In contrast to you two, my CT has a word wall, yet it is still a work in progress. As such, she references it only infrequently, so the students don't really know how or when to use it. I have had kids ask me how to spell words that are on the wall; if they were experienced users of the wall, it would seem like second nature to them to scan the word wall first before asking for help.
Rachel, my students always ask about spelling words that are in the prompt! I am tempted to point to the prompt and simply say, "See - it's right there!" Yet maybe it would be better to ask them, "Besides asking me, where might you find how to spell that word?" Of course, I am in a first/second split, so this question might be more suitable for them than for your kindergartners. This shows that how spelling strategies (e.g., the word wall) is used in a class depends on the grade level. It's no wonder that us three, being in different grade levels, have different experiences!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Word Walls. Word.
Having focused on the concept of fluency to a fairly great extent in TE301 I thought that I knew quite a bit about what fluency was and how to promote it within the classroom setting, however, after reading this chapter I realized that we really only scratched the surface. I found this chapter to be very helpful in regards to providing examples of how to promote reading fluency in the classroom and additionally will attempt to modify some of the ideas/minilessons mentioned in the text in order to promote some of the students' fluency during my time in my corresponding classroom.
Reading chapter five of Tompkins really helped me to realize how many little things my CT does in her classroom with the intention of promoting reading fluency. Nearly each one of the sections within the chapter I have seen within my corresponding classroom in one way or another. I was very impressed by how many tasks my CT includes each day that truly are promoting fluency and surprised that I did not catch this fluency promotion on my own prior to reading this chapter.
One thing that caught my attention in this chapter was the heavy focus on the use of word walls within the classroom. This is something that I have seen present in my corresponding classroom since the beginning of the school year; however, I do not think that I have ever seen my CT work with the word wall in the classroom. I am sure that she does engage the students in minilessons throughout the year that focus on the word wall and its importance as well as usefulness, but I am somewhat surprised that I have not first handedly observed any such lesson. I have however seen the students refer to the word wall when writing on their own and have noticed the growth of the word wall over the course of the year. The chart on page 159 is very, very similar to the word wall that is present within my corresponding classroom (perhaps my CT has this exact text!). When I return to the classroom I am definitely going to pay attention in hopes of seeing the Cunningham-suggested procedure for practicing the words on the word wall being exemplified in the classroom.
Reading chapter five of Tompkins really helped me to realize how many little things my CT does in her classroom with the intention of promoting reading fluency. Nearly each one of the sections within the chapter I have seen within my corresponding classroom in one way or another. I was very impressed by how many tasks my CT includes each day that truly are promoting fluency and surprised that I did not catch this fluency promotion on my own prior to reading this chapter.
One thing that caught my attention in this chapter was the heavy focus on the use of word walls within the classroom. This is something that I have seen present in my corresponding classroom since the beginning of the school year; however, I do not think that I have ever seen my CT work with the word wall in the classroom. I am sure that she does engage the students in minilessons throughout the year that focus on the word wall and its importance as well as usefulness, but I am somewhat surprised that I have not first handedly observed any such lesson. I have however seen the students refer to the word wall when writing on their own and have noticed the growth of the word wall over the course of the year. The chart on page 159 is very, very similar to the word wall that is present within my corresponding classroom (perhaps my CT has this exact text!). When I return to the classroom I am definitely going to pay attention in hopes of seeing the Cunningham-suggested procedure for practicing the words on the word wall being exemplified in the classroom.
Pursuing Fluency
As I have talked about in previous blog posts, I was caught once again by another example of using a text over a period of days, rather than having a one-and-done reading of it. Students in Ms. Williams class, featured in the vignette at the beginning of the chapter, had read A House for Hermit Crab numerous times, and Ms. Williams still included it for students to read on their own at the class's listening center (Tompkins 150). This practice is particularly useful for fluency because multiple exposures to a text help to increase a student's base of sight words, i.e. words they can recognize immediately upon sight. Read Green Eggs and Ham in virtually any classroom and you'll see what I mean: many students have the book practically memorized. Of course, memorization does not necessarily build fluency; however, repeated exposure when the text is presented to the class (as Ms. Williams did at her literacy center) seems bound to help students make connections between the words they hear and those they see on the page.
As we see in this vignette, learning high-frequency words so that they become sight words is an important development in a student's fluency. This is particularly the case for words that are difficult to sound out, or whose meaning is not easily discernible from context. Tompkins offers 'to,' 'what,' and 'could' as examples of words that fit into both of these categories (156-7). Ms. Williams successfully used fill-in-the-blank activities to teach high-frequency words (152, 154). These activities, since they were so well designed, put the words in meaningful contexts, used some words repeatedly, and allowed the students to decide upon their placement based on both their formal and informal knowledge of the words.
I appreciated the word-identification strategies (Tompkins 162-70), since I am often faced with students asking me, "How do you spell ________?" Usually, I'll tell them to try sounding it out, which is, I now know, a prompt for them to use phonic analysis, the first strategy. If the word is 'gave', for instance, then I'll walk with them as they make each sound. If they end up with 'gav,' I will ask them something like, "What letter do you add that makes the 'a' say its name?" They'll usually add the 'e.' But with a word like 'dove,' for example, I have always been at a loss for how to help them. I realize now that this is because I always try to use phonic analysis, while other strategies work better for words like this. Take the analogies strategy, for example. (The remaining two strategies, syllabic analysis and morphemic analysis, seem mostly too advanced for my first- and second-graders.) If a student asks me how to spell 'dove,' I could ask them, "Can you think of any other words that sound like 'dove'?" Perhaps they say "glove," and they know how to spell it; then they are well on their way to inferring the spelling of 'dove.'
Dave Koch
As we see in this vignette, learning high-frequency words so that they become sight words is an important development in a student's fluency. This is particularly the case for words that are difficult to sound out, or whose meaning is not easily discernible from context. Tompkins offers 'to,' 'what,' and 'could' as examples of words that fit into both of these categories (156-7). Ms. Williams successfully used fill-in-the-blank activities to teach high-frequency words (152, 154). These activities, since they were so well designed, put the words in meaningful contexts, used some words repeatedly, and allowed the students to decide upon their placement based on both their formal and informal knowledge of the words.
I appreciated the word-identification strategies (Tompkins 162-70), since I am often faced with students asking me, "How do you spell ________?" Usually, I'll tell them to try sounding it out, which is, I now know, a prompt for them to use phonic analysis, the first strategy. If the word is 'gave', for instance, then I'll walk with them as they make each sound. If they end up with 'gav,' I will ask them something like, "What letter do you add that makes the 'a' say its name?" They'll usually add the 'e.' But with a word like 'dove,' for example, I have always been at a loss for how to help them. I realize now that this is because I always try to use phonic analysis, while other strategies work better for words like this. Take the analogies strategy, for example. (The remaining two strategies, syllabic analysis and morphemic analysis, seem mostly too advanced for my first- and second-graders.) If a student asks me how to spell 'dove,' I could ask them, "Can you think of any other words that sound like 'dove'?" Perhaps they say "glove," and they know how to spell it; then they are well on their way to inferring the spelling of 'dove.'
Dave Koch
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Comment on Rachel's Post (3/29)
Yo Rachel,
Thanks for your response to the reading. I think it's cool how much your CT uses prediction, both before and after reading activities. My CT is like yours in that she likes to use prediction before reading to get the kids invested in the story. It's interesting that you did that with Green Eggs and Ham - I would have been worried that some students would know the ending and spoil it for the rest of the class. Did anything like that happen? My CT is different than yours, however, in that she does not typically use predictions after reading. I think this was particularly useful for your kindergartners, since the concepts of past and future are still developing for them. In general, making predictions outside of the reading seems beneficial since it connects the act of reading a story to living life (we often don't know what's coming next!). I hope to bring in the use of predictions both before and after subsequent reading lessons.
Dave
Thanks for your response to the reading. I think it's cool how much your CT uses prediction, both before and after reading activities. My CT is like yours in that she likes to use prediction before reading to get the kids invested in the story. It's interesting that you did that with Green Eggs and Ham - I would have been worried that some students would know the ending and spoil it for the rest of the class. Did anything like that happen? My CT is different than yours, however, in that she does not typically use predictions after reading. I think this was particularly useful for your kindergartners, since the concepts of past and future are still developing for them. In general, making predictions outside of the reading seems beneficial since it connects the act of reading a story to living life (we often don't know what's coming next!). I hope to bring in the use of predictions both before and after subsequent reading lessons.
Dave
Monday, March 30, 2009
Two Big Ideas
It's funny that, in Rachel's post (below), she received this chapter's focus on early elementary grades enthusiastically. I'm genuinely happy for her, since she should get to dig into some material that readily applies to what she cares about most. For me, however, to be quite honest, this reading had the opposite effect. I want to teach at the middle school level; the education of brand-new readers and writers, then, is less concerning for me.
Nevertheless, I found two big ideas that apply to my placement and my development as a future teacher. Here they are:
1. Rereading is encouraged. The first few pages of this chapter repeatedly tell of Ms. McCloskey reading a book to her children multiple times. The obvious assumption here is that rereading is more than okay - it's a good idea! In the time I've spent with three different CTs at various grade levels, I have only seen one of them reread a story to her class - yet it seemed as though weeks had elapsed between these readings. Rather than something to be avoided or used only to refamiliarize, the teacher described in the text seems to use rereading intentionally to help students understand the story better. After reading a story to her students, she let them retell it, using what they remember and the illustrations as aides, so that ELLs can experience the story orally and in the students' own words (pp. 78-9). She then rereads it a third and fourth time, digging deeper into plot and thematic elements, and working on word recognition (p. 79).
This is vastly different than what I see in my current CT's classroom. We have yet to revisit a text after she has read it the first time. Although she uses some of the same strategies as Ms. McCloskey, my CT simply cannot do as much in only one read-through - there isn't enough time, let alone student focus, to do more! The upside is that my CT can get through more books this way; the (more significant) downside is that students barely have time to experience and understand the books that she reads. There is little retelling, and even less word recognition. I think my CT could benefit from using more time and more strategies to read and teach each book.
Kids learn to write best when they are interested in the literacy activity. The part (later in the chapter) about alphabetic concepts interested me, since many of my first- and second-graders are still building their knowledge of basic sound-letter relationships. They have the best opportunity to do so when they are doing their own writing, since they are faced with the challenge of putting into letters and words the sounds of the words they say out loud or think in their heads. The presumption in the text is that this happens best when children really like what they are doing. When the students are intrinsically motivated to write, development of alphabetic knowledge happens quite naturally, since they feel the need and the desire to communicate their thoughts through the written word. When they are not interested, then writing becomes a chore, and it's easier for children to miss the important connection between spoken and written words.
In my CT's classroom, children often have the opportunity to write something at the beginning of the day. However, this is so structured that it does not tend to engage the students' interests. Last week, for instance, the children had to write a letter to another student in the classroom. So far, so good. Yet they were told to write the first sentence about the person they were writing to, the second about themselves, and the third having a question for the person they were writing to. Even though the lesson had the potential for engaging the students, its structure made the assignment much like any other writing assignment they have: not about the speech act itself, but about the form of that act. Students end up focusing so much on the form, since this is what the CT looks at as a basis to praise and scold. Thus, they think of writing firstly as following some set of rules and secondly about communicating meaningful thought. Anyone who loves to write, however, knows that good, fun writing is the opposite. This is how non-interesting writing hinders the students' writing development in my class.
