OEQs & Instructional Conversations

Folks, if you can pull this off well, you can do just about anything! Let's go to the latest, read, craft some cracking good OEQs, and "instructionally converse" our hearts out!

Speed Is (Not Necessarily) What We Need

While there are quite a few pre-conceived notions about what fluency is, or what it's supposed to be, we should all be on the same page with the following: 

Fluency means reading not at a rate that's high, but reading at a rate that's appropriate for the reader’s age (the rule of thumb is generally [your age] x 10/per minute]) with comprehension. Unless there’s some comprehension component built into them, those speed-reading exercises are about as useful as they've always been; that is to say, not very much. 

It’s a little more complicated than this, especially for our very slow readers out there—read too slowly and you end up forgetting what was at the start of a text, read too quickly and the focus is on speed, not understanding.  Either way, comprehension becomes compromised...so then the question becomes, why was the text assigned if not to understand it, respond to it, discuss it, etc...? 

At the heart of what we need to talk about is vocabulary acquisition and development, marrying writing activities with reading as often as possible, and engaging in close reading with students (basically compelling them to re-visit the same text using different perspectives and/or for varying purposes). 

Although many would say the following is a radical way of approaching fluency, I’d like to put something out there as food for thought: thinking is quickest, speaking is fast, but not as quick as thought, reading is slowest of all… 

"What if we attacked fluency indirectly through discussion?"

A great site: https://wiki.geneseo.edu/display/cultural/Accuracy+and+Fluency+Wiki

Q.A.S.I. Meets Toulmin

When I was re-acquainted with Q.A.S.I., I felt that it was very close in nature to the way Carol and I are currently teaching the Toulmin method of argumentation, but when I broke down the analogy, I found that Q.A.S.I. is missing an important piece from Toulmin, and that’s the Warrant.  This is where students state some sort of reason for their belief:

e.g.: “[I think that] Marc Antony was just in betraying Brutus and Cassius because it was pretty clear that they were going to use the same means to deal with Marc Antony that they used in dealing with Caesar.”

Q.A.S.I. has Support, but this is actually much closer in spirit and in letter to the Evidence section of Toulmin.  Where Q.A.S.I. shines in a much more supportive way is that it stipulates that “quotes, paraphrases, and summaries” are to be used as support.  In this area, Toulmin, while giving greater liberty as to what constitutes “Evidence” can actually be vexing for students who need extra help with responding to prompts.

In the end, I had to disabuse myself that Toulmin is just a more sophisticated version of Q.A.S.I.—the two are incredibly useful and helpful insofar as being scaffolds for students to use with their writing, but they aren’t quite as analogous as I first thought.

Literature Responses Part IXb: Roles (Segmented Version)

[If you're logged into your Alexandria School District Google account, after clicking on the image above, you'll be taken directly to the folder with all the necessary files for LRs.] 

Just to get it out there one more time, I thought I'd re-post the Literature Responses handout.  This version is actually segmented with the Essential Eight roles being placed up top, with the original* Harvey Daniels's roles as the first four roles (*despite the fact that these too have been adapted for more higher-order tasks).  As I was mentioning these to Carol, it struck me that some of these roles need to be removed as they aren't necessary for middle school grades.  But this is something each teacher can do according to his/her own discretion.

Literature Responses Part IX: Defining Literature Circles, Explaining Literature Responses

Initially, when I was hired at AMS, my goal was to implement my own nascent literacy program and to steer educators away from the Harvey Daniels’s version of Literature Circles.  As it happens, with many teachers Literature Circles seem to be like that one band everyone’s always talking about that leaves you saying: I know of their music, but have never actually heard it.”  There seems to be some confusion as to what Literature Circles are, so let me proffer a helpful visual:

(Screenshot A: http://www.litcircles.org/Overview/overview.html)

Just as I cannot place a sticker on my desk that says “Literature Circles” and expect that others will treat it as such, handouts that proclaim “Literature Circles” (downloaded from online sources where Literature Circles are espoused) might only be true for those that know how to implement them in the classroom.  But, wait—I haven’t even given a definition proper as to what Literature Circles are, so here is yet another useful screenshot:

(Screenshot B: http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/literaturecircles/index.html)

Here is where we should begin speaking to the concept of “teacher-proofing” literacy strategies; this is a bit of a hot topic as on the one hand, literacy experts can ensure that, one, they are able to parlay a program into a paid ecosystem that schools can purchase.  [Many of these programs declare that “according to the research,” theirs is the program to beat as “clinical and action research” has shown that, if the script is followed, no teacher in the world can make a mess of it (Success for All immediately springs to mind). In other words, “pre(-)scripted” (in both senses, there is in some cases literally a script to follow and it is advocated by some experts).  The problem with this is that these programs aren’t meant for real-world classrooms because in the real world class sizes range from 18-35 students and many of these programs’ studies show that achievement gains decline as class size increases.]  On the other hand, however, by using or implying that “teacher-proofing” a program is a necessary component in a program’s success, we are also saying that teachers shouldn’t have the freedom to make choices within or changes to that program as their own experience and efficacy is not taken into consideration. 

