When I first began teaching, my homework philosophy was simple: If it doesn't get completed in class, it gets completed at home. This seemed like a good way for me to positively reinforce those students who worked hard in class while giving relevant practice to those who needed more time to finish at home. For many years, this policy served me well; the parent complaints were minimal, and my students' homework return rate was phenomenal, which all of us enjoyed. I saw no reason to change until my reading students this year inspired me to rethink the power of choice; even in homework.
Since entering the Master's in Reading program at Regis, I have learned some valuable new strategies to reinforce the five components of reading. I devised a menu of reading activities they could choose from each day to complete in class while not in small group. These activities supported the five components, provided individualization through choice, and the variety of activities they have learned to complete have proven to be highly engaging for all. Unfortunately, it seemed there were so many activities that some could not complete as many as they wanted in one class period. Conversely, my ELLs, who are highly motivated by this style of reading instruction, seemed to be able to complete all their menu activities, called "task cards", each day and begged for more. They began asking for "extra homework", which I readily provided in the form of worksheets. Many students did this, but it didn't seem to be helping them grow in reading instruction. I had an inspiration....since they love the reading task cards so much, why not create a task card folder with activities they can complete at home?
According to my previous homework routine, for all students in my class, homework is given as a reinforcement of the day's lessons or as a review and practice opportunity for necessary skills such as math facts, sight words, and independent reading stamina. I decided to apply these basic tenets to the task card model, and see what would happen when I gave it to my reading students. I made them a folder identical to the one they use in reading, containing a plastic business card insert holding 10 cards upon which are written 10 different reading and writing activities they would be expected to complete in one week. They were to choose 2 activities each night, complete those, and place any written work or signatures inside the pockets of the folder. On Friday, the folder and its contents would be turned in and I would assess and respond to their performance the following Monday, changing the cards according to their proficiency or lack thereof. Below is an example of a homework task card page.
They responded to this like a house on fire! For the first time, I noticed students saying things like, "I can't wait to do my homework tonight! What task cards are you going to do later?" and "I did 5 task cards last night...how many did you do?". They seemed genuinely excited to do homework! And because it was their choice, they actually did the work. The best part was that their reading and writing skills began to creep up because of their added practice with the five components and integrated spelling and writing. When I introduce and model for them a new task card during reading, they immediately ask for an extra card for their homework folder. Because the activities are clearly related to their reading and writing growth, parents have no complaints and because the students choose the activities they complete each night, they have no complaints. In fact, my Math class is a bit jealous they have not been given a homework task folder...I think I will need to offer them one after Winter Break!
For my ELLs, I have made very few modifications. Because the children are very familiar with the homework task cards, there is no need to change the language on the card for their comprehension. Many of the activities are games and activities meant for two players; therefore, for parents who want to understand the activities, I try to include a graphic on each card that gives an idea what they are to do. All of my ELLs are in the family literacy program on Tuesday and Thursday nights; therefore, they are able to add a technology card to their folders because they have access to the school computers two nights a week. Their favorites are the Spelling City website and the Tumblebooks because they relate directly to what they are learning in class each day. Wordles for vocabulary building and ToonDoo for cartoon and story creation are also wildly popular choices for the technology homework card.
As the homework task card folder has been in use, we as a class have made changes and additions to the program in order to make it run more smoothly and be more useful for their reading and writing needs. Parent input has been asked for and given, and so far, we have experienced great success. I think because the activities are purposeful, well-understood, and engaging for the students, parents have no reason to object. And because many of the tasks are geared toward cooperative learning, parents are enjoying homework time with their child instead of dreading the arguments and "That's not the way my teacher does it!" conversations of the past. Homework can be fun!!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Comparison of Fiction and Non-Fiction Texts
Using the MacMillan McGraw Hill Treasures reading series, I compared a non-fiction leveled reader text with a related fiction text from the student textbook. Both texts were written about desert animals and desert ecosystems; the fiction text was written from the point of view of the desert animals as they went on the hunt for food and water while the non-fiction text gave information about how desert animals use their biological adaptations to find sustenance. Both were engaging pieces, with features that could support an ELL in their quest to make meaning; however, there were some differences in each that, as an educator, I will need to make adjustments for when presenting the material to my students. The graphic organizer below illustrates these differences, highlighting the text features that will and will not prove challenging for ELLs.
One thing I will need to pay attention to when expecting ELLs to read these different desert animal texts and gather the appropriate information is the language and vocabulary used in each. While the more simplistic word choice and dialogue between characters in the fiction piece will be more engaging and readily understood, the figurative language will pose a challenge. The fiction story is filled with similes and idiomatic language that will need to be explained to ELLs. In the nonfiction article, although there is no figurative language to provide a linguistic barrier, the more sophisticated word choice will likely prove problematic for ELLs. The scientific words such as "ecosystem", "habitat", "drought", and "precipitation" will need to be explicitly taught and made more comprehensible by use of non-linguistic representations.
Both texts have features that will support ELLs in their comprehension; the engaging illustrations and photographs, and the captions and different fonts will be helpful in drawing their attention to important facts and events in each. The illustrations in the fiction text provide a visual summary of the important events and characters while the desert photographs in the nonfiction text provide examples of the characteristics of each animal and details about the desert ecosystem. The captions and headings in the nonfiction text keep the reader focused and organized as they gather information. The use of different font in both texts help the reader concentrate on certain words as either important academic vocabulary (non-fiction text) or insights into the feelings of the characters (fiction text).