Nevertheless, I found two big ideas that apply to my placement and my development as a future teacher. Here they are:
1. Rereading is encouraged. The first few pages of this chapter repeatedly tell of Ms. McCloskey reading a book to her children multiple times. The obvious assumption here is that rereading is more than okay - it's a good idea! In the time I've spent with three different CTs at various grade levels, I have only seen one of them reread a story to her class - yet it seemed as though weeks had elapsed between these readings. Rather than something to be avoided or used only to refamiliarize, the teacher described in the text seems to use rereading intentionally to help students understand the story better. After reading a story to her students, she let them retell it, using what they remember and the illustrations as aides, so that ELLs can experience the story orally and in the students' own words (pp. 78-9). She then rereads it a third and fourth time, digging deeper into plot and thematic elements, and working on word recognition (p. 79).
This is vastly different than what I see in my current CT's classroom. We have yet to revisit a text after she has read it the first time. Although she uses some of the same strategies as Ms. McCloskey, my CT simply cannot do as much in only one read-through - there isn't enough time, let alone student focus, to do more! The upside is that my CT can get through more books this way; the (more significant) downside is that students barely have time to experience and understand the books that she reads. There is little retelling, and even less word recognition. I think my CT could benefit from using more time and more strategies to read and teach each book.
Kids learn to write best when they are interested in the literacy activity. The part (later in the chapter) about alphabetic concepts interested me, since many of my first- and second-graders are still building their knowledge of basic sound-letter relationships. They have the best opportunity to do so when they are doing their own writing, since they are faced with the challenge of putting into letters and words the sounds of the words they say out loud or think in their heads. The presumption in the text is that this happens best when children really like what they are doing. When the students are intrinsically motivated to write, development of alphabetic knowledge happens quite naturally, since they feel the need and the desire to communicate their thoughts through the written word. When they are not interested, then writing becomes a chore, and it's easier for children to miss the important connection between spoken and written words.
In my CT's classroom, children often have the opportunity to write something at the beginning of the day. However, this is so structured that it does not tend to engage the students' interests. Last week, for instance, the children had to write a letter to another student in the classroom. So far, so good. Yet they were told to write the first sentence about the person they were writing to, the second about themselves, and the third having a question for the person they were writing to. Even though the lesson had the potential for engaging the students, its structure made the assignment much like any other writing assignment they have: not about the speech act itself, but about the form of that act. Students end up focusing so much on the form, since this is what the CT looks at as a basis to praise and scold. Thus, they think of writing firstly as following some set of rules and secondly about communicating meaningful thought. Anyone who loves to write, however, knows that good, fun writing is the opposite. This is how non-interesting writing hinders the students' writing development in my class.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Stages of reading and writing
I found this chapter in Tompkins to be extremely beneficial for several different reasons. I really liked how we finally got to read something dedicated to the lower elementary grades. I feel as though many of our readings and activities this semester have been focused towards upper elementary and being in a kindergarten class this year has made that a little frustrating.
The portion of Tompkins that I found to be one of the most beneficial was the chart entitled, "Instructional Recommendations for the Three Stages of reading and writing" (p. 97). I see many of these approaches being used in my classroom and the benefits from using them.
Reading Recommendations:
In kindergarten I have seen a lot of the reading strategies used for the emergent stage. My CT uses most of those listed on Tompkins chart but a few that I have seen her use more frequently are encouraging students to make predictions, having students respond to literature through talk and drawing, and teaching high frequency words.
My CT uses prediction a lot during literacy lessons. Usually the class will be seated at the carpet reading a class story and my CT will ask a few different students for their predictions on what the story might be about or how it might end. Because this is used so frequently in my classroom I decided to use it during my lesson as well. I was reading Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss and I asked students to predict whether they thought the main character would end up trying the green eggs and ham. I paused briefly during the story to ask for the predictions.
Recently, my CT talked with the class about past, present, and future and read a story about what it used to be like in schools 150 years ago. The students were then asked to draw a picture and write a couple sentences about what they think schools will be like 150 years from now. I found that the students really enjoyed doing this and were excited to share out their ideas with myself and my CT.
Another thing that we have been focusing on is star words (high frequency words). These words are posted throughout the classroom and several weeks ago I was able to administer assessments to some of class to see how many star words they were able to identify.
Writing Recommendations:
In my kindergarten class morning message is part of their everyday routine. I have been fortunate enough to lead morning message a few different times and the students have seemed to gain a lot from it. The students read the message while I point to the words and there are sometimes questions they have to answer or missing letters that I ask them to fill in. I think that they benefit from this in a variety of ways. First, it requires the students to read something everyday. It also allows the students to be a part of a routine.
The portion of Tompkins that I found to be one of the most beneficial was the chart entitled, "Instructional Recommendations for the Three Stages of reading and writing" (p. 97). I see many of these approaches being used in my classroom and the benefits from using them.
Reading Recommendations:
In kindergarten I have seen a lot of the reading strategies used for the emergent stage. My CT uses most of those listed on Tompkins chart but a few that I have seen her use more frequently are encouraging students to make predictions, having students respond to literature through talk and drawing, and teaching high frequency words.
My CT uses prediction a lot during literacy lessons. Usually the class will be seated at the carpet reading a class story and my CT will ask a few different students for their predictions on what the story might be about or how it might end. Because this is used so frequently in my classroom I decided to use it during my lesson as well. I was reading Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss and I asked students to predict whether they thought the main character would end up trying the green eggs and ham. I paused briefly during the story to ask for the predictions.
Recently, my CT talked with the class about past, present, and future and read a story about what it used to be like in schools 150 years ago. The students were then asked to draw a picture and write a couple sentences about what they think schools will be like 150 years from now. I found that the students really enjoyed doing this and were excited to share out their ideas with myself and my CT.
Another thing that we have been focusing on is star words (high frequency words). These words are posted throughout the classroom and several weeks ago I was able to administer assessments to some of class to see how many star words they were able to identify.
Writing Recommendations:
In my kindergarten class morning message is part of their everyday routine. I have been fortunate enough to lead morning message a few different times and the students have seemed to gain a lot from it. The students read the message while I point to the words and there are sometimes questions they have to answer or missing letters that I ask them to fill in. I think that they benefit from this in a variety of ways. First, it requires the students to read something everyday. It also allows the students to be a part of a routine.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Comment on Nick's Post
Yo Nick - thanks for your comments. I'm glad you chose not to go over the already-charted territory of the eight comprehension strategies.
My CT also struggles with classroom management. I'd say that her biggest tool is a discipline board that has students' names on sticks. She moves the sticks up from green pouches on the bottom, to yellow ones, to orange, and finally to red. There are a couple problems with this being the focus of her classroom management. First, it is a punishment-focused system. Kids act well not to seek after rewards, but to avoid disciplinary actions. Second, it is inconsistent. Sometimes students can move down if the CT notices them behaving well, while other times their punishment is forgotten about. So, I'm not surprised that your CT's successful strategies both involve positive rewards.
I also really like the special buddy system - how clever! They understand that they could be picked with anyone else in the class; so, rather than competing with others, and having an incentive for them to do poorly, they want to see their classmates stay on task. I want to teach middle school, so as you hinted at, I'll need to modify that. But it's a great idea and something that could be beneficial in other grades as well.
Thanks for your ideas! - Dave
My CT also struggles with classroom management. I'd say that her biggest tool is a discipline board that has students' names on sticks. She moves the sticks up from green pouches on the bottom, to yellow ones, to orange, and finally to red. There are a couple problems with this being the focus of her classroom management. First, it is a punishment-focused system. Kids act well not to seek after rewards, but to avoid disciplinary actions. Second, it is inconsistent. Sometimes students can move down if the CT notices them behaving well, while other times their punishment is forgotten about. So, I'm not surprised that your CT's successful strategies both involve positive rewards.
I also really like the special buddy system - how clever! They understand that they could be picked with anyone else in the class; so, rather than competing with others, and having an incentive for them to do poorly, they want to see their classmates stay on task. I want to teach middle school, so as you hinted at, I'll need to modify that. But it's a great idea and something that could be beneficial in other grades as well.
Thanks for your ideas! - Dave
Monday, March 2, 2009
Connecting and Questioning
Rather than comment on all the comprehension strategies listed - I just talk/write too much to do that - I want to focus on one thing I see in my placement (connecting) and one thing I don't see (questioning), and talk about my thoughts on each.
Connecting: It's amazing how first- and second-grade students can learn not only how to do this, but to recognize when they or other students are doing it. I've heard a student say to my CT, "I've got a text-to... text infection!" (He probably didn't really say "infection," but what they said was so garbled that it could have been infection for all I know.) I believe this happens in my class for two main reasons. First, readers do this naturally. It is quite a normal thing - not just a thing that is done in classrooms, or at the request of a teacher - to read or hear something and go, "Oh! That relates to me!" At times, younger students need lots of help articulating exactly what this relationship is - i.e., what the text-to-self connection is - but they are ready with examples. Second, it happens because my teacher is always talking about these connections. She has introduced and repeatedly gone over the concept of text-to-___ connections with the class. Often, after she raises makes one of these connections herself, she will say, "See what I am doing, I am connecting the text to my own life. I've just made a... [and the class says this next part together:] text-to-self connection!" If the text gives the students a sort of cognitive framework or structure for thinking about a particular experience (let's say, being tricked by someone you know), text-to-self, -world and -text connections really fill in this structure in individualized ways for the students making the connections. This explains why that which different students learn from reading a text is usually related. The two students' learning don't tend to completely contradict one another, because they tend to get the same general structure of some lesson or experience. How this is filled in, however, is very subjective, which leaves room for large amounts of variability in student learning.
Questioning: There is a common rut that children fall into when they have a teacher doing most of the reading aloud, and when most of their assignments, if they have anything at all to do with the reading, are completely crafted by the teacher. Kids in this situation are used to being asked questions, and not used to asking questions themselves. Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking our students before-, during- and after-reading questions. In fact, these generally have great benefits to children: they help them look for particularly important elements of the text, make connections (like we talked about above), and gets them used to being active, thinking readers rather than passive, turn-their-brains-off readers. Yet well-developed critical thinking skills not only include the ability to receive and respond to questions, they include the ability to engage in the questioning process themselves. When I said that asking children questions "helps them look for particularly important elements of the text," that was a rather subjective statement. The elements I spoke of are particularly important in the eyes of the teacher, but they may or may not be in the eyes of the student. Questions, then, give students the chance to look for important elements themselves, and give them practice in reading to find meaning on their own. After all, they won't have a teacher scaffolding their literacy understanding all their life. This is something that I find missing in my CT's classroom. While she asks plenty of questions herself, the children have not begun to ask their own questions. I think this could especially guide after-reading activities. Rather than having the students answer questions all the time during their after-reading writing time, it would be great for them to write their own questions about the text - things that confused them, or made them curious, or connections they made.