As a counter-point to this counterpoint, though, do most teachers have the necessary literacy expertise to truly know what they are doing when they conduct a workshop on revision, or try to implement the latest and greatest assessment strategies simply because everyone else is talking about it?   Do most teachers understand how to interpret, say, the parts of a clinical study, do they know what the significance of the n value is, or even how to determine whether a study’s findings are analogous to the make-up of their students’ ability levels?  If everything in education is to be run by “best practice methods that are research-based,” then what does it really mean when someone can’t understand how to read a quantitative/qualitative study? 

This is usually why most districts hire personnel like technology specialists, speech specialists, and reading specialists--they're credentialed and/or licensed to know what they're doing.  But this is only one variable in this précis of what Literature Circles really are as a collective whole.  In Screenshot A, the items I have circled in red address several pressing issues that I have concerning the textbook presentation of Harvey Daniels’s Literature Circles as they are understood in 2011.  That is to say:

• An LC handout cannot take into account whether there is any discussion within that group—the role of discussion director is for posing and answering questions, but, one, who’s to say how much back-and-forth asking/answering is going on, and two, a discussion is comprised not only of asking and answering questions, but reflections, leads and misleads in student talk, cues and miscues in student talk, and all of these can lead to deeper learning
• There is no accounting for a whole class discussion of what students understand and what they do not
• There is no accounting for the tedium and pointlessness of some of the roles (vocabulary enricher, travel tracer, and the one involving spotting literary devices) or in how some teachers employ them (i.e., if there aren’t anything but similes in a text and students have mastered spotting similes, then continuing to do so is pretty much busywork)
• There is no accounting for the addition of new roles as students learn and master reading strategies, the text, and their roles
• There is almost no accounting for authenticity of the work assigned—summarizer, connector, literary luminary/quoter, and discussion director are all valid and authentic roles for students, but if these aren’t part of some greater whole (such as a group/whole class discussion), then it becomes busywork

Just like with anything else, if work is done in isolation, if group discussions aren’t monitored (even worse, if there are no group discussions), if future whole-class assignments, activities, and projects aren’t informed by what students have learned and where their group discussions are going, and if roles and groups aren’t purposeful, short-term, and flexible, then there is little educational value in implementing LCs.  But how is it that some experts say “there is no one right way to do a Literature Circle” when there seem to be plenty of non-productive ways to do LCs?  

The short answer is that students aren’t Pavlovian dogs who will instantly and successfully respond to anything bearing the title “Literature Circle.”  [A longer and more interesting answer lies in the research itself, which I happily append to this article—feel free to peruse it at your leisure.]  To expand on this a little more, I’d refer you to Screenshot B where I have circled in green those words that are iterative within the definition of an LC, more explicitly, “discuss,” “discussion,” and “talk.”  This is where the research becomes both highly relevant and extremely fascinating.  If, at the heart of it, we view LCs as just a written rehearsal within discrete roles for conducting discussions, then we can talk about reciprocal teaching, and more importantly, the dialectical method, which pre-dates education itself.  No, actually, the dialectical method employed by the Ancient Greeks was education for them—a gathering of people sitting around posing, interposing, and responding to questions trying to understand and help each other understand truth, beauty, love, justice, society, and the very nature of humankind.  So, yes—we should talk about how critical, how essential it is to get students to have discussions with themselves (i.e., think/LC role), with each other (i.e., pair/LC discussion), and with everyone else (i.e., share/whole-class discussion). 

In the spirit of full disclosure, just know that as an educator, I outgrew the Harvey Daniels’s method of Literature Circles—rather, what I was seeing was that what students needed wasn’t contained within Literature Circles.  At first it was because all of my students were roughly at the same ability level (frustration-level readers about three to four years below grade level); then it was because of not having enough books for the LC groups; then it was because student groups became comfortable carrying out their roles in isolation rarely speaking to each other; then it was because I wanted to break the monotony of students being locked in to a handful of roles that I felt limited students who might not have been academically inclined and/or were outside-of-the-box thinkers; finally, it was because I wanted to find a way to turn students’ thinking around to what their responses to literature could be…and voila: Literature Responses were born!

If I wanted students to become self-directed learners, participants of authentic tasks, and high-achievers of state-wide academic assessments, then I needed to look at what Literature Circles was requiring and modify the actual activities so that these reflected more accurately what students would be tasked with in the future (in school, college, and the workplace).  Because I ran a token economy in my classes, students were offered the opportunity to create their own role, one that ideally was to be something approaching what they wished to do with their lives and then respond to the text in this way.  How I managed to work in the discussion component, which is truly at the core of Literature Responses, is that I created a pen-and-paper blog to accompany the one on my blogger account; this way students could respond whether or not they had a computer (and whether or not there were technical or connectivity issues that day), and because I incorporated some form of technology, this added a little more cache (and, again, authenticity) to what I was asking them to do.  Last, I took the Harvey Daniels’s roles of asking, making connections, and using the text to use as support for one’s claims, along with tried-and-true comprehension strategies such as Reader’s Theater and more esoteric items such as the Toulmin method for argumentation, modified them for my students, made exemplars, and modeled for them their prospective expectations using LR. 