This exercise further cements the idea that, in order to effectively teach comprehension, the information must be made comprehensible regardless of the genre. Some of the same sheltered strategies used in fiction comprehension can be valuable when teaching non-fiction; assessing the different features of each illustrate for the teacher which strategies are best.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Sheltered Instruction
In the absence of the original mentor video to view and analyze for the teacher's use of sheltered instruction (sometimes referred to as SIOP) components, I went on a hunt to find a different video clip that might give me a good example of a sheltered lesson. I did not find one with an English speaking teacher providing a sheltered lesson to ELLs, but what I did find championed the use of SIOP like no other experience I have had.
The video, found at http://www.helpprogram.net/Ped.htm, was of a Spanish-speaking teacher administering a mathematics lesson. The first two minutes, the teacher, speaking only Spanish, gave the lesson orally, using only one picture to illustrate her point. The real power of the video existed in the second part; she administered the exact same lesson, in Spanish, but used many sheltered techniques to effectively communicate the lesson objective. When I watched the second portion, I actually found myself understanding the mathematics material she was providing....no small feat, as my Spanish vocabulary is limited only to foods and foul words!
When the teacher gave the lesson using only her voice and one picture, I found myself stuggling to hear her--not that it would have helped--and trying to pick up even one familiar word. I did manage to figure out a few words: mathematics, dimension, and the numbers two and three. The rest was completely incomprehensible. The effort it took to decipher those very few words I could somewhat recognize caused the rest of the words to be lost. I was working so hard to comprehend the language, I completely missed the math content she was trying to put across through her use of the picture (which I thought was of a robot). Immediately, I was placed in the position of an ELL; confused, stressed, and totally frustrated. And this was only two minutes of my life...imagine how they feel all day in a classroom they can't comprehend!
During the next two minutes of the video, the teacher demonstrated the use of an important SIOP strategy: making content comprehensible. Her words were exactly the same, spoken in a language foreign to me, but the accompaniments she provided with the words made the content open up to me, almost as if by magic. She began with the same picture of a robot she had used before, but this time she changed the inflection of her voice as she energetically pointed and gestured to each part of the robot...through this behavior, I realized this was actually a picture of a building! I still didn't know what she was trying to teach, but I did know it must be a geometry lesson because she seemed to focus on the shapes in the picture, and I even picked up a word that sounded like "quadrilateral"!
Even the manner of her speech and gestures made the Spanish words comprehensible. She was careful to speak with extreme enunciation and appropriate inflection to aid in my comprehension of the words. She repeated key phrases multiple times, and used gestures when necessary to teach me what the phrases meant. This is one way SIOP teachers make content understandable, by paying attention to their delivery (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2002). By combining her delivery strategies with the following strategies, she effectively conveyed her meaning.
Combined with her effective deliver, the teacher employed another important sheltering stragegy: she brought in realia to help illustrate her point more clearly (Hill & Flynn, 2006). She began by showing a paper square (quadrilateral!! I was right!), and turned it around as she spoke, showing all the sides. I heard her repeat mulitple times the phrase "dos dimensiones". Then, she clapped her hands together, with the paper square in between and said, with extra emphasis, "Plano! Es plano!!" I immediately understood: she is telling me that paper is two-dimensional because it is flat! The word "plano" must mean "flat" or at least it must mean something closely related to the word "flat", right? When she brought out the large cube, I began to listen to see if she was going to tell me that a cube is three-dimensional. She did! She repeated "tres dimensiones" while modeling the cube; she even picked up the paper square again, repeating "two dimensiones" to compare it to the cube. I felt so smart! I was listening to a lesson in a foreign language, and actually understanding it....and learning new Spanish words in the meantime.
How powerful this is for our ELLs...to feel that they are learning the content while also learning English. This is the way we all must teach these students. In one of the first chapters I read for this class, I found a quote that seemed profound: "We should see ESL learners as full members of the school community....rather than as a separate group who must prove themselves linguistically before they can claim their full academic entitlement (Gibbons, 2002). To me, this means ELLs should be taught the academic content (such as Mathematics) in the context of learning English. In this manner, they will be able to develop both effectively. To wait for them to learn English before we begin to teach them academic content is to severely impact their learning.
With the effectiveness of the teacher in this video clip in conveying her Mathematics content while teaching Spanish words, I can only imagine how much more I would have learned had I been in her classroom. In a classroom, I would have had the opportunity to converse with competent Spanish speakers to further develop my skills. This cooperative learning strategy is another component of an effective sheltered lesson (Hill, 2006). Undoubtedly, I would have learned much more Spanish language and also been able to develop my knowledge of geometric shapes with the help of more competent peers. Also, in her classroom, I assume she would have incorporated many more nonlinguistic representations (Hill, 2006) to scaffold my learning. The realia helped so much even as seen only through the screen of a computer, I am certain that the opportunity to be immersed in pictures, graphic organizers, and other nonlinguistic learning tools in a classroom environment would have been even more powerful.
When I taught my sheltered reading lesson last week, after seeing this video and experiencing both the unsheltered learning experiences and the sheltered, I was much more aware of how much realia I should incorporate, how much my voice and gestures would assist in comprehension of my content, and how cooperative learning would impact my ELLs. I was careful to plan my sheltered lesson with these important components in mind. I believe the result was a positive learning experience for all students, even those native speakers whose language might be impacted by other factors. Sheltered instruction works! I'm living proof, and am proud to say I now know some new geometric words to add to my Spanish repertoire!
The video, found at http://www.helpprogram.net/Ped.htm, was of a Spanish-speaking teacher administering a mathematics lesson. The first two minutes, the teacher, speaking only Spanish, gave the lesson orally, using only one picture to illustrate her point. The real power of the video existed in the second part; she administered the exact same lesson, in Spanish, but used many sheltered techniques to effectively communicate the lesson objective. When I watched the second portion, I actually found myself understanding the mathematics material she was providing....no small feat, as my Spanish vocabulary is limited only to foods and foul words!