Dave Koch
Connecting: It's amazing how first- and second-grade students can learn not only how to do this, but to recognize when they or other students are doing it. I've heard a student say to my CT, "I've got a text-to... text infection!" (He probably didn't really say "infection," but what they said was so garbled that it could have been infection for all I know.) I believe this happens in my class for two main reasons. First, readers do this naturally. It is quite a normal thing - not just a thing that is done in classrooms, or at the request of a teacher - to read or hear something and go, "Oh! That relates to me!" At times, younger students need lots of help articulating exactly what this relationship is - i.e., what the text-to-self connection is - but they are ready with examples. Second, it happens because my teacher is always talking about these connections. She has introduced and repeatedly gone over the concept of text-to-___ connections with the class. Often, after she raises makes one of these connections herself, she will say, "See what I am doing, I am connecting the text to my own life. I've just made a... [and the class says this next part together:] text-to-self connection!" If the text gives the students a sort of cognitive framework or structure for thinking about a particular experience (let's say, being tricked by someone you know), text-to-self, -world and -text connections really fill in this structure in individualized ways for the students making the connections. This explains why that which different students learn from reading a text is usually related. The two students' learning don't tend to completely contradict one another, because they tend to get the same general structure of some lesson or experience. How this is filled in, however, is very subjective, which leaves room for large amounts of variability in student learning.
Questioning: There is a common rut that children fall into when they have a teacher doing most of the reading aloud, and when most of their assignments, if they have anything at all to do with the reading, are completely crafted by the teacher. Kids in this situation are used to being asked questions, and not used to asking questions themselves. Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking our students before-, during- and after-reading questions. In fact, these generally have great benefits to children: they help them look for particularly important elements of the text, make connections (like we talked about above), and gets them used to being active, thinking readers rather than passive, turn-their-brains-off readers. Yet well-developed critical thinking skills not only include the ability to receive and respond to questions, they include the ability to engage in the questioning process themselves. When I said that asking children questions "helps them look for particularly important elements of the text," that was a rather subjective statement. The elements I spoke of are particularly important in the eyes of the teacher, but they may or may not be in the eyes of the student. Questions, then, give students the chance to look for important elements themselves, and give them practice in reading to find meaning on their own. After all, they won't have a teacher scaffolding their literacy understanding all their life. This is something that I find missing in my CT's classroom. While she asks plenty of questions herself, the children have not begun to ask their own questions. I think this could especially guide after-reading activities. Rather than having the students answer questions all the time during their after-reading writing time, it would be great for them to write their own questions about the text - things that confused them, or made them curious, or connections they made.
Dave Koch
For this weeks post on Tompkins chapter 7 I really liked Rachel's format and also found this chapter to be rather beneficial in laying out the key elements that work together to build students' comprehension of texts; however, I feel like she did an excellent job in explaining these eight components and her experiences with them in her collaborating classroom; therefore, I am going to focus on a few other aspects of the chapter in an attempt to avoid redundancy and bring some other aspects (which I believe to be equally important) to the surface.
Besides the eight components of comprehension I really liked that Tompkins pointed out some different teacher and student factors which contribute to the students' attitudes and overall attention and motivation. In regards to the teacher's role, some of the factors that were pointed out were the teacher's attitude, the community which they create within their classrooms, the instructional approaches they choose to use, and the system of rewards which they use (236-237). In my collaborating classroom I have been paying special attention to these factors in regards to the pedagogy of my CT. My CT, pretty much on a daily basis, is very positive and enthusiastic in regards to her teaching attitude. She shows her interest in the curriculum, therefore causing her students to become interested in what they are learning. This is an additional part of creating a good community within the classroom. I think that building such a community requires the teacher to be enthusiastic and excited about coming to school and engaging within each lesson.
One aspect of my CT's pedagogy that I have noticed her struggling with is her use of a rewards system. Throughout my participation and experience within her classroom she has always struggled (not excessively, but noticeably) with her classroom management, as they are a group of very, very social first graders. In an attempt to improve this classroom management she has tried many different things. One reward system that has been pretty effective is her "points for rows" system in which the students' desks are organized in rows, those rows who are collectively working hard and well-behaved earn tally marks and earn things from extra recess time to candy; those rows who are not acting accordingly will not get points or may lose points. This strategy seems to work some of the time but sometimes students will not listen eventhough they know it results in the whole row losing points. One newer reward system she has been trying out is what she refers to as "special buddies". This involved her drawing two mystery names from a mug; if those students are well-behaved throughout the lesson they are then rewarded with a prize of some sort. This seems to be more successful because the students do not know who the "special buddy" is and therefore most of them are trying to earn that prize. Being in her classroom I have seen how her instruction strategies and her use of different rewards systems play such a large role in her students' learning and the overall management of the classroom. Especially at such a young age (I would say K-2) I feel that these teaching factors are very important and really do make a difference in their attitudes towards their education and as a result affect their overall digestion of the curriculum and material.
Tompkins teacher factors directly relate to the student factors that she points out. One factor that contributes to student attention and motivation is whether or not the teacher clearly lays out her/his expectations for students learning; when teachers set high expectations for their students, and believe that they will succeed then "it is more likely they will" (236). Another factor that Tompkins points out as contributing to students' interest and level of engagement within the content of the curriculum, and actually learning that content, is the use of collaboration within the classroom (236). Collaboration can be so beneficial because working in pairs and small groups puts a completely new spin on learning. Students are not just sitting at desks doing individual work but they are actually striving towards goals with their classmates, many times with their friends.
The final factor Tompkins points out that I wanted to highlight, as I believe it plays a huge role in getting students excited about learning, is providing them with the ability to make their own choices in regards to their learning. When students are able to make their own choices they "develop more responsibility for their work and ownership of their accomplishments", this leads to them becoming more interested in what they are learning because, after all, it is something they chose to learn about! (237). Many times in my corresponding classroom students are given the opportunity to make choices in regards to their learning. Some specific examples I have observed are choosing their own books to read, choosing prompts that they can write about, and in mathematics sometimes creating their own problems, something that can be fun and additionally very beneficial to their mathematical comprehension.
Besides the eight components of comprehension I really liked that Tompkins pointed out some different teacher and student factors which contribute to the students' attitudes and overall attention and motivation. In regards to the teacher's role, some of the factors that were pointed out were the teacher's attitude, the community which they create within their classrooms, the instructional approaches they choose to use, and the system of rewards which they use (236-237). In my collaborating classroom I have been paying special attention to these factors in regards to the pedagogy of my CT. My CT, pretty much on a daily basis, is very positive and enthusiastic in regards to her teaching attitude. She shows her interest in the curriculum, therefore causing her students to become interested in what they are learning. This is an additional part of creating a good community within the classroom. I think that building such a community requires the teacher to be enthusiastic and excited about coming to school and engaging within each lesson.
One aspect of my CT's pedagogy that I have noticed her struggling with is her use of a rewards system. Throughout my participation and experience within her classroom she has always struggled (not excessively, but noticeably) with her classroom management, as they are a group of very, very social first graders. In an attempt to improve this classroom management she has tried many different things. One reward system that has been pretty effective is her "points for rows" system in which the students' desks are organized in rows, those rows who are collectively working hard and well-behaved earn tally marks and earn things from extra recess time to candy; those rows who are not acting accordingly will not get points or may lose points. This strategy seems to work some of the time but sometimes students will not listen eventhough they know it results in the whole row losing points. One newer reward system she has been trying out is what she refers to as "special buddies". This involved her drawing two mystery names from a mug; if those students are well-behaved throughout the lesson they are then rewarded with a prize of some sort. This seems to be more successful because the students do not know who the "special buddy" is and therefore most of them are trying to earn that prize. Being in her classroom I have seen how her instruction strategies and her use of different rewards systems play such a large role in her students' learning and the overall management of the classroom. Especially at such a young age (I would say K-2) I feel that these teaching factors are very important and really do make a difference in their attitudes towards their education and as a result affect their overall digestion of the curriculum and material.
Tompkins teacher factors directly relate to the student factors that she points out. One factor that contributes to student attention and motivation is whether or not the teacher clearly lays out her/his expectations for students learning; when teachers set high expectations for their students, and believe that they will succeed then "it is more likely they will" (236). Another factor that Tompkins points out as contributing to students' interest and level of engagement within the content of the curriculum, and actually learning that content, is the use of collaboration within the classroom (236). Collaboration can be so beneficial because working in pairs and small groups puts a completely new spin on learning. Students are not just sitting at desks doing individual work but they are actually striving towards goals with their classmates, many times with their friends.
The final factor Tompkins points out that I wanted to highlight, as I believe it plays a huge role in getting students excited about learning, is providing them with the ability to make their own choices in regards to their learning. When students are able to make their own choices they "develop more responsibility for their work and ownership of their accomplishments", this leads to them becoming more interested in what they are learning because, after all, it is something they chose to learn about! (237). Many times in my corresponding classroom students are given the opportunity to make choices in regards to their learning. Some specific examples I have observed are choosing their own books to read, choosing prompts that they can write about, and in mathematics sometimes creating their own problems, something that can be fun and additionally very beneficial to their mathematical comprehension.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
8 comprehension strategies
I found this weeks reading about the 8 comprehension strategies to be very beneficial. I never thought that there would be so much that went into understanding a text but after reading about the different components I feel like they are all very important.
Predicting: Predicting is something that I see a lot in the classroom. My CT frequently asks the students what they think a story is going to be about or what a character is going to do next. The kindergarten class always has a variety of ideas and thoughts. I think predicting is important when helping to understand a text in that it seems to get the students much more interested and engaged.
Connecting: Connecting is another strategy that is very important and one that I see often. I have learned that 5 and 6 year olds love to talk about themselves and their families so when a story is read and they can connect it to their own lives, they become very excited to share. There is of course the occasional story that has nothing to do with what was just read but nonetheless, I feel like the student is still engaged in the story. Tompkins also discusses the 3 types of connections: text-to-self, text-to-world, and text-to-text. According to Tompkins, "in text-to-self connections, students link the ideas they are reading about to events in their own lives" (p. 228). These are the personal connections that I mostly see in the classroom. In text-to-world connections, students relate what they are reading to the outside world. In text-to-text connections the reader connects the text to a different text.
Visualizing: Visualizing is something that doesn't seem to be discussed much in my classroom. However, I think it's really important for all readers to imagine or picture what they are reading. It definitely helps to connect to the text in a positive way.
Questioning: Questioning is something that is done "out of curiosity" (p. 230). Students may ask questions to "clarify misunderstandings" as well as "reflect on the text" (p. 230). Questioning is also important for engaging and comprehension. Students in my classroom often ask questions about why a character did something or what might happen next. This also plays a part in the prediction aspect of comprehension.
Identifying the Big Ideas: While reading a text students need to know how to separate big ideas from minor details. Tompkins mentions graphic organizers and diagrams which I believe are extremely helpful when comprehending a text. My CT does this quite often and is also used as a prediction strategy.
Summarizing: According to Tompkins, students take the big ideas and focus on those aspects in order to make a "summary statement" (p. 231). Although the students in my class don't necessarily make summary statements, my CT makes sure they know what has happened in the text and what the main components of the story are.
Monitoring: I found the monitoring portion of this chapter really fascinating because while I have found that my students use these strategies; as readers, we never stop using them. How many times have we all read for a class and had to ask ourselves if we understand what the text was about or if we really needed to read the text in its entirety? When I think about it, monitoring is one of the most important aspects of comprehending a text.