Using this method of text response, which:

• Encompasses the NJCCCS as well as newer state and national standards
• Is as open and as limitless as students choose for themselves
• Is rooted in Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences despite its genesis in literacy (and with so much room to grow with students’ imaginations)
• Addresses and embraces the full spectrum of Bloom’s taxonomy
• Encourages students to create and maintain communities within their small groups and their class as a whole…

Students are able to wend way through the stories they are asked to read because they have some intrinsically motivating impetus to steady them as they read: they get to use their critical thinking skills and their imagination to make sense of the worlds within worlds contained in books.

Q: Can students work alone with LRs?

A: Yes, so long as there is some rationale for doing so and so long as there is a discussion after the written work is done.

Q: Can students work in small groups with LRs (pairs, triads, etc.)?

A: Yes, this is the end for which LRs were conceived.

Q: Can students be assigned roles or should they choose for themselves?

A: This is where teacher discretion is best used.  Sometimes students don’t work to their potential because they need to be prompted to do so.  Being a Predictor for a class or two is fine; being a Predictor for two weeks is unthinkable unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Q: Can students perform a role instead of writing it, like with Interpretive Dance, say?

A: Students can perform and write their roles (as with Reader’s Theater), but one of LRs’ end goals is to fuse literacy with students’ passions and to highlight how these often intersect.

Q: Can I make a sort of tic-tac-toe game or create a “fast food menu” using LRs?

A: You can, although these too should be given some thought as to the student’s/group’s abilities; giving all challenging roles to students who needs extra academic support isn’t very sound and vice-versa for students who need to be challenged.

Q: Which roles should I mix-and-match within groups?

A: Eventually, students will figure this out on their own (if they are working responsibly); at the start, the classic spin-offs of Discussion Director, Connector, Quoter, Predictor, Best-Case/Worst-Case Scenario, Reader’s Theater, Debater, and Takeaway will work in concert very nicely.  Incidentally, these are also the roles that should never be stricken from the list of roles no matter which ones are eliminated and which new ones are created.  Also, if you do change the list of roles, these aforementioned eight should be listed first as during the initial run of getting to know LRs, it makes finding the core roles easier for students.

Q: Not so fast—I get the part about “self-directed learners” and “participants of authentic tasks,” but, really, how is lending free choice and discussion to student response going to increase state-mandated assessment scores?

A: As the old saying in education goes, “according to the research…” studies show that discussion—especially one adult with a more sophisticated lexicon than his students—leads to gains in vocabulary acquisition skills, reading comprehension, critical thinking skills, and general cognitive abilities.  This skill set directly impacts how well students score on tests like the NJASK.  The free choice aspect of LRs helps with student buy-in—eventually, they truly do own the text using the roles readied for them as well as those they create themselves.

Q: So all I have to do is have a conversation about anything with my students?

A: Nope—a purposeful and engaging discussion about the text and issues related to the text is what I’m getting at here.  This is an art unto itself, so we’re not dealing with just waiting for one student to stop talking so another can start talking; that’s not a discussion.  In fact, that doesn’t even qualify as a conversation.  What we want is to have students listen to one another, process what’s verbally on offer, and respond in a way that takes the discussion to another place, one that is different from where it first started.  A good place to start is to display on the board the OEQs that Discussion Directors created in their groups and put the rule out there that “no one speaks twice before everyone has spoken at least once.”  Instructional Conversations such as these are also fantastic for alternative assessments.  Not to hold grades out as the be-all, end-all, but holding an IC in place of a test can do wonders for getting students to “think in their seats.”

Q: Cool, so students can just make up any role they want and then use it to respond to text?

A: Not quite—you, the teacher, put the idea out there: “Any student who can think of something s/he wants to do in life where it can be used to respond to the text, creates a title for the role and two- or three-sentence set of directions will get the role added to the LR list…”  Obviously, care and judgment should be used as humming, making paper airplanes, and staring out the window would be difficult to work into LRs as authentic real-world tasks.    

Q: But if you eliminate the word finder role of LCs, then when do you do vocabulary?

A: Vocabulary should be done for at least ten minutes every day where students are using the words, not merely copying down problem vocabulary, parts of speech, and definitions.  Requiring students to use a section of their notebooks entitled “Personal Dictionary” addresses this quite nicely.  I found that providing students with the above for vocabulary words (parts of speech and definitions) as well as two sample sentences, and requiring that they create two of their own, and then having students share these in a whole-class fashion authentically addresses two things: that using words is more important than being able to spell them, and two, that most successful readers don’t always look up every word they don’t know, but instead use context clues.  In this way, the class is discussing what works and doesn’t work about how words are used as opposed to getting hung up on what the “textbook” definition of a word is.  We want students to be able use words and to be able to use context clues to figure out problem words.  If one must forgo correct spelling to make this happen, then so be it—when all is said and done, what practical good does it do anyone to know the definition of a word, yet not know how to use it?