When the teacher gave the lesson using only her voice and one picture, I found myself stuggling to hear her--not that it would have helped--and trying to pick up even one familiar word. I did manage to figure out a few words: mathematics, dimension, and the numbers two and three. The rest was completely incomprehensible. The effort it took to decipher those very few words I could somewhat recognize caused the rest of the words to be lost. I was working so hard to comprehend the language, I completely missed the math content she was trying to put across through her use of the picture (which I thought was of a robot). Immediately, I was placed in the position of an ELL; confused, stressed, and totally frustrated. And this was only two minutes of my life...imagine how they feel all day in a classroom they can't comprehend!
During the next two minutes of the video, the teacher demonstrated the use of an important SIOP strategy: making content comprehensible. Her words were exactly the same, spoken in a language foreign to me, but the accompaniments she provided with the words made the content open up to me, almost as if by magic. She began with the same picture of a robot she had used before, but this time she changed the inflection of her voice as she energetically pointed and gestured to each part of the robot...through this behavior, I realized this was actually a picture of a building! I still didn't know what she was trying to teach, but I did know it must be a geometry lesson because she seemed to focus on the shapes in the picture, and I even picked up a word that sounded like "quadrilateral"!
Even the manner of her speech and gestures made the Spanish words comprehensible. She was careful to speak with extreme enunciation and appropriate inflection to aid in my comprehension of the words. She repeated key phrases multiple times, and used gestures when necessary to teach me what the phrases meant. This is one way SIOP teachers make content understandable, by paying attention to their delivery (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2002). By combining her delivery strategies with the following strategies, she effectively conveyed her meaning.
Combined with her effective deliver, the teacher employed another important sheltering stragegy: she brought in realia to help illustrate her point more clearly (Hill & Flynn, 2006). She began by showing a paper square (quadrilateral!! I was right!), and turned it around as she spoke, showing all the sides. I heard her repeat mulitple times the phrase "dos dimensiones". Then, she clapped her hands together, with the paper square in between and said, with extra emphasis, "Plano! Es plano!!" I immediately understood: she is telling me that paper is two-dimensional because it is flat! The word "plano" must mean "flat" or at least it must mean something closely related to the word "flat", right? When she brought out the large cube, I began to listen to see if she was going to tell me that a cube is three-dimensional. She did! She repeated "tres dimensiones" while modeling the cube; she even picked up the paper square again, repeating "two dimensiones" to compare it to the cube. I felt so smart! I was listening to a lesson in a foreign language, and actually understanding it....and learning new Spanish words in the meantime.
How powerful this is for our ELLs...to feel that they are learning the content while also learning English. This is the way we all must teach these students. In one of the first chapters I read for this class, I found a quote that seemed profound: "We should see ESL learners as full members of the school community....rather than as a separate group who must prove themselves linguistically before they can claim their full academic entitlement (Gibbons, 2002). To me, this means ELLs should be taught the academic content (such as Mathematics) in the context of learning English. In this manner, they will be able to develop both effectively. To wait for them to learn English before we begin to teach them academic content is to severely impact their learning.
With the effectiveness of the teacher in this video clip in conveying her Mathematics content while teaching Spanish words, I can only imagine how much more I would have learned had I been in her classroom. In a classroom, I would have had the opportunity to converse with competent Spanish speakers to further develop my skills. This cooperative learning strategy is another component of an effective sheltered lesson (Hill, 2006). Undoubtedly, I would have learned much more Spanish language and also been able to develop my knowledge of geometric shapes with the help of more competent peers. Also, in her classroom, I assume she would have incorporated many more nonlinguistic representations (Hill, 2006) to scaffold my learning. The realia helped so much even as seen only through the screen of a computer, I am certain that the opportunity to be immersed in pictures, graphic organizers, and other nonlinguistic learning tools in a classroom environment would have been even more powerful.
When I taught my sheltered reading lesson last week, after seeing this video and experiencing both the unsheltered learning experiences and the sheltered, I was much more aware of how much realia I should incorporate, how much my voice and gestures would assist in comprehension of my content, and how cooperative learning would impact my ELLs. I was careful to plan my sheltered lesson with these important components in mind. I believe the result was a positive learning experience for all students, even those native speakers whose language might be impacted by other factors. Sheltered instruction works! I'm living proof, and am proud to say I now know some new geometric words to add to my Spanish repertoire!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Running Records
I administered the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency assessment to two of my fourth grade ELLs: "Stephanie" and "Jade". Both students are native Spanish speakers, and both consistently score in the Strategic range (100 words per minute or more) on weekly progress monitoring. Their miscues were analyzed for meaning, syntax, and visual errors. I noticed a distinct pattern with both students; they both tended to drop the ending consonant blends of words, pronounce some contractions as two separate words, and insert words.
First, "Stephanie" was given a passage entitled "A Train Ride to Gran's House". She was able to read 112 words per minute, with a total of 9 miscues. Her miscues were fairly well distributed among syntax and visual. Many of her miscues were the result of her dropping the ending consonant blends or single sounds. For example, as seen below, "Stephanie" pronounced "conductors" as "conductor", leaving off the final /s/. Another miscue "Stephanie" made often was pronouncing contractions as two separate words. As seen below, she pronounced "don't" as "do not" more than once.
When "Jade" was given this same passage, he read 116 words per minute, with a total of 11 miscues. Although his mistakes were strikingly similar to "Stephanie"'s, he tended to miscue by dropping the ending consonant blends and single sounds much more than he did on the other areas. Of his 11 miscues, 7 of them were of this type. "Jade" tended to drop the "ly" and "ing" syllables at the ends of words, which at times did change the meaning of the passage.
