10-second review: Some people support NCLB. Some people oppose it. Why?
Title: “Why Now, More Than Ever, we need to Talk about Opportunity to Learn.” L Scherff and CL Piazza. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (December 2008/January 2009), 343-352. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “Supporters [of NCLB] tout the salutary effects of providing rewards to successful schools—bonuses for teachers and administrators and public accolades. Detractors say that the consequences of legislative actions often result in punishments doled out to “underperforming” schools—prescriptive teaching methods [teaching from a script], state takeovers and public humiliation.”
Comment: Most of the “underperforming” schools are in the cities in which old buildings are crumbling (bathrooms unusable), resources (libraries, textbooks) are meager, social conditions (drugs, neighborhood violence) seemingly irreversible, and magnet schools which draw off all of the promising motivated and talented students. What’s left? Average students with learning problems, language problems, attendance problems, lacking motivation, and family problems most of whom are difficult to teach.
It is my belief that complex problems need complex solutions. Buildings need to be refurbished. That takes money. Resources need to be provided. That takes money. Social problems need to be controlled—I don’t know what the solution is for social problems, but I do know that the vast majority of families in the inner cities want the best for their children. Learning problems and language problems need to be addressed. And the faculty, the entire faculty, needs to believe that their children can learn.
I’m on the teachers’ side in this one. I think the first step in solving the problems of inner city “non-performing” schools is to define clearly the problems that prevent teachers from teaching effectively. A second step is a student survey, which you will read about in my next blog. RayS.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Elementary School Topic: First-Grade Writing Instruction
10-second review: Young writers don’t learn to write simply by being required to write. They need instruction in how to write.
Title: “An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction.” SA Gibson. Reading Teacher (December 2008/January 2009), pp. 324-334. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “Young writers need instruction. They do not improve their writing skills simply because teachers require them to write.” p. 324.
Suggests 20-minute writing segments consisting of four steps: 1. Finding something to write about. 2. Teacher’s modeling a particular writing skill. 3. Time to write individually with teacher intervention as they write their drafts. 4. Sharing what they wrote.
Here’s an example of cards used to “cue” the writing process: 1. Pick one little interesting idea about your topic to write about. 2. Think of a good first sentence. 3. Think about the details your readers want to know. 4. Tell more about your ideas. 5. Add an ending sentence that helps your readers to understand your ideas.
Comment: Assumes first-grade students can read those instructions.
Addendum. I’m going to suggest a method for practicing first-grade writing. Take four or five 8 ½ x 11” sheets of paper. Fold them in half so that they are in the shape of a pamphlet. Staple along the crease.
Students write stories similar to picture books. The bottom half of each page tells the story based on either real or imaginary experiences. The upper half of each page is for pictures to illustrate the text on each page. Of course, the first page is the cover or title page.
When time allows, each student meets with the teacher to go over spelling and punctuation. At first the teacher makes the corrections, using an eraser. As the students become better at correcting spelling and punctuation, they do it themselves.
Hang the books around the room where students—and parents—can read them. The results are sometimes outstanding. The books are cute and interesting and the students are proud of what they have written.
Thanks to Barbara A. Stopper for the idea. RayS.
Title: “An Effective Framework for Primary-Grade Guided Writing Instruction.” SA Gibson. Reading Teacher (December 2008/January 2009), pp. 324-334. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “Young writers need instruction. They do not improve their writing skills simply because teachers require them to write.” p. 324.
Suggests 20-minute writing segments consisting of four steps: 1. Finding something to write about. 2. Teacher’s modeling a particular writing skill. 3. Time to write individually with teacher intervention as they write their drafts. 4. Sharing what they wrote.
Here’s an example of cards used to “cue” the writing process: 1. Pick one little interesting idea about your topic to write about. 2. Think of a good first sentence. 3. Think about the details your readers want to know. 4. Tell more about your ideas. 5. Add an ending sentence that helps your readers to understand your ideas.
Comment: Assumes first-grade students can read those instructions.