Q: So if I just make copies of the LR roles and distribute them to students, my job’s done?

A: At first, laying the groundwork and giving to students all of the background knowledge necessary to just do the basic eight roles (Discussion Director, Connector, Quoter, Predictor, Best-Case/Worst-Case Scenario, Reader’s Theater, Debater, and Takeaway) in addition to giving them time to practice these—a week for each of many of the eight roles—will seem a bit cumbersome, but when students have gained some level of working practice over them, have engaged in small group and whole discussions, and have begun participating in the full spectrum of the writing process, both you and they will understand how writing affects reading, and vice-versa.  Truthfully, it isn’t wise to “teacher-proof” anything too much as the adult who is the teacher on record is supposed to be the in-class expert from whom students learn.  Making LRs your own is also up to you, but just as with LCs, there are elements that cannot and should not be removed or LRs risk becoming something else, something unsupported by research-based, best-practice methods.  The simplest and most truthful way of phrasing it is the following: remove meaningful discussion from pretty much anything and it becomes busywork. 

Literature Circles

References:

Allington, R.L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556-561.

Banks, J.A., & McGee Banks, C.A. (1997). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Beach, R. (1993). Reader response theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Beach, R., & Marshall, J. (1990). Teaching literature in the secondary school. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.

Belzer, A. (2002). "I don't crave to read": School reading and adulthood. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 104-113.

Benjamin, B. & Irwin, D.L. (1998). Censoring Girls' Choices: Continued Gender Bias in English Language Arts Classrooms. English Journal, 87 (2), 64-71. [EJ 562 364]

Bleich, D. (1988). The double perspective: Language, literacy, and social relations. London: Oxford University Press.

Booth, D., & Neelands, J. (Eds.). (1998). Writing in role: Classroom projects connecting writing and drama. Hamilton, ON, Canada: Caliburn Enterprises.

Brabham, E.G., & Villaume, S.K. (2000). Questions and answers: Continuing conversations about literature circles. The Reading Teacher, 54(3), 278-280. [EJ 617 769]

Burns, B. (1998). Changing the classroom climate with literature circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(2), 124-129. [EJ 573 341]

Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding, what? Language Arts, 53,288-296,314.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. In S.R. Graubard (Ed.), Literacy: An overview of fourteen experts (pp. 115-140). New York: Hill & Wang.

Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in one student-centered classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Davis, D. (Ed.). (1997). Interactive research in drama in education. Oakhill, England: Trentham Books.

Dowhower, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading in second grade transitional readers' fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-406.

Edmiston, B. (1998). The A, B, C's of drama. Drama Matters: The Journal of the Ohio Drama Exchange, 3,49-59.

Edmiston, B., & Long, T.W. (1999). Reading texts inside out: Engagement and interpretation with drama. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration for meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 4-29.

Farinacci, M. (1998). "We have so much to talk about": Implementing literature circles as an action-research project. The Ohio Reading Teacher, 32(2), 4-11. [EJ 600 987]

Fines, J., & Verrier, R. (1974). The drama of history: An experiment in co-operative teaching. London: New University Education Press.

Garcia, E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Garrison, B., & Hynds, S. (1991). Evocation and reflection in the reading transaction: A comparison of proficient and less proficient readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23,259-280.

Gilbert, L. (2000). Getting started: Using literature circles in the classroom. Primary Voices K-6, 9(1), 9-16. [EJ 617 693]

Gillet, J.W., & Temple C. (2000). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction (5th ed.). NewYork: Longman.

Goatley, V.J., Brock, C.H., & Raphael, T.E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs." Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 352-380.

Heathcote, D. (1989). Training teachers to use drama in education. In L. Johnson & C. O'Neill (Eds.), Dorothy Heathcote: Collected writings on education and drama (pp. 26-40). London: Hutchinson. (Original work published 1972)

Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1995). Drama for learning: Dorothy Heathcote's mantle of the expert approach to education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Jewell, T., & Pratt, D. (1999). Literature discussions in the primary grades: Children's thoughtful discourse about books and what teachers can do to make it happen. The Reading Teacher, 52, 842-850.

Johnson, H. (2000). "To stand up and say something": 'Girls only' literature circles at the middle level". The New Advocate, 13(4), 375-389.

Katz, M.S., Noddings, N., & Strike, K.A. (Eds.). (1999). Justice and caring: The search for common ground in education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann S. (1993). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a readers' workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

King, C. (2001). "I like group reading because we can share ideas: The role of talk within the literature circle". Reading, 35(1), 32-36. [EJ 634 509]

Koskinen, P., & Blum, i. (1986). Paired repeated reading: A classroom strategy for developing fluent reading. The Reading Teacher, 40, 70-75.