First, "Stephanie" was given a passage entitled "A Train Ride to Gran's House". She was able to read 112 words per minute, with a total of 9 miscues. Her miscues were fairly well distributed among syntax and visual. Many of her miscues were the result of her dropping the ending consonant blends or single sounds. For example, as seen below, "Stephanie" pronounced "conductors" as "conductor", leaving off the final /s/. Another miscue "Stephanie" made often was pronouncing contractions as two separate words. As seen below, she pronounced "don't" as "do not" more than once.
When "Jade" was given this same passage, he read 116 words per minute, with a total of 11 miscues. Although his mistakes were strikingly similar to "Stephanie"'s, he tended to miscue by dropping the ending consonant blends and single sounds much more than he did on the other areas. Of his 11 miscues, 7 of them were of this type. "Jade" tended to drop the "ly" and "ing" syllables at the ends of words, which at times did change the meaning of the passage.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Learning vs. Acquisition Theories
Linguistic theorists have identified two views of reading development: learning and acquisition. The classroom activities prepared by a teacher whose pedagogy more closely relates to the learning theory differ from those prepared by a teacher who believes in acquisition.
In the Freeman (2004) text, many examples of classroom activities from each theory are presented and analyzed as to the characteristics that identify them as either learning or acquisition based. Learning based reading activities focus more on word recognition, phonics, spelling, correct usage, and other explicitly taught, teacher-led experiences. Conversely, acquisition-based activities put more focus on gaining meaning from text, applying comprehension strategies, creating, and synthesizing with a more student-centered approach(Freeman, 2004). While the acquistion view does allow for the use of graphophonics in daily instruction, it is only focused on as one of three language systems students must participate in to understand written text.
On page 48 of the Freeman text, a list of classroom activities conducted by both teachers and students is presented. I analyzed these to determine which of the activities were more closely aligned with the learning theory and which were to be considered more acquistion-oriented. My findings are listed below:
Learning-Based Classroom Activities
Teacher will:
Acquisition-Based Classroom Activities
Teacher will:
A few activities seemed, to me, to lend themselves well to both the learning and the acquisition views of reading instruction. These are as follows:
manner; within the context of comprehension. By identifying letters in classmates' names, the acquisition view is represented because the names of the students are part of the cultural environment of the classroom. To understand that is to meet the main goal of acquisition theory.
The third activity, as stated by Freeman (2004), is one that can be done both as a learning activity and as an acquisition activity based on the intensity and frequency of administration. If done as a daily, structured part of the reading lesson, it is more of a learning theory activity. If done only when it is deemed to be necessary to the meaning of a word, and only taught as a vocabulary strategy that can be used by the student later when encountering other unfamiliar words, it is most definitely an acquisition-based experience.
When reading this chapter and completing the above activity, I realized that my classroom is almost an exact balance between these two views. I spend equal amounts of time in explicit phonetic instruction and experiential, comprehension-based instruction. I wonder if that is a good thing....
In the Freeman (2004) text, many examples of classroom activities from each theory are presented and analyzed as to the characteristics that identify them as either learning or acquisition based. Learning based reading activities focus more on word recognition, phonics, spelling, correct usage, and other explicitly taught, teacher-led experiences. Conversely, acquisition-based activities put more focus on gaining meaning from text, applying comprehension strategies, creating, and synthesizing with a more student-centered approach(Freeman, 2004). While the acquistion view does allow for the use of graphophonics in daily instruction, it is only focused on as one of three language systems students must participate in to understand written text.
On page 48 of the Freeman text, a list of classroom activities conducted by both teachers and students is presented. I analyzed these to determine which of the activities were more closely aligned with the learning theory and which were to be considered more acquistion-oriented. My findings are listed below:
Learning-Based Classroom Activities
Teacher will:
- preteach vocabulary
- have students segment words into phonemes
- teach Latin and Greek roots
- conduct phonics drills
- use decodable texts
- use a variety of worksheets to teach phonics skills
- look up words in the dictionary to determine meanings
- practice sounding out words
- read in a round-robin fashion
- correct peers when they make a mistake during reading
- ask the teacher how to spell words they don't know
- divide words into syllables
- on a worksheet, draw a line from each word to a picture that starts with the same sound
Acquisition-Based Classroom Activities
Teacher will:
- do shared readings using big books
- write words the students dictate for a story and has students help with spelling of difficult words
- use predictable text such as poetry and chants
- set aside time for SSR (sustained silent reading)
- has students meet in literature circles
- teach students different comprehension strategies
- do a picture walk of a new book
- make graphic organizers such as Venn diagrams to compare two different stories
- write rhyming poetry and then discuss different spellings for the same sound
- read a language experience story they have written with their teacher
- work in pairs to arrange words from a familiar chant into sentences
- make illustrated alphabet books on different topics
A few activities seemed, to me, to lend themselves well to both the learning and the acquisition views of reading instruction. These are as follows:
- identify words on a big book page that begin with same sound
- group cards with classmates' names by a criterion such as first or last letter
- teach Greek and Latin roots of words
manner; within the context of comprehension. By identifying letters in classmates' names, the acquisition view is represented because the names of the students are part of the cultural environment of the classroom. To understand that is to meet the main goal of acquisition theory.
The third activity, as stated by Freeman (2004), is one that can be done both as a learning activity and as an acquisition activity based on the intensity and frequency of administration. If done as a daily, structured part of the reading lesson, it is more of a learning theory activity. If done only when it is deemed to be necessary to the meaning of a word, and only taught as a vocabulary strategy that can be used by the student later when encountering other unfamiliar words, it is most definitely an acquisition-based experience.