Evaluating: Lastly, evaluating is an important strategy that I have seen in different ways in the classroom. Tompkins discusses reflecting in log entries and conferences. I feel like my CT uses group recitations for evaluations as well as things such as worksheets that have a connection to the text. Evaluating is another aspect that we all use in our reading strategies. This blog is a perfect example of evaluating the different chapters and articles we read to make sure we comprehend the texts.
Overall, I feel like these comprehension strategies are all helpful and beneficial no matter what the age. I have seen many of these strategies in the classroom as well as in my own personal reading expereinces.
Predicting: Predicting is something that I see a lot in the classroom. My CT frequently asks the students what they think a story is going to be about or what a character is going to do next. The kindergarten class always has a variety of ideas and thoughts. I think predicting is important when helping to understand a text in that it seems to get the students much more interested and engaged.
Connecting: Connecting is another strategy that is very important and one that I see often. I have learned that 5 and 6 year olds love to talk about themselves and their families so when a story is read and they can connect it to their own lives, they become very excited to share. There is of course the occasional story that has nothing to do with what was just read but nonetheless, I feel like the student is still engaged in the story. Tompkins also discusses the 3 types of connections: text-to-self, text-to-world, and text-to-text. According to Tompkins, "in text-to-self connections, students link the ideas they are reading about to events in their own lives" (p. 228). These are the personal connections that I mostly see in the classroom. In text-to-world connections, students relate what they are reading to the outside world. In text-to-text connections the reader connects the text to a different text.
Visualizing: Visualizing is something that doesn't seem to be discussed much in my classroom. However, I think it's really important for all readers to imagine or picture what they are reading. It definitely helps to connect to the text in a positive way.
Questioning: Questioning is something that is done "out of curiosity" (p. 230). Students may ask questions to "clarify misunderstandings" as well as "reflect on the text" (p. 230). Questioning is also important for engaging and comprehension. Students in my classroom often ask questions about why a character did something or what might happen next. This also plays a part in the prediction aspect of comprehension.
Identifying the Big Ideas: While reading a text students need to know how to separate big ideas from minor details. Tompkins mentions graphic organizers and diagrams which I believe are extremely helpful when comprehending a text. My CT does this quite often and is also used as a prediction strategy.
Summarizing: According to Tompkins, students take the big ideas and focus on those aspects in order to make a "summary statement" (p. 231). Although the students in my class don't necessarily make summary statements, my CT makes sure they know what has happened in the text and what the main components of the story are.
Monitoring: I found the monitoring portion of this chapter really fascinating because while I have found that my students use these strategies; as readers, we never stop using them. How many times have we all read for a class and had to ask ourselves if we understand what the text was about or if we really needed to read the text in its entirety? When I think about it, monitoring is one of the most important aspects of comprehending a text.
Evaluating: Lastly, evaluating is an important strategy that I have seen in different ways in the classroom. Tompkins discusses reflecting in log entries and conferences. I feel like my CT uses group recitations for evaluations as well as things such as worksheets that have a connection to the text. Evaluating is another aspect that we all use in our reading strategies. This blog is a perfect example of evaluating the different chapters and articles we read to make sure we comprehend the texts.
Overall, I feel like these comprehension strategies are all helpful and beneficial no matter what the age. I have seen many of these strategies in the classroom as well as in my own personal reading expereinces.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Comment on Nick's Post (2/16)
Hey Nick,
I focused my attentions on the website this week, so I'm glad to read about your impressions regarding the Weinstein/Mignano reading. I remember reading those statistics about gender participation in a book I read for TE 250. I had the same reaction - surprise. In this book that I read, it emphasized how loud, talkative boys were condoned by teachers, who often had a sort of "boys-will-be-boys" attitude, while talkative girls were punished for their behavior. What surprises me most is how this is contrary to what I've seen in the classroom. If anything, I've noticed girls getting favorable treatment for loudness in discussions; my CT will sometimes call on girls who do not wait patiently for a turn to speak, while I've noticed her intentionally pass over boys for the same impatience. This other book was written about 15 years ago, so the question that this gives me is, have things changed over these years? If not, is there evidence for this gender participation difference that I am not recognizing as such?
Dave Koch
I focused my attentions on the website this week, so I'm glad to read about your impressions regarding the Weinstein/Mignano reading. I remember reading those statistics about gender participation in a book I read for TE 250. I had the same reaction - surprise. In this book that I read, it emphasized how loud, talkative boys were condoned by teachers, who often had a sort of "boys-will-be-boys" attitude, while talkative girls were punished for their behavior. What surprises me most is how this is contrary to what I've seen in the classroom. If anything, I've noticed girls getting favorable treatment for loudness in discussions; my CT will sometimes call on girls who do not wait patiently for a turn to speak, while I've noticed her intentionally pass over boys for the same impatience. This other book was written about 15 years ago, so the question that this gives me is, have things changed over these years? If not, is there evidence for this gender participation difference that I am not recognizing as such?
Dave Koch
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Good Assessments and Reliable Rubrics
I was intrigued to learn about Performance Assessments on the website we looked at for this week’s class. Though the pages of the website I looked at did not go into a justification for the superiority of Performance Assessments over standard multiple-choice type assessments, it didn’t take much to convince me. Multiple-choice assessments implicitly encourage “cramming,” or intense studying by way of rote memorization for a short period of time before the assessment, because information can be crammed and remembered for the purposes of recall in this method. After all, multiple-choice questions actually give students the answer; it is simply located among other possible responses. So, all someone needs is for their memory to be jogged to push them in the direction of the right answer – the one already provided for them. This is different from being able to write the content of the correct responses to these questions without in one’s own words without choosing from possible responses. Any student will tell you that the latter is more difficult. This is the case, however, because it requires a deeper, more integrated sort of knowledge – the sort that we should earnestly desire our students to attain.
I still remember the circumstances of the final exam in my freshman biology class. I was given a study guide that contained all of and only the questions that would be on the test; all I needed to do was remember what was on that sheet. I memorized it, got an A for my effort, and quickly forgot all of the material.
Contrast this with my Science for Elementary Teachers (SME 301) class last semester. The tests had mostly open-ended essay questions, like “explain the changes that occur in a melting ice cube on both a substance and molecular level.” Even later in the semester, when we were done with learning about changes of state, questions would be asked that would draw on this knowledge. Though the essay format was a bit scary at first, I had a fair opportunity of knowing what was expected in my answer: in the class prior to our essays, we would develop the rubric as a class for what knowledge would be tested.
As the Performance Assessment website indicates, having a rubric in SME made the essay scoring process fair and sound. We as students knew how to evaluate our own work. I even believe that a competent individual unfamiliar with the material could have used the rubric to score and produce very similar results as our professor. Thus, the website would call this a good assessment with a highly reliable scoring rubric. Being able to have a hand in the rubric’s development as a class gave me as the student a feeling of responsibility of learning the material. And this learning could only focus on getting a deep, integrated understanding of the material, since I would have to write about it using my own words and my own structure of understanding, and would have to hang on to that knowledge for the whole semester. As a result, I could still tell you a lot about what happens when an ice cube melts!
I must admit: before checking out this website, I thought I would be developing scores and scores of multiple-choice questions in my years as a teacher. My mind is now changed. I realize the great benefit to students’ learning of questions and tasks that are more open-ended. To evaluate these tasks, I realize that a scoring rubric that is made clear to students and that makes grading into simply applying the rubric is critical. The only thing I am missing is some practice in creating such activities and their corresponding rubrics. When do you (the reader of this blog) think I will have such an opportunity?
I still remember the circumstances of the final exam in my freshman biology class. I was given a study guide that contained all of and only the questions that would be on the test; all I needed to do was remember what was on that sheet. I memorized it, got an A for my effort, and quickly forgot all of the material.
Contrast this with my Science for Elementary Teachers (SME 301) class last semester. The tests had mostly open-ended essay questions, like “explain the changes that occur in a melting ice cube on both a substance and molecular level.” Even later in the semester, when we were done with learning about changes of state, questions would be asked that would draw on this knowledge. Though the essay format was a bit scary at first, I had a fair opportunity of knowing what was expected in my answer: in the class prior to our essays, we would develop the rubric as a class for what knowledge would be tested.
As the Performance Assessment website indicates, having a rubric in SME made the essay scoring process fair and sound. We as students knew how to evaluate our own work. I even believe that a competent individual unfamiliar with the material could have used the rubric to score and produce very similar results as our professor. Thus, the website would call this a good assessment with a highly reliable scoring rubric. Being able to have a hand in the rubric’s development as a class gave me as the student a feeling of responsibility of learning the material. And this learning could only focus on getting a deep, integrated understanding of the material, since I would have to write about it using my own words and my own structure of understanding, and would have to hang on to that knowledge for the whole semester. As a result, I could still tell you a lot about what happens when an ice cube melts!
I must admit: before checking out this website, I thought I would be developing scores and scores of multiple-choice questions in my years as a teacher. My mind is now changed. I realize the great benefit to students’ learning of questions and tasks that are more open-ended. To evaluate these tasks, I realize that a scoring rubric that is made clear to students and that makes grading into simply applying the rubric is critical. The only thing I am missing is some practice in creating such activities and their corresponding rubrics. When do you (the reader of this blog) think I will have such an opportunity?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Facilitating Student Participation
I thought that the Weinstein & Mignano chapter on Managing Recitations and Discussions was both enlightening and eye opening. There were a few specific areas that I would like to focus on as they were especially beneficial or informational to me.
First of all I was surprised to read the differences in gender participation and involvement within the average classroom. I was shocked to see the differences between the numbers of girls versus the number of boys getting called on and/or participating in group discussions or recitation. The fact that "boys called out answers eight times more often than girls did" was something that struck off guard (309). Additionally, it is really surprising to see that teachers tend to listen to the ideas of males more often, as well as provide more in depth and helpful feedback.
When thinking about running my own class discussions, specifically in regards to our upcoming language arts lesson, I tend to get a little nervous and wonder how I will structure my discussion so that I receive good feedback, and so that my students are involved and attentive throughout it. I find it even more overwhelming that it is important to call on a variety of students on order to work towards more equal participation within the classroom; I must try not to call only on those who are always participating, as well as try to avoid calling on those who are truly embarrassed or intimidated to speak (306).
The final aspect of this chapter that I really liked was the section about different strategies for distributing chances for participation. I especially thought that the "response cards" or dry-erase board strategy is one that would be very beneficial at least in including each student, as well as seemingly minimizing the sometimes chaotic waving of hands or excitement that some discussions can create (312). These response card/boards can be used to answer simple yes or no questions or for answering with one or two word responses; regardless, they will help to build and monitor comprehension (319). I felt that this suggestion, as well as some of the others, seem really helpful in facilitating effective discussions and inciting student participation, and are some different strategies that I will surely consider when planning my language arts lesson and instructional conversation.
First of all I was surprised to read the differences in gender participation and involvement within the average classroom. I was shocked to see the differences between the numbers of girls versus the number of boys getting called on and/or participating in group discussions or recitation. The fact that "boys called out answers eight times more often than girls did" was something that struck off guard (309). Additionally, it is really surprising to see that teachers tend to listen to the ideas of males more often, as well as provide more in depth and helpful feedback.