Langer, J. (Ed.). (1992). Literature instruction: A focus on student response. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Long, T.W. (2001). How to use engagement strategies in the urban classroom. Unpublished manuscript, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.

Manley, A., & O'Neill, C. (Eds.). (1997). Dreamseekers: Creative approaches to the African American heritage. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Moller, K. (2002). Providing support for dialogue in literature discussions about social justice. Language Arts, 79, 467-477.

Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570.

O'Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap. New York: Doubleday.

Peralta-Nash, C., & Dutch, J.A. (2000). Literature circles: Creating an environment for choice. Primary Voices K-6, 8(4), 29-37. [EJ 604 621]

Poole, J. (1991). Snow White: Retold by Josephine Poole. New York: Knopf.

Probst, R. (1991). Response to literature. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. Squire, (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 655-663). New York: Maxwell Macmillan.

Purves, A.C., & Beach, R. (1972). Literature and the reader: Research on response to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Rasinski, T.V., & Padak, N.D. (1996). Holistic reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinios University Press.

Samuels, S.J. (1979). Method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403-408.

Scharer, P.L., & Peters, D. (1996). An exploration of literature discussions conducted by two teachers moving toward literature-based reading instruction. Reading Research & Instruction, 36(1), 33-50.

Shannon, P. (Ed.). (1992). Becoming political: Readings and writings in the politics of literacy education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Short, K., Kaufman, G., Kaser, S., Kahn, L., & Crawford, K. (1999). "Teacher-watching": Examining teacher talk in literature circles. Language Arts, 76, 377-385.

Sleeter, C. (1996). Multicultural education as social activism. New York: SUNY Press.

Taylor, M.D. (1975). Song of the trees. New York: Dell.

Taylor, M.D. (1998a). The friendship. New York: Puffin.

Taylor, M.D. (1998b). The gold Cadillac: A fancy new car and an unforgettable drive. New York: Puffin.

Taylor, P. (Ed.). (1996). Researching drama and arts education. London, England: Falmer.

Taylor, P. (1998). Redcoats and patriots: Reflective practice in drama and social studies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vacca, J., Vacca, R., & Gove, M. (2000). Reading and learning to read (4th ed.). New York: Longman-Addison Wesley.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whitin, P. (2002). Leading into literature circles through the sketch-to-stretch strategy. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 444-50. [EJ 640 663]

Wilhelm, J.D., & Edmiston, B. (1998). Imagining to learn: Inquiry, ethics, and integration through drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Literature Responses, Discussion, and Blogs

References:

Brozo, W. G. & Hargis, C. H. (2003). Taking seriously the idea of reform: One high school’s efforts to make reading more responsive to all students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47, 14-23.

Cox, C. (1999).  Teaching language arts: A student- and response- centered classroom (3^rd Ed.).  Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Fitzgerald, J. & Markham, L.R. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing.

Cognition & Instruction, 4 (1), 3-27.

Guthrie, J.T. (2002). Preparing students for high stakes test taking in reading. In Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S.J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4^th ed.) (pp. 370-391). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Open University Press.

Leu, D.J. (2002). Exploring literacy on the Internet.  The Reading Teacher, 466-470.

Leu, D.J. & Kinzer, C.K. (2003).  Effective literacy instruction: Implementing best practice (5^th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Moffet, J. (1992). Active Voice: A Writing Program Across the Curriculum (2^nd Ed.). Boynton/Cook.

Nystrand, M. (1996). Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. Teacher’s College Press.

Rasinski, T.V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146-151.

Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult (2^nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Reutzel, D.R. & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1991). Reading time in school: Effect on fourth graders’ performance on a criterion-referenced comprehension test. Journal of Educational Research, 84(3), 170-176.

Vacca, R.T. (2002). Making a Difference in Adolescents’ School Lives: Visible and Invisible Aspects of Content Area Reading.  In Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S.J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4^th ed.) (pp. 184-204). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Vygotsky, L. (1996). Thought and Language (Rev. Ed.). Mit Pr.

Free Choice

Reference(s):

Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The Role of Choice and Interest in Reader Engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Literature Responses Part VIII: Evolution of the Toulmin Method

It seems the longer Mrs. Testa and I collaborate, the closer I feel to what is essentially the best way to pre-write/plan for any expository prompt.  In an attempt to really suss out what formula is involved in creating a "Claim," "Warrant," and "Evidence," I began asking if there existed a formula--not necessarily a 1:1 formula--but one where a student could plug his/her imagination and creativity into certain variables.

Ironically, in this way planning for expository prompts can be a very creative experience, but it wasn't until I came up with the following that this "formula" became truly universal:

Claim: "I believe that [this is where you re-state the OEQ using as few pronouns as possible] 

Warrant: "because [this is how the above relates to me] or [what is the function of the above and how does it relate to me?]" 