When reading this chapter and completing the above activity, I realized that my classroom is almost an exact balance between these two views. I spend equal amounts of time in explicit phonetic instruction and experiential, comprehension-based instruction. I wonder if that is a good thing....
Monday, November 1, 2010
Entry #5: Cultural Comprehension
When asked to choose two children's books that might prove problematic for English language learners to understand, I immediately thought of one book, beloved by many for the exact reason it is confusing for some: Amelia Bedelia. It's charming heroine is encumbered with the flaw of being too literate in her understanding of common English expressions. We in the field of education call them idioms, phrases that, when analyzed literally, make absolutely no sense. Yet, they are commonly used expressions among English speakers and are used to figuratively describe mundane occurrences. For example, when someone wants to convey the magnitude of a heavy rainstorm, they might say, "It's raining cats and dogs out there!" Really?? Cats and dogs?? Where did this phrase come from?? Never have I looked out a window and compared the gray, sheeting droplets of water to the furry, colorful bodies of cats and dogs. But, when someone says it to me, I immediately understand that they are, in essence, telling me, "Boy it sure is raining hard out there!"
Amelia Bedelia is full of these idiomatic expressions. When her employer tells her to "please draw the drapes" she does just that. She draws a lovely picture of the red drapes that adorn the windows; drapes she was supposed to pull closed, yet didn't understand the directive due to her literate understanding of the word "draw". When she is told to "dust the furniture", she gathers dust from outside and sprinkles it all over the furniture.
Amelia Bedelia has trouble understanding the meaning of idioms, and she is a native English speaker. Imagine how a non-native speaker would feel when trying to understand them! Granted, the book is meant to poke fun at Amelia's literate approach to understanding, but the English language learners aren't in on the joke. They will still have trouble understanding why the book is so funny. When introducing this book to ELLspecial care should be taken to pre- address idiomatic language. Maybe a non-linguistic representation of the idiom's meaning: i.e., a picture of an actual rainstorm with the idiom "it's raining cats and dogs" to show them what it actually means.
Nursery rhymes might be difficult for second langugage learners also. The concept of rhyme might be confusing because some words that rhyme are spelled very differently; therefore, they could not rely on phonetics to decode it. A way to teach that would be through the use of word families. Words with different endings, grouped together, could be posted and read through chorally so the learner could see that all sound alike, yet look different.
Another challenging component could be the vocabulary. The nursery rhyme that comes to mind when I think of vocabulary is Jack Be Nimble. Many English speaking students do not know the word "nimble", never mind ELLS. Because rhymes have unfamiliar, and in some cases archaic, vocabulary, sheltered instruction practices could be adopted when chorally reading them. For instance, when reading "Jack be Nimble" the kids and teachers could perform simple movements that would instill the word meaning as they chant.
Nursery rhymes might also have unfamiliar colloquialisms in them. As in the rhyme "Jack and Jill", whose hero "fell down and broke his crown", many nursery rhymes were written in the distant past and the expressions are not used commonly in modern times. ELLs won't understand how Jack could break his crown when he isn't wearing one. A non-linguistic representation or a sheltered instruction practice, again, could aid in comprehension of these difficult linguistic components.
Many of the difficult linguistics in children's books not only apply to ELLs, but also to native speakers. I believe, when teaching children's literature, sheltered instruction practices should be used for all learners to assist their comprehension and vocabulary.
Amelia Bedelia is full of these idiomatic expressions. When her employer tells her to "please draw the drapes" she does just that. She draws a lovely picture of the red drapes that adorn the windows; drapes she was supposed to pull closed, yet didn't understand the directive due to her literate understanding of the word "draw". When she is told to "dust the furniture", she gathers dust from outside and sprinkles it all over the furniture.
Amelia Bedelia has trouble understanding the meaning of idioms, and she is a native English speaker. Imagine how a non-native speaker would feel when trying to understand them! Granted, the book is meant to poke fun at Amelia's literate approach to understanding, but the English language learners aren't in on the joke. They will still have trouble understanding why the book is so funny. When introducing this book to ELLspecial care should be taken to pre- address idiomatic language. Maybe a non-linguistic representation of the idiom's meaning: i.e., a picture of an actual rainstorm with the idiom "it's raining cats and dogs" to show them what it actually means.
Nursery rhymes might be difficult for second langugage learners also. The concept of rhyme might be confusing because some words that rhyme are spelled very differently; therefore, they could not rely on phonetics to decode it. A way to teach that would be through the use of word families. Words with different endings, grouped together, could be posted and read through chorally so the learner could see that all sound alike, yet look different.
Another challenging component could be the vocabulary. The nursery rhyme that comes to mind when I think of vocabulary is Jack Be Nimble. Many English speaking students do not know the word "nimble", never mind ELLS. Because rhymes have unfamiliar, and in some cases archaic, vocabulary, sheltered instruction practices could be adopted when chorally reading them. For instance, when reading "Jack be Nimble" the kids and teachers could perform simple movements that would instill the word meaning as they chant.
Nursery rhymes might also have unfamiliar colloquialisms in them. As in the rhyme "Jack and Jill", whose hero "fell down and broke his crown", many nursery rhymes were written in the distant past and the expressions are not used commonly in modern times. ELLs won't understand how Jack could break his crown when he isn't wearing one. A non-linguistic representation or a sheltered instruction practice, again, could aid in comprehension of these difficult linguistic components.
Many of the difficult linguistics in children's books not only apply to ELLs, but also to native speakers. I believe, when teaching children's literature, sheltered instruction practices should be used for all learners to assist their comprehension and vocabulary.
Entry #4: Abnormal Psychology...an abnormal reading experience!