When thinking about running my own class discussions, specifically in regards to our upcoming language arts lesson, I tend to get a little nervous and wonder how I will structure my discussion so that I receive good feedback, and so that my students are involved and attentive throughout it. I find it even more overwhelming that it is important to call on a variety of students on order to work towards more equal participation within the classroom; I must try not to call only on those who are always participating, as well as try to avoid calling on those who are truly embarrassed or intimidated to speak (306).
The final aspect of this chapter that I really liked was the section about different strategies for distributing chances for participation. I especially thought that the "response cards" or dry-erase board strategy is one that would be very beneficial at least in including each student, as well as seemingly minimizing the sometimes chaotic waving of hands or excitement that some discussions can create (312). These response card/boards can be used to answer simple yes or no questions or for answering with one or two word responses; regardless, they will help to build and monitor comprehension (319). I felt that this suggestion, as well as some of the others, seem really helpful in facilitating effective discussions and inciting student participation, and are some different strategies that I will surely consider when planning my language arts lesson and instructional conversation.
DK's Comment on Rachel's Post (2/8)
(The word verification for posting my comment on Rachel's post from last week kept getting messed up, so here it is in new-post form:)
Hey Rachel,
I'm glad you chose to focus your discussion on Langer's four stances. I also wrote about the article, but I took a different approach, so it's great to read what you have to say about it. I particularly appreciate your insight with Being In and Stepping Out. You are right that personal connections are important, even when they seem simple to us as adults. Making connections help students identify with the characters in the story, giving them a greater interest to and attentiveness to what they are reading. I'm also glad you mentioned the non-linear nature of the stances. I think it is important to realize that different children will be at different stages of their understanding of a text. However, I wasn't clear after reading the article whether or not the author meant that each individual child can move through the steps in a non-linear order. Do you know if that's what she meant? Regardless, you are right: remembering that children are at different stages is key, as it broadens our instruction to incorporate multiple stages of student interpretation.
- David Koch
Hey Rachel,
I'm glad you chose to focus your discussion on Langer's four stances. I also wrote about the article, but I took a different approach, so it's great to read what you have to say about it. I particularly appreciate your insight with Being In and Stepping Out. You are right that personal connections are important, even when they seem simple to us as adults. Making connections help students identify with the characters in the story, giving them a greater interest to and attentiveness to what they are reading. I'm also glad you mentioned the non-linear nature of the stances. I think it is important to realize that different children will be at different stages of their understanding of a text. However, I wasn't clear after reading the article whether or not the author meant that each individual child can move through the steps in a non-linear order. Do you know if that's what she meant? Regardless, you are right: remembering that children are at different stages is key, as it broadens our instruction to incorporate multiple stages of student interpretation.
- David Koch
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Quiz Show Classroom
In chapter 10 of Weinstein and Mignano's "Elementary Classroom Management" we further see the importance of classroom discussions versus the standard I-R-E protocol that teachers have seem to have adopted. I thought the opening of this chapter put it brilliantly, "the interaction is more like a quiz show than a true conversation" (p. 299). I had never had thought about it this way but when you think about it, I-R-E and quiz shows are pretty similar. Upon further consideration, I definitely do not want to be the Bob Barker of my classroom.
The text continues by giving us the example of Barbara's classroom recitation. I also thought this was useful because it showed a teacher-directed lesson that at first glance might seem like your typical I-R-E quiz show but also, as the text explains, is a functional tool. The text states "five useful functions of classroom recitations" (p. 302). First, it was important that Barbara knew that her students were understanding the text they were reading. It was also important that she asked somewhat higher level thinking questions instead of "who is the main character?" Next, Barbara was able to "prod" her students into thinking about the answers. Also, she was able to interact with most of her students during this recitation. Lastly, most of the students were able to keep up with Barbara's questions. I thought it was also useful that Barbara explained her reasoning for using this recitation, teacher-guided lesson.
I think discussions in the classroom are hard to come by, especially in the lower grades. Although I do think to some point the I-R-E has its advantages (Such as in Barbara's example), many I-R-E lessons come off as a quiz show and as teachers we need to strive to get away from this.
The text continues by giving us the example of Barbara's classroom recitation. I also thought this was useful because it showed a teacher-directed lesson that at first glance might seem like your typical I-R-E quiz show but also, as the text explains, is a functional tool. The text states "five useful functions of classroom recitations" (p. 302). First, it was important that Barbara knew that her students were understanding the text they were reading. It was also important that she asked somewhat higher level thinking questions instead of "who is the main character?" Next, Barbara was able to "prod" her students into thinking about the answers. Also, she was able to interact with most of her students during this recitation. Lastly, most of the students were able to keep up with Barbara's questions. I thought it was also useful that Barbara explained her reasoning for using this recitation, teacher-guided lesson.
I think discussions in the classroom are hard to come by, especially in the lower grades. Although I do think to some point the I-R-E has its advantages (Such as in Barbara's example), many I-R-E lessons come off as a quiz show and as teachers we need to strive to get away from this.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Langer's Literary Interpretation
I'm glad that Langer wrote about a better way to do literature instruction. In my high school experience of reading and analyzing literature, I think it was about learning the "right" way of looking at a text. Rather than discussing my own impressions as I read, my instructors would guide me and my classmates to particular places where they, or some consensus of people, saw important things in the text. And rather than letting us give our thoughts first, we were immediately bombarded with the "correct" thoughts of someone else. It's as if these teachers were saying, What good things could measily high school students such as yourselves find in the text that a scholar couldn't?
The problem with this approach (as Langer assumes in her article) is that children don't learn best that way, and literature doesn't work that way. Children are not mere receptacles where knowledge can be dumped. They have minds that must be engaged in their learning, and this can only fully happen when they are given time to think, to try out ideas, to make hypotheses, and to test these hypotheses before hearing what a teacher or a scholar has to say. Besides, the varied and continuing debate that goes on in most literary circles about most literature is proof that no one has really settled upon the "right" way of interpreting it. With instruction focused on teaching children to do their own analysis, they will learn to be critical thinkers (even "scholars") in their own right.
Yet I think there is something missing (or at least not explicitly stated) in Langer's approach to literature instruction: children should always be taught to reference the text when making any interpretive statements. She is right - our goal should not be to put forth "the teacher's perception of the right response" (Langer 1990: 816). But we should always lead children to finding the place in the text from which they are drawing their interpretation, whether it be in the form of a question, a conclusion, or connection. While we are not looking for some specific correct response, we are and should be looking for a response that finds its basis in the text. Interpretation cannot be an anything-goes activity. We must train students to look for things that are most supported in a text, and to evaluate responses based on their textual support. This way, children can interpret something in conflicting ways, and both can be good - yet both student and teacher can evaluate interpretations, and even speak in terms of "more supported" or "less supported," on the basis of what the text says. Langer says that this evaluation should happen "only after the students have worked through their understandings" (815), but the basis for it - textual references - should be pushed from the very beginning of the student response time.
The addition of this point gives teachers more direction in how to engage their students in critical thinking. First, they do it by modelling. If a student says, Janie is really mean!, then the teacher can help everyone (including the student herself) by asking, Where do you see Janie being really mean?, and to follow up if needed, What page are you looking at?, or, What words make her sound mean to you? Of course, it is important for teachers to use open-ended responses to students' thoughts, such as, Tell me more about that. But one important characteristic of critical thinking is precision, so students' critical thinking will be greatly benefited by locating exactly where and what is leading them to their interpretations.
David Koch
The problem with this approach (as Langer assumes in her article) is that children don't learn best that way, and literature doesn't work that way. Children are not mere receptacles where knowledge can be dumped. They have minds that must be engaged in their learning, and this can only fully happen when they are given time to think, to try out ideas, to make hypotheses, and to test these hypotheses before hearing what a teacher or a scholar has to say. Besides, the varied and continuing debate that goes on in most literary circles about most literature is proof that no one has really settled upon the "right" way of interpreting it. With instruction focused on teaching children to do their own analysis, they will learn to be critical thinkers (even "scholars") in their own right.
Yet I think there is something missing (or at least not explicitly stated) in Langer's approach to literature instruction: children should always be taught to reference the text when making any interpretive statements. She is right - our goal should not be to put forth "the teacher's perception of the right response" (Langer 1990: 816). But we should always lead children to finding the place in the text from which they are drawing their interpretation, whether it be in the form of a question, a conclusion, or connection. While we are not looking for some specific correct response, we are and should be looking for a response that finds its basis in the text. Interpretation cannot be an anything-goes activity. We must train students to look for things that are most supported in a text, and to evaluate responses based on their textual support. This way, children can interpret something in conflicting ways, and both can be good - yet both student and teacher can evaluate interpretations, and even speak in terms of "more supported" or "less supported," on the basis of what the text says. Langer says that this evaluation should happen "only after the students have worked through their understandings" (815), but the basis for it - textual references - should be pushed from the very beginning of the student response time.
The addition of this point gives teachers more direction in how to engage their students in critical thinking. First, they do it by modelling. If a student says, Janie is really mean!, then the teacher can help everyone (including the student herself) by asking, Where do you see Janie being really mean?, and to follow up if needed, What page are you looking at?, or, What words make her sound mean to you? Of course, it is important for teachers to use open-ended responses to students' thoughts, such as, Tell me more about that. But one important characteristic of critical thinking is precision, so students' critical thinking will be greatly benefited by locating exactly where and what is leading them to their interpretations.
David Koch
Monday, February 9, 2009
IC How It's Done!
I thought that this week's articles were all very valuable pieces of literature in regards to building up my attitudes and beliefs about how to effectively run a classroom. I liked the specific focus on the utilization of conversation, discussion, and student talk within the classroom and found the content of the articles to be very useful.
I especially like the Goldenberg article, "Instructional Conversations". In this article, Goldenberg stresses the important role that ICs play in molding students into critical thinkers and in stimulating their "conceptual and linguistic development" (Goldenberg 317). Group-based discussions help students to comprehensibly build meaning in regards to a specific topic as well as requiring them to construct their own knowledge and understanding" rather than just receiving knowledge or learning material in a rote manner (324). One specific aspect of the article that I liked was the set of structural elements Goldenberg laid out for formatting an instructional conversation or group discussion. I found the break down of the different elements into two categories (instructional and conversational)and further into five specific elements within each subcategory, not only beneficial to the teacher in regards to actually formatting the discussion, but also to the students in that it helps to focus the discussion so that they are able to build their own understanding in a more effective and encouraging manner (319). I think that the "weaving" metaphor was one which worked perfectly when considering the role of the teacher in guiding an IC and when considering the many elements which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the IC (319).
In addition to the clearly defined structural elements of the IC, I really found the suggestions towards the end of the article for planning an IC to be very beneficial and certainly plan on using these tips when structuring my language arts lesson for my group of first graders. Goldenberg states that ICs are typically "used to guide reading comprehension lessons and activities with small groups" so I see this as a perfect too in creating an effective language arts lesson which focuses around a short piece of literature and an IC centered around some thematic issue within the text(324).