Evidence: [No pieces of evidence should be stated in your warrant; the pieces should (usually) relate to whatever adjectives are in the warrant] 

(1) (2) (3)"

At first glance, this may seem overly complex, but in fact, it's quite straightforward:

Claim: I think that Veggie Heaven (in Teaneck, NJ) should be nominated for "Local Restaurant of the Year" 

Warrant: because the culinary experience is of the highest vegetarian quality and isn't to be matched in the entire state of New Jersey. 

Evidence: 

1. The fake meat actually tastes like the kind of animal it reads on the menu--"sesame chicken" tastes like sesame chicken and has the same texture as chicken even though it's really soy/seitan 

2. The service, although it can take a little longer to be served, is very friendly and--for vegetarian fare--fairly quick 

3. There are many statues, fountains and music that are both soothing and beautifully presented; this creates a relaxing atmosphere and with its oversized picture windows and the peaceful neighborhood outside, interior melts with exterior for a transcendental experience where good food and good company intersect with nature and art.

Reading for Pleasure: Book Talk Courtesy of The New York Times

The ideas that come out of The New York Times' Learning Network are sometimes hit-or-miss, but the ones in the link above are really quite useful, especially if you're trying to get young people to realize that there are as many different ways to respond to books as there are books.

It's always satisfying to have an institution like the New York Times resonate with what you've always practiced as an educator; such is the case with Book Talk Podcasts!

NJASK Workshop Materials Critique

I wanted to chime in on the NJASK materials passed out during our last department meeting—to be honest, there was a vast amount of material and while most of it was insightful, not all of it was entirely helpful.

Let me qualify this post with the main issue that I take with any workshop—there’s rarely an opportunity for follow-up either because of the number of attendees enrolled, or because it’s a “one-shot deal” lasting only long enough for attendees to get their hours “certificated.”  Usually, if there are questions or problems with what was learned, it can be nearly impossible to resolve them…at least not until the next workshop date.

I’m a firm believer in degree programs for purposes of professional development (and of substantively furthering one’s personal and professional abilities), and whenever, wherever, and however possible, of creating PLCs (professional learning communities) and using these to foster professional growth.

Now that that’s out in the open, let’s get to these NJASK workshop materials!  Just to make it easier for everyone, I’ll pick out salient points from each of the stapled handouts, and, where applicable, I’ll note caveats not found in these materials and the like…

“Conferencing with Students to Maximize Their Writing Achievement”: That there is a whole section of the materials dedicated to conferencing with students about their writing is especially important; where I would caution people from buying too heavily into what’s on offer within, though is the notion of “Teaching the writer, not the writing.”  The whole idea of giving feedback (i.e., conferencing, I.M. Revision Conversation, Author’s Chair) is to point out strengths and weaknesses in writing—essentially, so that we can have grist to teach how to parlay the former into greater successes and as regards the former, in how to avoid the many pitfalls that await young writers.  Sometimes finding out your writing isn’t perfect and needs more work hurts (ironically, empty praise also hurts); trying to avoid this pain by navigating around what’s popularly considered “being negative”* only forestalls what the young writer will discover for him/herself in the future, and honestly, is not best practice.

*The concept of “being critical” only takes on a pejorative standing and negative connotations for those who focus solely on the points of weakness; true criticism is also celebrating about what works within someone’s writing.

“Understanding the Architecture of the NJASK”: Although it’s stated in other sections of the NJASK workshop materials, the concept of “unpacking” a question to students—in addressing all parts of a question—is an important one.

“Core Best Practices in the Teaching of Reading”: The effective best practices in literacy instruction (read alouds, think alouds, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading), practical classroom practice of comprehension strategies, and tips for teaching fluency are only of any significance if one actually knows what they really are, and how and when to implement them in the classroom.  Thinking that any of these is as obviously defined by its qualifier is much like thinking “butter” is qualified by “peanut”…or something equally as silly and irrelevant. 

“Implementing Cross-Curricular Reading and Writing to Deepen Literacy Learning”: Two quotes here are questionable: There is a great deal of data suggesting that improvements in writing will have a payoff across the curriculum” and “Likewise, there is a great deal of research that sharing the responsibility of building effective readers and writers will yield greater achievement across the disciplines…”  Does anyone else think it’s a little elliptical for a teacher’s workshop (where it’s commonplace to cite one’s sources for best practice methods presentation) to not have the references included in the packet?  I do, especially because there is a great body of research that is a little more than “suggestive” about the gains to be had from cross-curricular instruction, which involves much more planning and forethought than can be found in the stapled pages of Schillinger Educational Consultants.

“Core Best Practices in the Teaching of Writing”: The suggestions for writing openings/leads for narrative writing are really useful.  The types of conclusions, while being helpful just for listing them in one place isn’t so useful as the section on openings as actual examples are called for, not citing books where the endings might be a little more than a little fuzzy in everyone’s memory.  Banishing boring words, using literary devices, parsing out components of persuasive writing are all spot-on necessary. 