Three years ago, before I enrolled in the Regis University Master's of Education program, I was briefly enamored with the idea of obtaining a Master's in Counseling and becoming a licensed therapist. I thought it would be fascinating, and as my minor in my undergraduate coursework is in Psychology, I thought I had all the background information I would ever need to be successful in this field. I eagerly began my coursework, ready to turn my passion for psychology into a lucrative career as a counselor.
I soon found I was not cut out to be a counselor. Not at all. For many reasons. One of which was the completely different register of the language in the textbooks. I am a teacher, familiar with all the pedagogical buzzwords common to my field. I am not a science-minded kind of gal, and am widely unfamiliar with the scientific language of psychology textbooks. So I quit. I decided to obtain my higher education credential through a language I could understand fully. I thought I would never have to attempt to navigate those overworded, cumbersome science books again. I was wrong.
Here I sit, in my new degree coursework, being instructed to read and find meaning from a text that is somewhat out of my reach; a text, to quote the syllabus, "at a level at which I should be proficient." Should be proficient. Yet not proficient. This was a no-brainer. I grabbed my Abnormal Psychology textbook from my previous foray into graduate school and hunkered down with it. If it was anything like I remembered, I would certainly have to employ some metacognitive strategies and some deep comprehension skills in order to gain meaning from those dauntingly scientific words.
I was right...it was just as challenging as I remembered. Maybe even more so, since I had spent so much time away from the field and my schema was shrinking. As I turned to the chapter entitled "Neurological Dispositions Indicating Abnormal Tendencies", I realized I needed to call for linguistic back-up (my electronic dictionary and thesaurus) just to decipher the meaning of the title! If the title eluded me, what hope did I have for the rest of the text??
As I sat, reading, with my iPhone dictionary in full use, I soon found that vocabulary was not my only issue with this unfamiliar text. I also needed to create non-linguistic representations to understand some of the brain-based terms. I teach the basic 4 lobes of the human brain to my fifth graders at the beginning of the year as a way to engage them in using their whole mind to assist them in learning new material. As I read the textbook, I drew a picture of the brain, color-coded the lobes as I had taught my students to do, then used the color associated with each different lobe to highlight the information that referenced the lobe in the text. This helped me immensely, as I was able to easily navigate the text after color-coding it in a familiar fashion.
This brings me to another strategy I used: activating my schema. I constantly had to draw upon my prior experiences as a science teacher to help me understand the text. As I mentioned, I have a small background in neurology (fifth grade level neurology, that is!) and it is that upon that information I anchored my new, much more advanced findings. I might not have had even the faintest hope of comprehending had I not had a wee bit of experience with neurology.
The strategy of note-taking (Marzano, 2004) was another I utilized intensely during my reading experience. I sticky-noted the heck out of each page, turning the technical scientific terminology into much smaller, more understandable phrases. I took copious notes, and it was those notes that I referred back to when encountering new information that alluded to previously read information. This was another way of providing myself with schema.
I had to chuckle when I realized that, in order to muddle my way through this challenging text, I had to rely on comprehension strategies I expect my students to use every day. Of course I knew, as best practice, these strategies were common to both child and adult readers; that is why I taught them...so my students could also use them when reading as an adult. However, it always seems so easy to me when I am teaching. When I ask children to use sticky notes to write down important information, I always think what a simple task it is and wonder why more of them aren't adept. This is because the text I am asking them to navigate is easy--for ME. Not necessarily for them. In fact, this "easy" text might feel, to some, like I felt when reading the abnormal psychology book.
When I have students reference glossaries and dictionaries to clarify unfamiliar words, it always seems like it should be a walk in the park. Again, this is because the reading is so simple for me, the new words are easy to decipher. When I found myself looking up strange scientific words from the psychology book, sometimes I needed to use the dictionary again to look up the words in the definition!! I'm sure some of my students feel this way also.
This experience was valuable for me as a way to put myself in the shoes of my students. I found the process of navigating difficult text strenuous; at times I wanted to throw in the towel and stop reading. It was also a bit humbling to see that I might not be as good a reader as I originally thought. I started to get a bit down on myself. It was then that I realized how hard my students work every day...especially my ELLs. Most passages, to them, feel like an abnormal psychology text. It will be as strenuous and discouraging to them to read a challenging book as it was for me; I need to truly remember how down on myself I got when realizing how little I understood and be sure to prevent my students from letting their frustration take a toll on their reading attitude. I can do this by providing even more scaffolding and by using non-linguistic representations as much as possible. The drawing and color-coding I did during my experience was actually the one that provided me with the most understanding; therefore, I should be careful to provide such experiences for my students.
I soon found I was not cut out to be a counselor. Not at all. For many reasons. One of which was the completely different register of the language in the textbooks. I am a teacher, familiar with all the pedagogical buzzwords common to my field. I am not a science-minded kind of gal, and am widely unfamiliar with the scientific language of psychology textbooks. So I quit. I decided to obtain my higher education credential through a language I could understand fully. I thought I would never have to attempt to navigate those overworded, cumbersome science books again. I was wrong.
Here I sit, in my new degree coursework, being instructed to read and find meaning from a text that is somewhat out of my reach; a text, to quote the syllabus, "at a level at which I should be proficient." Should be proficient. Yet not proficient. This was a no-brainer. I grabbed my Abnormal Psychology textbook from my previous foray into graduate school and hunkered down with it. If it was anything like I remembered, I would certainly have to employ some metacognitive strategies and some deep comprehension skills in order to gain meaning from those dauntingly scientific words.
I was right...it was just as challenging as I remembered. Maybe even more so, since I had spent so much time away from the field and my schema was shrinking. As I turned to the chapter entitled "Neurological Dispositions Indicating Abnormal Tendencies", I realized I needed to call for linguistic back-up (my electronic dictionary and thesaurus) just to decipher the meaning of the title! If the title eluded me, what hope did I have for the rest of the text??