I especially like the Goldenberg article, "Instructional Conversations". In this article, Goldenberg stresses the important role that ICs play in molding students into critical thinkers and in stimulating their "conceptual and linguistic development" (Goldenberg 317). Group-based discussions help students to comprehensibly build meaning in regards to a specific topic as well as requiring them to construct their own knowledge and understanding" rather than just receiving knowledge or learning material in a rote manner (324). One specific aspect of the article that I liked was the set of structural elements Goldenberg laid out for formatting an instructional conversation or group discussion. I found the break down of the different elements into two categories (instructional and conversational)and further into five specific elements within each subcategory, not only beneficial to the teacher in regards to actually formatting the discussion, but also to the students in that it helps to focus the discussion so that they are able to build their own understanding in a more effective and encouraging manner (319). I think that the "weaving" metaphor was one which worked perfectly when considering the role of the teacher in guiding an IC and when considering the many elements which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the IC (319).
In addition to the clearly defined structural elements of the IC, I really found the suggestions towards the end of the article for planning an IC to be very beneficial and certainly plan on using these tips when structuring my language arts lesson for my group of first graders. Goldenberg states that ICs are typically "used to guide reading comprehension lessons and activities with small groups" so I see this as a perfect too in creating an effective language arts lesson which focuses around a short piece of literature and an IC centered around some thematic issue within the text(324).
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Literature and Discussions
For this week we read a few separate articles that mainly talked about the importance of discussion when reading literature. There were many great points and examples given but I found Judith A. Langer's four stances in interpreting literature to be one of the most interesting tidbits. After reading through the four stances and the examples from a seventh grade classroom I realized that these stances (or most of them) can also be related to younger elementary grades such as kindergarten and first grade. Here are the four stances and a short description of each.
1. Being Out and Stepping In: Here, students "make initial contacts." They do this using their prior knowledge and "surface features" (Langer, p. 813). I feel like this is one of the things that is very important for beginning readers. Looking at things such as the title and pictures gives the reader the opportunity to ibegin to ask question on what the text is going to be about and even make predictions (like we discussed last week with Gibbons).
2. Being In and Moving Through: This stance is where students begin to "develop meaning" (Langer, p 813). They do this by using both the "text knowledge and background knowledge." I feel as though I have not seen a whole lot of this in my classroom but it is still somewhat there.
3. Being In and Stepping Out: This is when readers use the text and relate/"reflect on their own lives." I also think this is an importance stance to learn and use early on. In my classroom I see the students making connections to their own lives after reading a story quite a bit. It might be something as simple as, "My sister and I once built a snowman just like they did in the story!" This may not seem very though provoking but it is giving this student the foundation to continue to make connections whenever he reads.
4. Stepping Out and Objectifying the Experience: Finally, stance four refers to the readers distancing themselves from the text and reflect on the content as well as the experience. Here, students also judge the text as well as relate it to other texts they have read. I would say that in my classroom there is quite a bit of this going on. Again, it might be at a beginning level but the experiences they have early on will make it easier for them in the future.
Another thing that really stood out to me while reading about the four stances is that they are not linear. I feel like as we are preparing to be teachers, we have been taught a lot about linear processes. In math, students need to do this before they can do that, in science they need to learn this concept before they understand the next one...and so on. I really like the fact that these stances can occur at any time during the students' reading of the text. It is still a organized structure but has some wiggle room at the same time.
1. Being Out and Stepping In: Here, students "make initial contacts." They do this using their prior knowledge and "surface features" (Langer, p. 813). I feel like this is one of the things that is very important for beginning readers. Looking at things such as the title and pictures gives the reader the opportunity to ibegin to ask question on what the text is going to be about and even make predictions (like we discussed last week with Gibbons).
2. Being In and Moving Through: This stance is where students begin to "develop meaning" (Langer, p 813). They do this by using both the "text knowledge and background knowledge." I feel as though I have not seen a whole lot of this in my classroom but it is still somewhat there.
3. Being In and Stepping Out: This is when readers use the text and relate/"reflect on their own lives." I also think this is an importance stance to learn and use early on. In my classroom I see the students making connections to their own lives after reading a story quite a bit. It might be something as simple as, "My sister and I once built a snowman just like they did in the story!" This may not seem very though provoking but it is giving this student the foundation to continue to make connections whenever he reads.
4. Stepping Out and Objectifying the Experience: Finally, stance four refers to the readers distancing themselves from the text and reflect on the content as well as the experience. Here, students also judge the text as well as relate it to other texts they have read. I would say that in my classroom there is quite a bit of this going on. Again, it might be at a beginning level but the experiences they have early on will make it easier for them in the future.
Another thing that really stood out to me while reading about the four stances is that they are not linear. I feel like as we are preparing to be teachers, we have been taught a lot about linear processes. In math, students need to do this before they can do that, in science they need to learn this concept before they understand the next one...and so on. I really like the fact that these stances can occur at any time during the students' reading of the text. It is still a organized structure but has some wiggle room at the same time.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Building a Classroom of Comprehensive Readers
I found Pauline Gibbons' chapter "Reading in a Second Language" to be probably the must useful portion of reading that I have engaged in so far throughout this semester. I found it to be very informative in regards to how I as a future teacher can better meet the needs of students who are learning English as a second language. In addition to this I found the suggestions for activities and strategies to incorporate in your lessons before, during, and after reading to be very helpful.
Many of the activities and strategies mentioned within the text are ones that I deem to be very useful in the classroom as they are wonderful suggestions for building comprehension and deriving meaning from the text. After reading this chapter I realized how many of these strategies my CT uses when reading with her students, or when preparing her students to read a text. Always before diving into a book with her students she is sure to get students thinking about the text either by having students predict what the text could be about and by relating the text to students' prior knowledge, to name a couple. During reading she is sure to be enthusiastic, "bringing the text to life" and getting the students attention, as well as their approval (Gibbons 87). Post-reading activities commonly include reflecting on, and summarizing the text to check for students' comprehension or by providing the students with a prompt related to the text in which they write and support their writing with a drawing. These are just a few of the strategies i had been subconsciously taking for granted as i observed my CT reading with students and assisting student reading.
Another aspect of this chapter that I really liked was Gibbons' talk about incorporating the illustrations of the text both before and during reading. Many times the illustrations within the text can be overlooked by teachers, while to the students this is one of the most important aspects of the book. It is true that students use the illustrations to help make meaning from the text; this can be one of the most effective meaning-building strategies that is often not linked to the text. This can especially be helpful when considering ESL students and the difficulty they experience when trying to make meaning from an unfamiliar language (86).
One of my favorite quotes from the chapter is "Good readers read for pleasure, to extend their worldview, to read more about what interests them, or to find out things they want or need to know about" (98). I think that this one excerpt can really help when trying to help my students' (ESL or native speaker) abilities to read. I think that this needs to be the goal of each teacher. If you are capable of structuring/scaffolding a learning environment where students are reading because they want to then you are doing your role as an educator.
Many of the activities and strategies mentioned within the text are ones that I deem to be very useful in the classroom as they are wonderful suggestions for building comprehension and deriving meaning from the text. After reading this chapter I realized how many of these strategies my CT uses when reading with her students, or when preparing her students to read a text. Always before diving into a book with her students she is sure to get students thinking about the text either by having students predict what the text could be about and by relating the text to students' prior knowledge, to name a couple. During reading she is sure to be enthusiastic, "bringing the text to life" and getting the students attention, as well as their approval (Gibbons 87). Post-reading activities commonly include reflecting on, and summarizing the text to check for students' comprehension or by providing the students with a prompt related to the text in which they write and support their writing with a drawing. These are just a few of the strategies i had been subconsciously taking for granted as i observed my CT reading with students and assisting student reading.
Another aspect of this chapter that I really liked was Gibbons' talk about incorporating the illustrations of the text both before and during reading. Many times the illustrations within the text can be overlooked by teachers, while to the students this is one of the most important aspects of the book. It is true that students use the illustrations to help make meaning from the text; this can be one of the most effective meaning-building strategies that is often not linked to the text. This can especially be helpful when considering ESL students and the difficulty they experience when trying to make meaning from an unfamiliar language (86).
One of my favorite quotes from the chapter is "Good readers read for pleasure, to extend their worldview, to read more about what interests them, or to find out things they want or need to know about" (98). I think that this one excerpt can really help when trying to help my students' (ESL or native speaker) abilities to read. I think that this needs to be the goal of each teacher. If you are capable of structuring/scaffolding a learning environment where students are reading because they want to then you are doing your role as an educator.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Activities and Reading
Overall, I found the chapter in the Gibbon's book really helpful and insightful. I feel that for the most part I am in my classroom during times of literacy. My CT tends to do a variety of the before-reading activities, during-reading activities, and after-reading activities.
The before-reading activity that I have noticed her using is predicting from words. For example, the other day she was going to read a book about penguins to the class and before the story she drew a picture of a penguin on the easel and asked the students to think of things that they already know about the animal. I like that my CT does this a lot because it gives all of the students an opportunity to say what they think as well as activate their prior knowledge that Gibbons discusses. The students seem to get really excited when we do the webs so I think this is another reason why my CT continues to use this method.
The During-reading activity that my CT seems to use the most is "pause and predict." She will frequently stop reading a particular story and ask the class what they think will happen. The students always have a variety of ideas and suggestions which helps them to become better readers. Another during reading activity that my CT appears to use is summarizing the text, although she doesn't really use the strategies shown in the Gibbons text. She usually just has a couple students retell what has happened in the story.
One of the after-reading activities that I have recently seem my CT use is the innovating of the ending. After reading a story called "The Gingerbread Baby" she asked the students what else might have happened if the little boy in the story hadn't taken the gingerbread baby. Some of the students responded with a variety of ideas which I believe also improves their prediction skills.
Before reading this chapter I hadn't thought about the the different types of activities that can be used before, during, and after reading. In the future I hope to use a variety of these activities to better my student's reading comprehension and strategies.
The before-reading activity that I have noticed her using is predicting from words. For example, the other day she was going to read a book about penguins to the class and before the story she drew a picture of a penguin on the easel and asked the students to think of things that they already know about the animal. I like that my CT does this a lot because it gives all of the students an opportunity to say what they think as well as activate their prior knowledge that Gibbons discusses. The students seem to get really excited when we do the webs so I think this is another reason why my CT continues to use this method.
The During-reading activity that my CT seems to use the most is "pause and predict." She will frequently stop reading a particular story and ask the class what they think will happen. The students always have a variety of ideas and suggestions which helps them to become better readers. Another during reading activity that my CT appears to use is summarizing the text, although she doesn't really use the strategies shown in the Gibbons text. She usually just has a couple students retell what has happened in the story.
One of the after-reading activities that I have recently seem my CT use is the innovating of the ending. After reading a story called "The Gingerbread Baby" she asked the students what else might have happened if the little boy in the story hadn't taken the gingerbread baby. Some of the students responded with a variety of ideas which I believe also improves their prediction skills.
Before reading this chapter I hadn't thought about the the different types of activities that can be used before, during, and after reading. In the future I hope to use a variety of these activities to better my student's reading comprehension and strategies.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Planning for Reading: Three Steps
Chapter 5 in Gibbons is loaded with practical ideas for reading in a class with English Language Learners (ELLs). The first thing that struck me, however, was the emphasis she gave to pre- and post-reading activities. When I think of reading a story to a class, I don't think of the time before and after reading as being too significant. But Gibbons makes it clear that it is important, especially for ELLs. Even her ideas for what can go on during the reading itself were innovative for me. To guide my writing, I will choose one example to discuss from each reading period (pre, during, and post).