Addendum. I’m going to suggest a method for practicing first-grade writing. Take four or five 8 ½ x 11” sheets of paper. Fold them in half so that they are in the shape of a pamphlet. Staple along the crease.
Students write stories similar to picture books. The bottom half of each page tells the story based on either real or imaginary experiences. The upper half of each page is for pictures to illustrate the text on each page. Of course, the first page is the cover or title page.
When time allows, each student meets with the teacher to go over spelling and punctuation. At first the teacher makes the corrections, using an eraser. As the students become better at correcting spelling and punctuation, they do it themselves.
Hang the books around the room where students—and parents—can read them. The results are sometimes outstanding. The books are cute and interesting and the students are proud of what they have written.
Thanks to Barbara A. Stopper for the idea. RayS.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Secondary School Topic: Teacher Quality
10-second review: Studies the path people take to become English teachers and suggests more needs to be learned about the schools in which they teach as influencing the development of the English teachers when they get there.
Title: “Standpoint: Perspectives on Highly Qualified English Teachers.” AR Gere and D Berebitsky. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2009), 247-262. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Here are some characteristics (some contested) of highly qualified English teachers. Earned BA degree in subject they teach; large gains in student achievement; wide variety of effective teaching strategies; product of traditional certification program; passed state proficiency test in their content areas; came into teaching via alternative certification; create safe, respectful and culturally sensitive learning environments.
Authors suggest that more research be completed on the role of the school or the teaching context in helping to produce effective teachers.
Comment: What do I think is an effective English teacher?
1. Wants every child to learn and tries to help them do so.
2. Keeps up with professional literature.
3. Reflects in writing on their teaching practices and experiences.
4. Does not believe that every underachieving student is “lazy.”
5. Uses the directed reading assignment with difficult reading materials: a. Builds background information on the topic; b Pre-teaches unfamiliar vocabulary; c. Helps students set purpose for reading in the form of questions; d. Has students apply or extend what they have learned from reading.
6. Encourages students to relate personal experience to interpreting literature.
7. Builds vocabulary through pre-teaching unfamiliar words before reading assignments; uses a vocabulary textbook like Word Power Made Easy by Norman Lewis; encourages students to keep a record of unfamiliar words on index cards with definitions as short as possible.
8. Teaches writing and grammar concurrently. Emphasizes revision through word processing.
9. Gives students confidence in formal speaking, speaking in groups, in debates and in preparation for and responding to interview questions.
10. Gives students the opportunity for independent study.
That’s my definition of an effective English teacher. RayS.
Title: “Standpoint: Perspectives on Highly Qualified English Teachers.” AR Gere and D Berebitsky. Research in the Teaching of English (February 2009), 247-262. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Here are some characteristics (some contested) of highly qualified English teachers. Earned BA degree in subject they teach; large gains in student achievement; wide variety of effective teaching strategies; product of traditional certification program; passed state proficiency test in their content areas; came into teaching via alternative certification; create safe, respectful and culturally sensitive learning environments.
Authors suggest that more research be completed on the role of the school or the teaching context in helping to produce effective teachers.
Comment: What do I think is an effective English teacher?
1. Wants every child to learn and tries to help them do so.
2. Keeps up with professional literature.
3. Reflects in writing on their teaching practices and experiences.
4. Does not believe that every underachieving student is “lazy.”
5. Uses the directed reading assignment with difficult reading materials: a. Builds background information on the topic; b Pre-teaches unfamiliar vocabulary; c. Helps students set purpose for reading in the form of questions; d. Has students apply or extend what they have learned from reading.
6. Encourages students to relate personal experience to interpreting literature.
7. Builds vocabulary through pre-teaching unfamiliar words before reading assignments; uses a vocabulary textbook like Word Power Made Easy by Norman Lewis; encourages students to keep a record of unfamiliar words on index cards with definitions as short as possible.
8. Teaches writing and grammar concurrently. Emphasizes revision through word processing.
9. Gives students confidence in formal speaking, speaking in groups, in debates and in preparation for and responding to interview questions.