But here is my second gripe with all of this material:  If it were September and an educator were exceedingly ambitious, s/he might be able to incorporate a sampling of what’s proffered in these pages into his/her instructional paradigm.  As it is, it would take anyone who was really and truly interested in actuating these practices in the classroom at least two years to try out what works for him/her and his/her students.  Sometimes when you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, it all just becomes a high holy mess, as my grandmother used to say. 

“Starting Early: Getting a Jumpstart on Preparing for the NJASK”: There are two sections here that I think are helpful: one, that there is an actual quote that goes “Even if you cannot think of real experiences that apply to your life, make them up” and two, the acronyms pneumonic for addressing parts of open-ended responses.  Regarding the former, it’s so obvious to any teaching adult that no one in Trenton’s going to know whether or not the experiences students are asked to provide (text-to-self) are real, yet for students—who oftentimes excel at prevarication and equivocation for reasons all their own—lying on paper to a stranger they will never meet seems inconceivable.  Regarding the pneumonic, it’s been different in every school I’ve taught at, but there are always four parts, and whether it’s R.A.C.E., L.S.A.Q., R.S.S.E. (restate, support, support, extend), or Q.A.S.I., so long as students understand they don’t have to write a paragraph in response to each, any of these work fine.  I also thought the six ways to begin a piece of writing were really clever.

“Utilizing 6+1 Traits to Improve Student Writing”: More than any other section of these NJASK workshop materials, this is what I believe to be the most valuable and useful from front to back.  The only reservation I have is that of the different quick check cards for students' writing--these would be exhaustive to do in one go, or even over the course of a week, week-and-a-half.  It would be far more useful for students to put some of their drafts into their Writer's Folders and work on other prompts so that students could return again to their previous drafts with fresh eyes (and replenished wherewithal to see their writing through to completion).  Funny (and not "haha" funny) how none of these materials mention the process of creating an instructional paradigm of working through from brainstorming to drafting to publishing (not even that, really)--they only give discrete tip and tricks for this sub-process or for that sub-process.  Sort of difficult to create an instructional paradigm from bits and pieces, no?

“Succeeding on Open-Ended Questions”: I don't know why I saved this one for last as it's the most useful.  By the way, the last two pages of this packet should smack of something you've seen/read/heard before: me talking ad nauseam about my Literature Responses, how Do Nows should relate to whatever text you're reading, how important it is for students to have a Writer's Notebook (i.e., journal), etc.

The Writing Process: G2G and the District Writing Project

I just discovered yesterday that G2G teachers would have only fifteen minutes to conference with their student groups every other week, so I thought that since I'd created a blog for teachers, why not one where students could receive more extended feedback and even respond if they wished.  As of yet, I haven't decided if I'm going to make responding to my feedback compulsory--I think I'll wait to see how the process plays out before doing that.

Anyone who'd like help in creating a blog, please e-mail me.

Literature Responses Part VII: Uncovering Nuances of the Toulmin Method and of the Debater Role

It seems the more I co-teach and collaborate with Carol the more I'm impelled to be reflexive about what we're been working on in her classes as regards the Debater Role of Literature Responses (or the Toulmin method of argumentation).

In helping students try to understand and find logic and clarity in planning their essays/paragraphs using the Debater Role, it struck me that all the supporting Evidence needs to be aligned with a specific portion of the Warrant, usually the adjectives contained in the warrant.

OEQ: Do you think the government should have enacted the Removal Act that displaced many Shawnees? 

Claim: I believe the U.S. government shouldn't have enacted the Removal Act
Warrant: because the Shawnees were a resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers
Evidence (3): 

1. Shawnees used all parts of an animal when they killed it  

2. Shawnees were peaceful (and proved it when they captured and then released Daniel Boone and his men unharmed and with supplies of food and weapons)

3. Shawnees knew how to survive in harsh conditions and were used to Mid-Western winters. 

In the above example Evidence #2 does not support the Shawnees being a resourceful people; if the original Warrant had been "because the Shawnees were a peaceful and resourceful people who could have helped the Ohio settlers," then #2 can be kept.  As it stands, however, a new idea needs to be proffered that directly supports the notion of the Shawnees being a resourceful people.

Another issue that's actually more of a reminder is that when creating their Claims, students should re-state the original open-ended question as can be seen in the Claim above.  Last, Carol and I have been having quite a time in steering students away from excessive pronoun use where the original OEQ is concerned as these can really muddy comprehension for readers...or for that matter, scorers.

Reading for Pleasure: Podcasts for Getting Hooked on Books

Grade Five is officially off and running with the Book Talk Projects, Mrs. Testa expressed interest in having her students view my own Book Talk Podcast, so it might do everyone well to think about what's out there to read that students might want to dive into.  Ideally, I'd love to have entire classes of students doing their own podcasts about "What books are hot and what books are not!"--sort of an interesting self-perpetuating cycle of students' reading producing social memes that would prompt their peers to read.  This might be a nice option to have "on the menu" for next year.  