PRE: Predicting the genre and the topic of a text (p. 85) seems like it would be very helpful to them. After all, not knowing what was going on before I read the laundry passage (p. 80) made it a real bear to get through, let alone to understand. For ELLs, this activity is even more crucial. From my own second-language learning, I know that it is more difficult to gather these pieces of information in a second language; however, it is even more important to do so in a second language, because it's much easier to get lost without genre and topic knowledge. Finally, predictions arouse curiousity; kids want to see whether they were right, and this gives them an incentive to listen closely and attend to the meaning of the text as a whole, not simply the meaning of each word or phrase.
DURING: Rereading a text is something I've rarely considered when it comes to elementary school literacy. Yet it makes sense: how many times in the recent past have I read through passages over and over in order to gather their precise meaning? (The answer: lots.) Further, giving children multiple, varying experiences of the text (being read by the teacher, read individually, read as a group, etc.) can peak their interest. Especially for ELL students, getting something more than once in more than one way can be helpful if they missed something the first time, or if they didn't understand it orally but got it by reading it (or vice versa). I like what the author says about dictionary use (p. 88). Often, misunderstandings can be solved by using the context in which the word is found. This helps students understand how word-meaning operates, and reduces their reliance on other's decontexualized definitions.
AFTER: Innovating on a story, once again, is something that's never come to my mind. If I think of post-reading at all, I think of asking a question or two about the story and then calling it a day. Innovating gives children the opportunity to make connections between related characters in the story and other similarly related things in real life. In the Elephant and the Mouse example (p. 91), making a switch-out for a whale and a fish help show the abstractness of the lesson being taught. It's not meant to just be about elephants and mice, but about how small, seemingly unimportant things (whether they be animals or people) can be very important. For ELLs, making such changes will expose them to more vocab words and the connections that come with them (e.g. whales are big, fish are small).
All in all, from now on I will look at reading as a three-step (rather than a one-step) process, and look for ways to use Gibbons' pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies to benefit my students, particularly ELLs.
- David Koch
PRE: Predicting the genre and the topic of a text (p. 85) seems like it would be very helpful to them. After all, not knowing what was going on before I read the laundry passage (p. 80) made it a real bear to get through, let alone to understand. For ELLs, this activity is even more crucial. From my own second-language learning, I know that it is more difficult to gather these pieces of information in a second language; however, it is even more important to do so in a second language, because it's much easier to get lost without genre and topic knowledge. Finally, predictions arouse curiousity; kids want to see whether they were right, and this gives them an incentive to listen closely and attend to the meaning of the text as a whole, not simply the meaning of each word or phrase.
DURING: Rereading a text is something I've rarely considered when it comes to elementary school literacy. Yet it makes sense: how many times in the recent past have I read through passages over and over in order to gather their precise meaning? (The answer: lots.) Further, giving children multiple, varying experiences of the text (being read by the teacher, read individually, read as a group, etc.) can peak their interest. Especially for ELL students, getting something more than once in more than one way can be helpful if they missed something the first time, or if they didn't understand it orally but got it by reading it (or vice versa). I like what the author says about dictionary use (p. 88). Often, misunderstandings can be solved by using the context in which the word is found. This helps students understand how word-meaning operates, and reduces their reliance on other's decontexualized definitions.
AFTER: Innovating on a story, once again, is something that's never come to my mind. If I think of post-reading at all, I think of asking a question or two about the story and then calling it a day. Innovating gives children the opportunity to make connections between related characters in the story and other similarly related things in real life. In the Elephant and the Mouse example (p. 91), making a switch-out for a whale and a fish help show the abstractness of the lesson being taught. It's not meant to just be about elephants and mice, but about how small, seemingly unimportant things (whether they be animals or people) can be very important. For ELLs, making such changes will expose them to more vocab words and the connections that come with them (e.g. whales are big, fish are small).
All in all, from now on I will look at reading as a three-step (rather than a one-step) process, and look for ways to use Gibbons' pre-, during-, and post-reading strategies to benefit my students, particularly ELLs.
- David Koch
Comment on "Link Between Literacy and Technology"
(For some reason, the site wouldn't let me comment on Rachel's post directly, so here is what I wanted to say...)
Thanks, Rachel, for your post. Since I didn't read the article that you did, I liked how you talked about different categories covered by the author. It's interesting to see how, in some, books and internet have commonalities, while in others they have differences. I agree with what you say (in the "Asking Questions" section) about it being easier to get lost on the internet without mental guiding questions; did the author say why this is the case? I was also intrigued by the fact that your kindergartners are growing as internet readers. They read on the internet??? I was in a fourth grade class last semester in which the students used computers regularly, but I never realized that they were being introduced to computers in school at such a young age.
- David Koch
Thanks, Rachel, for your post. Since I didn't read the article that you did, I liked how you talked about different categories covered by the author. It's interesting to see how, in some, books and internet have commonalities, while in others they have differences. I agree with what you say (in the "Asking Questions" section) about it being easier to get lost on the internet without mental guiding questions; did the author say why this is the case? I was also intrigued by the fact that your kindergartners are growing as internet readers. They read on the internet??? I was in a fourth grade class last semester in which the students used computers regularly, but I never realized that they were being introduced to computers in school at such a young age.
- David Koch
Monday, January 26, 2009
"Do we really need yet another literacy?..."
After having read David Buckingham’s “Defining Digital Literacy” I am somewhat confused as to what exactly Buckingham was trying to argue throughout his essay. I, like my fellow classmate David Koch, expected a definition of what Buckingham believed digital literacy to be, however, was left feeling nearly insulted, filled by thoughts that I should not even be using a computer or checking my e-mail without knowing how my clicking of the keyboard could cause letters to appear on the screen, not to mention how I am able to send those letters to a computer at a completely different location to be accessed for someone else’s viewing pleasure.
What I am trying to say is that I think Buckingham’s expectations for what literacy needs to be are a little bit outrageous and over the top. I do understand that in order to incorporate new digital media and technologies into the classroom we “need to provide students with the means of understanding them” but I do not think that it needs to be taught to the extent that Buckingham suggests in order for it to qualify as a form of “literacy” (Buckingham 1).
I believe that such technologies and digital media can, and should, be incorporated into the classroom as a matter of informing and educating students. I believe that by including such aspects of technology in the classroom we truly are building our students competence and literacy in those areas. When incorporating such media in the classroom it is very important to introduce students to this media through a framework similar to Buckingham’s conceptual, four criteria framework (representation, language, production, audience), but I do not think that this needs to be done in such a tediously unnecessary manner (5).
I believe that students can learn to use these digital media and new technologies to further their education, and I also believe that students can be “scaffolded” to analyze these media in a critical manner. It is a developed and learned skill very similar to the ability to intellectually and critically analyze print; an ability obtained by individuals whom many would consider to be “literate”.
What I am trying to say is that I think Buckingham’s expectations for what literacy needs to be are a little bit outrageous and over the top. I do understand that in order to incorporate new digital media and technologies into the classroom we “need to provide students with the means of understanding them” but I do not think that it needs to be taught to the extent that Buckingham suggests in order for it to qualify as a form of “literacy” (Buckingham 1).
I believe that such technologies and digital media can, and should, be incorporated into the classroom as a matter of informing and educating students. I believe that by including such aspects of technology in the classroom we truly are building our students competence and literacy in those areas. When incorporating such media in the classroom it is very important to introduce students to this media through a framework similar to Buckingham’s conceptual, four criteria framework (representation, language, production, audience), but I do not think that this needs to be done in such a tediously unnecessary manner (5).
I believe that students can learn to use these digital media and new technologies to further their education, and I also believe that students can be “scaffolded” to analyze these media in a critical manner. It is a developed and learned skill very similar to the ability to intellectually and critically analyze print; an ability obtained by individuals whom many would consider to be “literate”.
An attempt to define 'literacy'
What is 'literacy'? This week, I read an article called "Defining Digital Literacy" by David Buckingham. I was sure that, with such a relevant title, I would get an answer to my question. Instead, I still find myself unsure of the answer to this question, about which my mind has been unsettled since we began talking about the concept in class last week. So, rather than give up, in what follows I will talk through Buckingham a little and try to put my finger on what sort of definition might come out of this article.
Buckingham talks a lot about what literacy is not. It is not simply "a vague synonym for 'competence', or even 'skill'" (Buckingham, p. 2), nor is it "restricted to mechanical skills or narrow forms of functional competence" (p. 3). This is a repetitive theme throughout the article, that literacy is about more than sufficient abilities a person has with respect to information. But what is included in this "more than"? According to Buckingham, the way 'economic literacy', 'emotional literacy' and 'spiritual literacy' are often conceptualized discount them as literacies, as far as he is concerned (p. 2). But why? In philosophical terms, we need some necessary and sufficient conditions of 'literacy'; in layman's terms, we need to know all the properties that make literacy literacy.
Using Buckingham, here's my best crack at a definition of 'literacy' at this point:
Literacy is the possession of a set of skills which allow an individual to navigate through, critically evaluate, and gain knowledge from some means of communication.
Thus, the literate individual is in the possession of a skills set. This skills set includes, but (according to Buckingham's constant prescription) is not limited to, the functional or instrumental ability to use some means of communication. I have made explicit two things that Buckingham implies must be added to instrumental skill in a good definition of 'literacy': (1) the ability to evaluate some medium of communication, which means being able to analyze the representation, language, production, and audience of some content of that medium (pp. 5-10), and (2) the ability to internalize informational content, thereby transforming it into knowledge (p. 5). Finally, I think economic, emotional and spiritual 'literacies' all fail to meet one of the three criteria - navigation, evaluation, and knowledge-gaining - outlined in the definition.
I'm glad for this experience of making an attempt to define 'literacy'. I still don't feel entirely confident that I'm understanding the whole idea of literacy, but I get it more now than I did yesterday. Hopefully, I'll be able to say the same after class on Wednesday, when I hear from others about what they read!
David Koch
Buckingham talks a lot about what literacy is not. It is not simply "a vague synonym for 'competence', or even 'skill'" (Buckingham, p. 2), nor is it "restricted to mechanical skills or narrow forms of functional competence" (p. 3). This is a repetitive theme throughout the article, that literacy is about more than sufficient abilities a person has with respect to information. But what is included in this "more than"? According to Buckingham, the way 'economic literacy', 'emotional literacy' and 'spiritual literacy' are often conceptualized discount them as literacies, as far as he is concerned (p. 2). But why? In philosophical terms, we need some necessary and sufficient conditions of 'literacy'; in layman's terms, we need to know all the properties that make literacy literacy.
Using Buckingham, here's my best crack at a definition of 'literacy' at this point:
Literacy is the possession of a set of skills which allow an individual to navigate through, critically evaluate, and gain knowledge from some means of communication.
Thus, the literate individual is in the possession of a skills set. This skills set includes, but (according to Buckingham's constant prescription) is not limited to, the functional or instrumental ability to use some means of communication. I have made explicit two things that Buckingham implies must be added to instrumental skill in a good definition of 'literacy': (1) the ability to evaluate some medium of communication, which means being able to analyze the representation, language, production, and audience of some content of that medium (pp. 5-10), and (2) the ability to internalize informational content, thereby transforming it into knowledge (p. 5). Finally, I think economic, emotional and spiritual 'literacies' all fail to meet one of the three criteria - navigation, evaluation, and knowledge-gaining - outlined in the definition.
