick share as techniques of culturally responsive instruction. In pair share, students respond to each other about a class prompt before one of them is responsible for sharing it with the class. The next time, the other partner shares. This helps students practice what they want to say in a more comfortable setting and is beneficial for English Language Learners. In the quick share, every student has the opportunity to share very briefly, ensuring that all students have a voice and are not left out or allowed to disengage. I'm particularly interested in the pair share as it allows all students to share their ideas, even if they are not with the entire class.
In the podcast, Kathy Au tells us of her experience teaching K-2 students who were almost all of native Hawaiian ancestry. As a part of their culture, they were taught by their families to highly value cooperation. These children had struggles being in competitive classroom situations in which students were expected to show their superior intelligence by answering a question first. Kathy Au uses this point to explain that as a part of culturally responsive instruction, a teacher needs to create classroom situations that take advantage of the cooperative abilities and values that the students already bring to the classroom.
In my previous discussions on this topic, and in my own pondering, I wonder if there is a place for competition in the classroom. It is a classic tale of elementary school mathematics that students reflect in horror upon "mad minute math." I am one of the few that enjoyed it, which basically means I was good at math. Otherwise, it was a stressful activity that doubtfully improved anyone's ability or enjoyment of mathematics. If competition in class serves so few students and is despised by the rest, it is pretty clear that it probably shouldn't be included in curriculum.
The goal of any particular lesson is for the student to learn the information and/or process being taught. While there is the need for individual assessment of whether a students did indeed learn the material, why would it matter if that learning was done cooperatively. Additionally, as brought up in a discussion last year - what if a subject finally clicked for a student right after the test? What if at that point, it finally made sense? Should they receive a bad grade if that is what their test reflects? With learning as the goal, I would think not.
What of students though whose primary motivation is competition? Perhaps, they can find their own areas in which to compete even if a teacher isn't providing them. I'm sure some could argue that the world is a competitive place and we should prepare our children for it. However, I don't think that there will be any lack of informal instruction on competition in our students' lives, even if it is removed from the classroom. Though, removing competition from the classroom is easier said than done as it can factor into many areas, such as behavioral management. It is not uncommon to see clusters of students competing with other clusters for points, and thus awards, for exhibiting good behavior. Creating a pervasive environment of cooperation would likely require some in-depth reflection on one's own classroom and practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside, Kathy Au also spoke of pair share and quick share as techniques of culturally responsive instruction. In pair share, students respond to each other about a class prompt before one of them is responsible for sharing it with the class. The next time, the other partner shares. This helps students practice what they want to say in a more comfortable setting and is beneficial for English Language Learners. In the quick share, every student has the opportunity to share very briefly, ensuring that all students have a voice and are not left out or allowed to disengage. I'm particularly interested in the pair share as it allows all students to share their ideas, even if they are not with the entire class.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Digging the bus
There were also advertisements across the top of both sides of the bus. Pamphlets were available to those who wanted more information on various city routes. Finally, the same sign was at the front and back of the bus that served to visually reinforce the written rules of what is prohibited on the bus (smoking, food and drink, and the radio.)
There wasn't very much oral language being used on the bus. The stops were announced but they were largely unintelligible. There were a couple of conversations that occurred, but one finished before the ride was over. The other seemed to between two people who knew each other and they inquired about each other's jobs. Riding the bus is similar to other mass transit I've been on, in that the majority of people keep to themselves. I think there is some unwritten code that people not be too loud on public transit. However, people not knowing each other probably contributes to the silence, excluding the substantial bus noise.
In debriefing with my group, we discussed how there really is quite a bit of information available to the literate and novice bus rider. However, it appears that most people are familiar with the routine on the bus and take little notice of the words all around them. I think a person unfamiliar with riding the bus or a child would be most likely to be curious and take notice of the signs and words on the bus.
Similar to The Donut House article, I think it would be interesting to recreate the bus in a classroom as a means to integrate real world literacy and integrate play. Students could make advertisements for business (real or pretend) of their choosing. They could create their own rules for our in-class bus. I continue to think that couching literacy in play and real life would be an effective means of keeping students engaged in learning.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Engagement
I spent a year working with kindergarten to 2nd graders as a sort of assistant teacher. I had a specific job title, but I don't think it is very descriptive of the work I did. I would teach groups of students, ranging in size from 2 to 24, in areas of literacy, math, and occasionally social studies. Everday I would teach groups from each grade level who were in need of reinforcement or enrichment related to classroom lessons. Based upon this, I would expect that all teachers can relate to the experience of teaching to students who are checked out and distracted - despite being instructed to pay attention!
I know I related to one such account that began an article I recently read about teaching literacy (The Donut House: Real World Literacy in an Urban Kindergarten Classroom by Powell and Davidson.) Reading this article and the introductory anecdote made me consider, why should students pay attention, if we're not giving them any reason to do so? It's not enough of a reason to say that there is a rule requiring attentive listening. This article tells of one effort to give young students a reason to want to be engaged. The reason? Because the lesson was interesting, related to their life, and involved elements of play.
Kindergarteners visited a nearby donut shop and took notes as research into the donut shop they would create in their classroom. The project provided many opportunities for them to learn, dissect, and play with language throughout the process. They wrote letters to stockholders, created labels and props, and had their work catalogued in a book documenting the process which they could read and review. It certainly sounds like a more interesting way to engage with language than a dry lesson.
I wonder however what other literacy teaching and practicing was going on at the same time. I would also be interested in a more detailed account of how the project worked. Was the donut shop integrated into the class learning everyday? What was the time span in which the project took place and how was it ended? Was the donut shop removed at the end of the project? Were there actual donuts for sale at the grand opening!?!
I'd love to see a project like this in action. The writers acknowledge some things they'd do differently the next time, like getting parents more involved, but regardless it seems like a success. The students engaged in literacy and learning in ways that connected to their lives. Hopefully the only time the students checked out, was when they were making a purchase at The Donut House.
I know I related to one such account that began an article I recently read about teaching literacy (The Donut House: Real World Literacy in an Urban Kindergarten Classroom by Powell and Davidson.) Reading this article and the introductory anecdote made me consider, why should students pay attention, if we're not giving them any reason to do so? It's not enough of a reason to say that there is a rule requiring attentive listening. This article tells of one effort to give young students a reason to want to be engaged. The reason? Because the lesson was interesting, related to their life, and involved elements of play.
Kindergarteners visited a nearby donut shop and took notes as research into the donut shop they would create in their classroom. The project provided many opportunities for them to learn, dissect, and play with language throughout the process. They wrote letters to stockholders, created labels and props, and had their work catalogued in a book documenting the process which they could read and review. It certainly sounds like a more interesting way to engage with language than a dry lesson.
I wonder however what other literacy teaching and practicing was going on at the same time. I would also be interested in a more detailed account of how the project worked. Was the donut shop integrated into the class learning everyday? What was the time span in which the project took place and how was it ended? Was the donut shop removed at the end of the project? Were there actual donuts for sale at the grand opening!?!
I'd love to see a project like this in action. The writers acknowledge some things they'd do differently the next time, like getting parents more involved, but regardless it seems like a success. The students engaged in literacy and learning in ways that connected to their lives. Hopefully the only time the students checked out, was when they were making a purchase at The Donut House.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Beginning
Welcome to my blog. I am writing here to keep track of what I learn about how children become literate and how teachers can best facilitate that process. I will soon be a teacher myself, and the learning I do and the ideas and research now will impact my own practice, my classroom, and my students. Thanks for joining me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)