10. Gives students the opportunity for independent study.
That’s my definition of an effective English teacher. RayS.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Creative Writing Topic: Poetry and Rhyming
10-second review: Before rejecting rhyming in writing your poems, try using slant rhymes. They give you many more possibilities.
Title: “The Reason Behind the Rhyme.” Marilyn Taylor. The Writer (February 2009), pp. 15-16. The Writer is a magazine by writers for writers.
Summary/Quote: “The basic question: Does the addition of line-end rhyme add something attractive and desirable to a poem, assuming that it’s done well? Can it provide a layer of inventiveness and artistry in an otherwise pretty ordinary block of language? Or should rhyme generally be avoided…because it’s too restrictive, too obvious and tends to prevent poets from expressing what they really want to say?”
Summary/Quote: “The hidden escape hatch in this apparent brick wall lies in the use of slant rhymes…rhymes that have in common some, but not all, of their final sounds. Some examples: green/rain; hill/fail; wait/flight, etc.
Summary/Quote: “…the practice has a long, rich history. Emily Dickinson herself was an early practitioner and used it a great deal….”
Comment: Sounds like fun to try. RayS.
Title: “The Reason Behind the Rhyme.” Marilyn Taylor. The Writer (February 2009), pp. 15-16. The Writer is a magazine by writers for writers.
Summary/Quote: “The basic question: Does the addition of line-end rhyme add something attractive and desirable to a poem, assuming that it’s done well? Can it provide a layer of inventiveness and artistry in an otherwise pretty ordinary block of language? Or should rhyme generally be avoided…because it’s too restrictive, too obvious and tends to prevent poets from expressing what they really want to say?”
Summary/Quote: “The hidden escape hatch in this apparent brick wall lies in the use of slant rhymes…rhymes that have in common some, but not all, of their final sounds. Some examples: green/rain; hill/fail; wait/flight, etc.
Summary/Quote: “…the practice has a long, rich history. Emily Dickinson herself was an early practitioner and used it a great deal….”
Comment: Sounds like fun to try. RayS.
Friday, March 13, 2009
K-12 Topic: Reading Response on State Tests
10-second review: State tests emphasize literal recall and teachers teach for literal recall. Therefore, teachers are not teaching students to think about what they have read—the real purpose for reading.
Title: “The Assessment of Thoughtful Literacy in NAEP: Why the States Aren’t Measuring Up.” AJ Applegate, et al. Reading Teacher (February 2009), 372-381. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “Finally, let us return to the hypothesis of Black and Williams (1998) who suggested that many teachers emphasize literal recall in their classrooms under the mistaken assumption that their students will perform well on accountability measures. Our analysis suggests that such literal-minded teachers may not be so mistaken after all, if we stay the course and continue to assess comprehension as if it consisted primarily of literal recall. But we run the risk of creating a growing number of students who perform well on state tests, yet continue to view reading as an exercise in literal recall of information, an exercise that does not require a spontaneous thoughtful response.” p. 381.
Summary/Quote: “Our analysis of the content of state tests and NAEP suggests that teachers who encourage their students to engage thoughtfully with text and attend to the ways that details support thoughtful conclusions will prepare them to do well on both state and national accountability assessment. But as literacy professionals, we must call upon our state accountability tests to do much more to assess higher order interpretation of text if more of our children are ever to achieve the vision of mature reading that stands at the very core of the field of reading and literacy instruction.”
Comment: I remember in one of my graduate reading courses, a professor, Dr. Sheldon from Syracuse University, assigned articles from professional journals for the students, all teachers, to read. All of the students in the class responded to the articles in the same way—they summarized the ideas in the articles. It took Dr. Sheldon half a semester to teach these teachers to respond thoughtfully to the summarized information, to reflect on it, to agree or not to agree with it, and to extend the ideas in the articles, the implications.
All of these teachers, I included, assumed that reading was gaining ideas and information; we did not think about using those ideas. It was a lesson about reading that I never forgot. Dr. Sheldon was a man who had thought about thinking and reading. For him, reading was thinking.