As I sat, reading, with my iPhone dictionary in full use, I soon found that vocabulary was not my only issue with this unfamiliar text. I also needed to create non-linguistic representations to understand some of the brain-based terms. I teach the basic 4 lobes of the human brain to my fifth graders at the beginning of the year as a way to engage them in using their whole mind to assist them in learning new material. As I read the textbook, I drew a picture of the brain, color-coded the lobes as I had taught my students to do, then used the color associated with each different lobe to highlight the information that referenced the lobe in the text. This helped me immensely, as I was able to easily navigate the text after color-coding it in a familiar fashion.
This brings me to another strategy I used: activating my schema. I constantly had to draw upon my prior experiences as a science teacher to help me understand the text. As I mentioned, I have a small background in neurology (fifth grade level neurology, that is!) and it is that upon that information I anchored my new, much more advanced findings. I might not have had even the faintest hope of comprehending had I not had a wee bit of experience with neurology.
The strategy of note-taking (Marzano, 2004) was another I utilized intensely during my reading experience. I sticky-noted the heck out of each page, turning the technical scientific terminology into much smaller, more understandable phrases. I took copious notes, and it was those notes that I referred back to when encountering new information that alluded to previously read information. This was another way of providing myself with schema.
I had to chuckle when I realized that, in order to muddle my way through this challenging text, I had to rely on comprehension strategies I expect my students to use every day. Of course I knew, as best practice, these strategies were common to both child and adult readers; that is why I taught them...so my students could also use them when reading as an adult. However, it always seems so easy to me when I am teaching. When I ask children to use sticky notes to write down important information, I always think what a simple task it is and wonder why more of them aren't adept. This is because the text I am asking them to navigate is easy--for ME. Not necessarily for them. In fact, this "easy" text might feel, to some, like I felt when reading the abnormal psychology book.
When I have students reference glossaries and dictionaries to clarify unfamiliar words, it always seems like it should be a walk in the park. Again, this is because the reading is so simple for me, the new words are easy to decipher. When I found myself looking up strange scientific words from the psychology book, sometimes I needed to use the dictionary again to look up the words in the definition!! I'm sure some of my students feel this way also.
This experience was valuable for me as a way to put myself in the shoes of my students. I found the process of navigating difficult text strenuous; at times I wanted to throw in the towel and stop reading. It was also a bit humbling to see that I might not be as good a reader as I originally thought. I started to get a bit down on myself. It was then that I realized how hard my students work every day...especially my ELLs. Most passages, to them, feel like an abnormal psychology text. It will be as strenuous and discouraging to them to read a challenging book as it was for me; I need to truly remember how down on myself I got when realizing how little I understood and be sure to prevent my students from letting their frustration take a toll on their reading attitude. I can do this by providing even more scaffolding and by using non-linguistic representations as much as possible. The drawing and color-coding I did during my experience was actually the one that provided me with the most understanding; therefore, I should be careful to provide such experiences for my students.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Entry #3: Oral Language and the Reading Process
Oral language development: it is a topic with which I have had many experiences in recent weeks. It seems that in every class, we are asked to examine the manner in which students develop oral language. The first reading assignment for this class, in fact, summarized the development of oral language acquisition. I was beginning to feel that I was becoming an expert on this topic; that is, until I read Chapter 1 from the Freeman text, which states that nobody, not even noted linguist Noam Chomsky, truly knows exactly how oral language develops. In fact, Freeman states that many researchers, although eager to explore this topic, become quickly overwhelmed when studying the language acquisition rate of children in their second year of life and beyond. This is because, during this time, children are learning new words at the rate of two words per second. At that point, researchers simply cannot keep up with the data analysis!
One thing researchers are certain of, though, is that oral language development is a systematic process that each human goes through. The belief of many developmental, sociological, neurological, and linguistic scholars is that it begins as an innate ability and systematically develops over time through exposure and experience along with some explicit instruction. In infancy, children begin to express themselves verbally through the use of babbling. As they mature, this babbling gives way to one-word utterances, then progresses to two-word sentences. These two-word sentences are rich with meaning, although minimally spoken. As children learn and experiment with more sophisticated syntax and grammatical patterns, they employ their own speech and the speech of other, more competent adults to educate themselves on proper grammar and effective communication of ideas. During school, children learn the grammatical names for the parts of the complex sentences they have experientially learned to speak, making their knowledge of language even more comprehensive.
Reading instruction progresses in much the same manner. As very young children, humans experience written text in a way similar to the "babbling" demonstrated by infant speech: pointing to pictures and text in a book and attempting to read it. These children do not understand what message is being conveyed by the text, they merely know, as parents model when reading to them, that the text is meaningful. They may even begin to move their fingers in the direction of the print while babbling and emulating the storytelling they hear their parents reciting during read-alouds. This early print awareness gives way to retellings of repeatedly read stories; well-loved books read numerous times to children begin to worm their way into their cognition and they are able to tell the story without really reading the words. This is somewhat similar to the two-word sentence stage of oral language: The reading is not quite detailed enough to be accurate, yet the meaning is deeply present. Finally, after many exposures and explicit instruction in phonics, children learn to read: word by word, sentence by sentence. Just as through multiple exposures and instruction in speech lead to articulation, experience with text and direct instruction lead to reading.
Although there are similarities between the progression of both oral language and reading development, there is two main differences. First, it is widely believed by linguistic researchers that the ability to learn language, any language regardless of modality, is innately bred. That is to say, all humans are born with some neurological and/or psychological ability to learn the basics of language. This does not seem to be the case with reading. In fact, some children are born with learning disabilities that impede their understanding of the written word and need interventions in order to learn it. Second, it takes quite some time to learn to read, in most cases, years. Oral language, however, is learned rapidly and continues to build throughout life.