I'm glad for this experience of making an attempt to define 'literacy'. I still don't feel entirely confident that I'm understanding the whole idea of literacy, but I get it more now than I did yesterday. Hopefully, I'll be able to say the same after class on Wednesday, when I hear from others about what they read!
David Koch
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Link Between Literacy and Technology
For this week we all had to read a separate article. The article I read is entitled, "Reading on the Internet: The Link Between Literacy and Technology," by Elizabeth Schmar-Dobler. I was immediately intrigued as to what this article was going to entail, mostly because of my own struggles with technology. The article first describes a couple of students and their separate dealings with the internet. It then goes on the say that "new forms of literacy call upon students to know how to read and write not only in the print world but also in the digital world" (p. 81). I found this very interesting because quite frankly I had never thought of it in this particular way. However, the more I think about it, the more I would have to agree. There is so much text as well as an abundance of distractions on the internet and it is important for students to learn how to use these technologies to their advantage.
The article also provides seven strategies students use when reading both print as well as internet text. Some of these strategies entail different aspects when dealing with print versus internet text but for the most part they are extremely similar. The strategies include:
-Activating prior knowledge: In both books and internet the "reader recalls experiences and information relating to the topic."
-Monitoring and Repairing Comprehension: In books, the "reader adjust reading rate depending on the purpose of reading" while internet reading entails "skimming and scanning."
-Determining Important Ideas: In both books and internet the "reader analyzes text to determine which parts are important."
-Synthesizing: In both books and internet the "reader sifts important from unimportant details to determine the kernel of an idea."
-Drawing inferences: In both books and internet the "reader reads between the lines, using background knowledge and text to help fill in the gaps."
-Asking questions: In books, "questions give purpose to reading by motivating the reader to continue" while in internet, "guiding questions must be in forefront of reader's mind or getting lost or sidetracked is likely."
-Navigating: In books, the "reader uses the feature of print text to search for information" while in the internet, the "reader figures out features of the internet in order to search for information."
Overall I found this article to be interesting and engaging. It has made me think of my field expereinces with my kindergarten class and watching them grow as both readers of print and internet readers.
The article also provides seven strategies students use when reading both print as well as internet text. Some of these strategies entail different aspects when dealing with print versus internet text but for the most part they are extremely similar. The strategies include:
-Activating prior knowledge: In both books and internet the "reader recalls experiences and information relating to the topic."
-Monitoring and Repairing Comprehension: In books, the "reader adjust reading rate depending on the purpose of reading" while internet reading entails "skimming and scanning."
-Determining Important Ideas: In both books and internet the "reader analyzes text to determine which parts are important."
-Synthesizing: In both books and internet the "reader sifts important from unimportant details to determine the kernel of an idea."
-Drawing inferences: In both books and internet the "reader reads between the lines, using background knowledge and text to help fill in the gaps."
-Asking questions: In books, "questions give purpose to reading by motivating the reader to continue" while in internet, "guiding questions must be in forefront of reader's mind or getting lost or sidetracked is likely."
-Navigating: In books, the "reader uses the feature of print text to search for information" while in the internet, the "reader figures out features of the internet in order to search for information."
Overall I found this article to be interesting and engaging. It has made me think of my field expereinces with my kindergarten class and watching them grow as both readers of print and internet readers.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Group Work
While reading chapters one and two of Gibbons this week I found her thoughts and words on the importance of group work extremely interesting. I am in a kindergarten classroom for field placement and reading this made me realize that my CT does not have her class participate in much group work. I am wondering if this is simply because of how young the students are or if it is something else. Personally I believe that even though the students are young they should be at the very least starting to talk and interact with each other on assignments.
I also found it interesting that one of the tasks in making group work effective is having the students talk. Again, not much group is done in my CT's classroom and even when the students are working on their assignments at their assigned tables talking is not always allowed. I had never realized the lack of group work in this kindergarten class until reading the in depth look at the importance of it in chapter two.
After reading and wondering why my CT does not have her class interact in group work, I am definitely going to ask her for her thoughts on group work and what she thinks she does to apply this important concept into her classroom.
I also found it interesting that one of the tasks in making group work effective is having the students talk. Again, not much group is done in my CT's classroom and even when the students are working on their assignments at their assigned tables talking is not always allowed. I had never realized the lack of group work in this kindergarten class until reading the in depth look at the importance of it in chapter two.
After reading and wondering why my CT does not have her class interact in group work, I am definitely going to ask her for her thoughts on group work and what she thinks she does to apply this important concept into her classroom.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Scaffolding
In the first chapter of "Scaffolding Language Scaffolding Learning" Gibbons introduces the reader to the metaphorical concept of scaffolding. This serves as preparation for what is to come in the following chapters as scaffolding, and how to go about scaffolding in an effective manner is the central focus of the book. In this section she describes scaffolding as providing assistance to students so that they can learn, through the introduction of "new skills, concepts, and levels of understanding"; in other words it is teaching students how they can perform or carry out a task so that they can begin to perform that task on their own, without teacher assistance (Gibbons 10). From past experience and prior teacher education courses I understand how important effective scaffolding truly is in the classroom, from early elementary all the way through college. Scaffolding should play a large role when planning lessons and structuring curriculum, however, because effective scaffolding is such an important aspect in regards to student learning it can be difficult to give each student the support that they need. Being that every student learns in different ways and at different paces it can be easy for a teacher to teach the class in one manner not tending to the individual needs of each student, which is exactly the importance of scaffolding.
This week in placement I noticed a couple examples of wonderful scaffolding by my corresponding teacher. Breaking the students up into small groups, each group is assigned to a different "center" where they must complete some task in regards to building literacy comprehension. In these centers students are required to work together to complete the different activities; each center has a different activity that they are supposed to complete. I found this to be a good example of scaffolding because when the students initially began the centers activities they were new to each task, however, as they engage in these activities throughout the year they become more familiar with them and are able to complete them without the assistance of their teacher. They are learning new skills and building comprehension through the effective scaffolding provided by the teacher and additionally their peers.
This week in placement I noticed a couple examples of wonderful scaffolding by my corresponding teacher. Breaking the students up into small groups, each group is assigned to a different "center" where they must complete some task in regards to building literacy comprehension. In these centers students are required to work together to complete the different activities; each center has a different activity that they are supposed to complete. I found this to be a good example of scaffolding because when the students initially began the centers activities they were new to each task, however, as they engage in these activities throughout the year they become more familiar with them and are able to complete them without the assistance of their teacher. They are learning new skills and building comprehension through the effective scaffolding provided by the teacher and additionally their peers.
Thoughts on Gibbons, chapters 1 & 2
I really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Gibbons for class this week. The idea of a contextualized concept of language proficiency - one that does not blur contexts or make far-reading conclusions on the basis of singularly assessed contexts - is not new to me. In the past, I have read an article by Jim Cummins (not one of the articles cited in the first two chapters of Gibbons) where he lays out a similar argument. In this other article (I don't have publishing information, i.e. its date, to provide), Cummins analyzes the difference between conversational and academic proficiency, drawing on data showing that the development of the latter taking years longer than that of the former, which is also discussed in Gibbons, chapter 1.
Gibbons goes beyond what I read of Cummins, however, in that he relates language learning to more overarching pedagogical theories. Frankly, I was surprised that the student-centered, "progressive" approach to teaching was not the one supported by Gibbons in his analysis. After all, it places a premium on "the individual child's active construction of knowledge" and on their "intelligent inquiry and thought" (Gibbons 2002, p. 6), which are steps in the right direction from the teacher-centered, "banking" approach. Yet, like the banking approach, the progressive approach does not explain (nor leave explanatory room for) the importance of language development between individuals in the classroom (p. 7).
Herein lies a key connection between more general pedagogy and second language learning, and a second way that Gibbons improves on the Cummins article I read. The following is a little complex (and perhaps needs some clarification?), so bear with me. If knowledge creation happens mostly inside the mind of the teacher (in the banking approach) or that of the student (in the progressive approach), then the main issue of language learning in the classroom is translational: already-made meaning needs to be understood by the student in their second language. At best, the relationship between conversational and academic language proficiency is left ignored.
The pedagogical theory Gibbons adopts, which he calls the "collaborative" theory of learning, states that learning happens in the interaction between teacher and student, or even student and student. In this theory, students learn when an expert, someone more knowledgeable in some content area, provides scaffolding for the student, connecting the student's current understanding with his/her potential understanding in coordination with the expert. As the student climbs the scaffold, so-to-speak, already-used scaffolding is removed, since by that point the student no longer needs the expert's support at that level. Most importantly for the current discussion, under the collaborative theory meaning-making is an inherently linguistic endeavor. Thus, language-learning lies at the heart of content-learning; furthermore, conversational language is used to make meaning, whereby it is transformed into academic language (and whereby a connection between the two in the classroom seems well-established).
This first chapter provides a great basis for what is written in chapter 2. Gibbons gives much practical advice for what group work should entail from the perspective of second language learning. Yet the importance of group work itself is only guaranteed by a broader pedagogical theory that gives value to active interpersonal communication within the classroom. Gibbons has me convinced: only the collaborative theory does this successfully, taking seriously the difficulties faced in the classroom by second language learners.
Gibbons goes beyond what I read of Cummins, however, in that he relates language learning to more overarching pedagogical theories. Frankly, I was surprised that the student-centered, "progressive" approach to teaching was not the one supported by Gibbons in his analysis. After all, it places a premium on "the individual child's active construction of knowledge" and on their "intelligent inquiry and thought" (Gibbons 2002, p. 6), which are steps in the right direction from the teacher-centered, "banking" approach. Yet, like the banking approach, the progressive approach does not explain (nor leave explanatory room for) the importance of language development between individuals in the classroom (p. 7).
Herein lies a key connection between more general pedagogy and second language learning, and a second way that Gibbons improves on the Cummins article I read. The following is a little complex (and perhaps needs some clarification?), so bear with me. If knowledge creation happens mostly inside the mind of the teacher (in the banking approach) or that of the student (in the progressive approach), then the main issue of language learning in the classroom is translational: already-made meaning needs to be understood by the student in their second language. At best, the relationship between conversational and academic language proficiency is left ignored.
The pedagogical theory Gibbons adopts, which he calls the "collaborative" theory of learning, states that learning happens in the interaction between teacher and student, or even student and student. In this theory, students learn when an expert, someone more knowledgeable in some content area, provides scaffolding for the student, connecting the student's current understanding with his/her potential understanding in coordination with the expert. As the student climbs the scaffold, so-to-speak, already-used scaffolding is removed, since by that point the student no longer needs the expert's support at that level. Most importantly for the current discussion, under the collaborative theory meaning-making is an inherently linguistic endeavor. Thus, language-learning lies at the heart of content-learning; furthermore, conversational language is used to make meaning, whereby it is transformed into academic language (and whereby a connection between the two in the classroom seems well-established).
This first chapter provides a great basis for what is written in chapter 2. Gibbons gives much practical advice for what group work should entail from the perspective of second language learning. Yet the importance of group work itself is only guaranteed by a broader pedagogical theory that gives value to active interpersonal communication within the classroom. Gibbons has me convinced: only the collaborative theory does this successfully, taking seriously the difficulties faced in the classroom by second language learners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)