And that is why I think the last part of the directed reading assignment, using the ideas gained from reading, is not emphasized by most teachers. They build up the background information. They pre-teach the unfamiliar vocabulary. They set purpose or have the students set purpose. But they do not take the process one step further, using the ideas gained from reading. RayS.
Title: “The Assessment of Thoughtful Literacy in NAEP: Why the States Aren’t Measuring Up.” AJ Applegate, et al. Reading Teacher (February 2009), 372-381. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “Finally, let us return to the hypothesis of Black and Williams (1998) who suggested that many teachers emphasize literal recall in their classrooms under the mistaken assumption that their students will perform well on accountability measures. Our analysis suggests that such literal-minded teachers may not be so mistaken after all, if we stay the course and continue to assess comprehension as if it consisted primarily of literal recall. But we run the risk of creating a growing number of students who perform well on state tests, yet continue to view reading as an exercise in literal recall of information, an exercise that does not require a spontaneous thoughtful response.” p. 381.
Summary/Quote: “Our analysis of the content of state tests and NAEP suggests that teachers who encourage their students to engage thoughtfully with text and attend to the ways that details support thoughtful conclusions will prepare them to do well on both state and national accountability assessment. But as literacy professionals, we must call upon our state accountability tests to do much more to assess higher order interpretation of text if more of our children are ever to achieve the vision of mature reading that stands at the very core of the field of reading and literacy instruction.”
Comment: I remember in one of my graduate reading courses, a professor, Dr. Sheldon from Syracuse University, assigned articles from professional journals for the students, all teachers, to read. All of the students in the class responded to the articles in the same way—they summarized the ideas in the articles. It took Dr. Sheldon half a semester to teach these teachers to respond thoughtfully to the summarized information, to reflect on it, to agree or not to agree with it, and to extend the ideas in the articles, the implications.
All of these teachers, I included, assumed that reading was gaining ideas and information; we did not think about using those ideas. It was a lesson about reading that I never forgot. Dr. Sheldon was a man who had thought about thinking and reading. For him, reading was thinking.
And that is why I think the last part of the directed reading assignment, using the ideas gained from reading, is not emphasized by most teachers. They build up the background information. They pre-teach the unfamiliar vocabulary. They set purpose or have the students set purpose. But they do not take the process one step further, using the ideas gained from reading. RayS.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
K-12 Topic: Definition of Mature Reading
10-second survey: Can you write the definition of mature reading without looking at the definition in the summary?
Title: “The Assessment of Thoughtful Literacy in NAEP: Why the States Aren’t Measuring Up.” AJ Applegate, et al. Reading Teacher (February 2009), 372-381. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “When it comes to a definition of the nature of mature reading (the ultimate goal of all reading instruction), there is a remarkable level of agreement. This agreement exists among proponents of opposing philosophical camps, among reading theorists from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries; and among assessment specialists charged with measuring reading achievement at state, national and instructional levels.” p. 372.
Summary/Quote: “Mature reading involves thoughtful literacy—an ability to link the text with one’s existing knowledge to arrive at a considered and logical response.” p. 372.
Comment: Let’s see if I can break this definition down so that I understand it: 1. Mature readers think about what they have read. 2. Mature readers relate their knowledge to the text. 3. Mature leaders arrive at a response they have thought about and can support by references to the text.
Well, that’s my attempt. I became stuck on “considered and logical response.” I’m guessing at what that phrase means.
I think the essence of this definition is that mature readers think about what they have read. RayS.
Title: “The Assessment of Thoughtful Literacy in NAEP: Why the States Aren’t Measuring Up.” AJ Applegate, et al. Reading Teacher (February 2009), 372-381. A publication of the International Reading Association (IRA).
Summary/Quote: “When it comes to a definition of the nature of mature reading (the ultimate goal of all reading instruction), there is a remarkable level of agreement. This agreement exists among proponents of opposing philosophical camps, among reading theorists from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries; and among assessment specialists charged with measuring reading achievement at state, national and instructional levels.” p. 372.
Summary/Quote: “Mature reading involves thoughtful literacy—an ability to link the text with one’s existing knowledge to arrive at a considered and logical response.” p. 372.