For the present, however, if anyone (teachers, students, parents) is having difficulty figuring out what students might want to read that is "of and in the moment" s/he can pick and choose from the podcasts here--the above screenshot is for grades K-5, the one below is for grades 6-12.

Literature Responses Part VI: The Debater Role & Satisfying the NJASK

While collaborating and co-teaching with Carol, she and I came up with an interesting twist to the Debater Role, which is really just a stripped-down version of the Toulmin method of argumentation.  As it stands, the Debater Role is the Following:

Claim: I believe _________________________
Warrant: because _________________________
Evidence (3):
1. _____________
2. _____________
3. _____________

The small evolution of this could be:

Claim: I believe _________________________
Warrant: because _________________________
Evidence (3):
1. Text to self
2. Text to text
3. Text to world

In this way, evidence is still being proffered by the student, but s/he is also making those important connections that the scorers at the state are looking for when they're reviewing students' responses to writing prompts.

The Writing Process: I.M. Revision Handout

After doing Author's Chair with students for many years, there's little doubt as to its effectiveness; several other ways, however, are just as effective, if only in a different way.  Whereas Author's Chair involves the whole class giving feedback to a single author, the I.M. Revision Conversation allows for students to pair up and engage in a meaningful and authentic conversation using the previously disseminated Revision Questions.  It's important that students remember to append their initials to every line of the conversation that they write so that the author, when getting his/her I.M. Revision Conversation sheet returned at the end of the activity, that it becomes evident which parts belong to revisor, and which to author.

Reading Strategies III: Using The New York Times Blog to Model and Teach Non-Fiction/Current Events

Previously, I had posted about using The New York Times Blog, but after thoroughly exploring it, I can really recommend it to anyone teaching current events and wishing to teach genres like autobiography, biography, journalism, op/ed pieces, or just getting to know the ins and outs of non-fiction.  According to recent studies, many students have trouble with non-fiction as many schools can't afford a school-wide (or often even a class-wide) newspaper subscription or choose to focus their budget funds on fiction texts.  The NYT Blog is a great way to circumvent this by incorporating your SmartBoards and the blog itself... 

If you look on the right hand pane in the image below, you'll see there are actual lesson plans for your use, quick quizzes for students and places for them to share their ideas, pretty of-and-in-the-moment ideas for essays, and even actual lesson plans for some of the most frequently taught Shakespeare plays.

 

Literature Responses Part V: Intersections with Guided Reading

It isn't that what I'm presenting to you as a very encapsulated version of Guided Reading is repetitive--(stop me if you've heard this one before as the saying goes)--so much that in the realm of Literacy and Instruction, all roads lead to “research-based, best practice methods.”  And it just so happens that there's a very fortuitous and pragmatic overlap between Literature Responses and Guided Reading.

The basic instructional outline of Guided Reading:

1. A Guided Reading group is a small group of students who are roughly at the same reading level. 

2. A book is selected that students have not seen before and is at the instructional (not independent) level of reading; that is, a text students can read with 90-94% accuracy. 

3. All students silently read the book to themselves. 

4. The teacher conducts a teacher-led mini lesson for focused exploration:

·        Story Elements

·        Vocabulary*

·        Sequencing

·        Character Development*

·        Predicting*

·        Fluency

·        Decoding Strategies

·        Making Connections* (personal, to another text, to the world)

·        Inferring*

·        Summarizing

·        Analyzing*

·        Critiquing*

·        Skimming and Scanning

·        Retelling*

·        Word Meanings

5. Students respond in reflective discussion as a group.

*Contained in Mr./Ms. Lexicon, Role Model, At First Glance, Face-to-Face, Predictor, 5/15/30, Connector, Reader's Theater roles of Literature Responses
*Contained in the Questions Types workshop students need to become a Discussion Director in Literature Responses

In the Fountas and Pinnel/Four Blocks method, there are four concepts students work in when responding to the text:

·        Predicting

·        Questioning

·        Clarifying

·        Summarizing      

This is where Literature Responses come into play.  If you look at the roles within Literature Responses, especially the first four (discussion director, connector, quoter, and predictor), they bear a striking similarity to what is asked of students during and after a reading session in Guided Reading.

One of my main goals when modifying Literature Circles was to build in “research-based, best practice methods” that lend some meaning to what students are reading in a way that is immediate, authentic, and fun.  I would suggest to those teachers who prefer using the Fountas and Pinnel/Four Blocks method of Guided Reading to delete “summarizing” from the four roles as this is something teachers should be doing with students as a comprehension check during reading (every few pages depending on the grade and ability level).  Additionally—again, stop me if you've heard this one before—whatever summaries students come up with should be written down in their Writer’s Notebooks in the section set aside for Guided Reading.

(The links I'm including here are the same ones used in a workshop which Clelia conducted; just know that some of the links presented on those sites are broken, outdated, or not useful to someone who's not a primary grade teacher.  If you need assistance or supporting materials, please e-mail me.)