Comment: Let’s see if I can break this definition down so that I understand it: 1. Mature readers think about what they have read. 2. Mature readers relate their knowledge to the text. 3. Mature leaders arrive at a response they have thought about and can support by references to the text.
Well, that’s my attempt. I became stuck on “considered and logical response.” I’m guessing at what that phrase means.
I think the essence of this definition is that mature readers think about what they have read. RayS.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
High School/College Topic: Disciplines Working Together
10-second review: We have become so used to teaching as separate departments that we have not tried to find ways of working together—to the detriment of our students who do not understand the ways in which different disciplines relate to each other and thus experience a fragmented curriculum.
Title: “What We Say When We Don’t Talk about Creative Writing.” G Graff. College English (January 2009), 271-279. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary/Quote: “We have got so used to the separations between departmental components that these separations seem facts of nature or aspects of the academic condition, if not the human condition. The most damaging impact of these separations is on the curriculum and on students. Ultimately, the separations between departmental areas become reproduced in the separations between our discipline itself—and, by extension, academic culture itself—and our students who lose sight of the larger contexts of their studies as they move from one isolated subfield to another…. We are unlikely to start talking to each other until we start teaching with each other.” 278-279.
Comment: Two thoughts cross my mind—both, missed opportunities.
Separating the language arts. We (representative K-12 teachers and I) defined our K-12 curriculum as separate elements: reading, writing, speaking. literature, vocabulary, work-study skills and media. As far as this type of organization went, teachers knew what they were supposed to teach in each element of the language arts and were happy. For some reason, I never saw that there was a Part II to that separated language curriculum—to find the connections among the separated elements. Sigh!.
Interdisciplinary team teaching. The middle schools in Liverpool, New York, in the late 1960s reorganized their teaching. Six interdisciplinary teams were formed, consisting of one English teacher, one science teacher, one social studies teacher and one math teacher. Each team was given the opportunity to meet together for half the school day for planning and then to teach during the other half of the day.
We (the administrators) had hoped that the teachers of the four major disciplines, meeting together each day, would discuss similarities and differences between and among the disciplines. One team did just that and their teaching reflected their mutual ideas. One team did to some degree. The other four teams continued to teach as four separate disciplines and showed little willingness to communicate. I’m still thinking about the lessons I learned from that experience. RayS.
Title: “What We Say When We Don’t Talk about Creative Writing.” G Graff. College English (January 2009), 271-279. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary/Quote: “We have got so used to the separations between departmental components that these separations seem facts of nature or aspects of the academic condition, if not the human condition. The most damaging impact of these separations is on the curriculum and on students. Ultimately, the separations between departmental areas become reproduced in the separations between our discipline itself—and, by extension, academic culture itself—and our students who lose sight of the larger contexts of their studies as they move from one isolated subfield to another…. We are unlikely to start talking to each other until we start teaching with each other.” 278-279.
Comment: Two thoughts cross my mind—both, missed opportunities.
Separating the language arts. We (representative K-12 teachers and I) defined our K-12 curriculum as separate elements: reading, writing, speaking. literature, vocabulary, work-study skills and media. As far as this type of organization went, teachers knew what they were supposed to teach in each element of the language arts and were happy. For some reason, I never saw that there was a Part II to that separated language curriculum—to find the connections among the separated elements. Sigh!.
Interdisciplinary team teaching. The middle schools in Liverpool, New York, in the late 1960s reorganized their teaching. Six interdisciplinary teams were formed, consisting of one English teacher, one science teacher, one social studies teacher and one math teacher. Each team was given the opportunity to meet together for half the school day for planning and then to teach during the other half of the day.
We (the administrators) had hoped that the teachers of the four major disciplines, meeting together each day, would discuss similarities and differences between and among the disciplines. One team did just that and their teaching reflected their mutual ideas. One team did to some degree. The other four teams continued to teach as four separate disciplines and showed little willingness to communicate. I’m still thinking about the lessons I learned from that experience. RayS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)