One thing researchers are certain of, though, is that oral language development is a systematic process that each human goes through. The belief of many developmental, sociological, neurological, and linguistic scholars is that it begins as an innate ability and systematically develops over time through exposure and experience along with some explicit instruction. In infancy, children begin to express themselves verbally through the use of babbling. As they mature, this babbling gives way to one-word utterances, then progresses to two-word sentences. These two-word sentences are rich with meaning, although minimally spoken. As children learn and experiment with more sophisticated syntax and grammatical patterns, they employ their own speech and the speech of other, more competent adults to educate themselves on proper grammar and effective communication of ideas. During school, children learn the grammatical names for the parts of the complex sentences they have experientially learned to speak, making their knowledge of language even more comprehensive.
Reading instruction progresses in much the same manner. As very young children, humans experience written text in a way similar to the "babbling" demonstrated by infant speech: pointing to pictures and text in a book and attempting to read it. These children do not understand what message is being conveyed by the text, they merely know, as parents model when reading to them, that the text is meaningful. They may even begin to move their fingers in the direction of the print while babbling and emulating the storytelling they hear their parents reciting during read-alouds. This early print awareness gives way to retellings of repeatedly read stories; well-loved books read numerous times to children begin to worm their way into their cognition and they are able to tell the story without really reading the words. This is somewhat similar to the two-word sentence stage of oral language: The reading is not quite detailed enough to be accurate, yet the meaning is deeply present. Finally, after many exposures and explicit instruction in phonics, children learn to read: word by word, sentence by sentence. Just as through multiple exposures and instruction in speech lead to articulation, experience with text and direct instruction lead to reading.
Although there are similarities between the progression of both oral language and reading development, there is two main differences. First, it is widely believed by linguistic researchers that the ability to learn language, any language regardless of modality, is innately bred. That is to say, all humans are born with some neurological and/or psychological ability to learn the basics of language. This does not seem to be the case with reading. In fact, some children are born with learning disabilities that impede their understanding of the written word and need interventions in order to learn it. Second, it takes quite some time to learn to read, in most cases, years. Oral language, however, is learned rapidly and continues to build throughout life.
Entry #2: My Experience as a Student of Writing
Interestingly enough, in the last two classes I have participated in through Regis, I have been asked to reflect on my experience as a student of writing. I have to admit, I found it quite odd. Nobody had ever asked me to reflect on my experiences as a student; conversely, I was mostly asked to reflect on my practice as a teacher. It was unchartered territory to analyze my literacy growth from the position of a young learner. I can now see why the Regis instructors assigned this task. In doing so, I have learned an extensive amount about how to teach writing...and how not to.
You see, as a young student, my writing instruction was almost nonexistent. I was merely given a topic, then told to write without any inspiration or instruction. Later, when my paper was returned to me with copious red marks, corrections, and directives, I felt disheartened. I also felt like an automaton. As long as I fixed the things the teacher felt needed to be fixed, I would get a good grade. I didn't have to think at all, just merely copy the teacher's carefully applied revisions and I was done!! Then, as an older student, I was given templates with which to write detailed literary analyses and compose lengthy research papers. Again, no instruction on how to use the template was given, nor was I guided on how to use other forms of writing (i.e. note-taking, outlining, paraphrasing) to begin to organize my thoughts as I prepared to write.
Any quality instruction on writing was provided by my own experiences with books, by reading the work of published authors and thinking, "Ooo! I love that sentence! I'm trying to emulate that next time!" By reading all the works of a particular author and recognizing his or her style, the craft and the syntax that made the text uniquely theirs. By getting goosebumps after reading a sentence or paragraphy that moved me, and thinking I wanted to be able to do that too. I realized, through my experience as a literature lover, that the best teacher of writing was writing itself, whether it be writing I enjoy from another author or by writing I compose as an inspired member of a literate community. It is for that reason that I feel I am a competent writing teacher now: I understand what inspires a writer, and I understand that burning urge to put pencil to paper and create. I also understand the constriction and frustration experienced when given a prompt with which to write to...the very nature of writer's block, to me, is being blocked in by a narrow, uninteresting prompt. And I understand the power of the red pencil; it's ability to either break a young writer's spirit or it's potential to be a teaching tool when coupled with thoughtful conversation with a more competent peer or teacher.
And I know my students feel the same way. I know this because I have taught writing to students in both manners: as a beginning teacher, the structured, yet uninstructional way in which I was taught; as a more seasoned teacher, the more literary, Writer's Workshop manner in which I wish I were taught. When I teach using the Writer's Workshop pedagogy, I get amazing work from students; impassioned, imagery-rich prose and poetry that sometimes gives me chills. I get groans of disappointment when I tell my class it is time to end our writing session for the day. I get inspiration to write my own pieces from the work they share. I see writers.
You see, as a young student, my writing instruction was almost nonexistent. I was merely given a topic, then told to write without any inspiration or instruction. Later, when my paper was returned to me with copious red marks, corrections, and directives, I felt disheartened. I also felt like an automaton. As long as I fixed the things the teacher felt needed to be fixed, I would get a good grade. I didn't have to think at all, just merely copy the teacher's carefully applied revisions and I was done!! Then, as an older student, I was given templates with which to write detailed literary analyses and compose lengthy research papers. Again, no instruction on how to use the template was given, nor was I guided on how to use other forms of writing (i.e. note-taking, outlining, paraphrasing) to begin to organize my thoughts as I prepared to write.
Any quality instruction on writing was provided by my own experiences with books, by reading the work of published authors and thinking, "Ooo! I love that sentence! I'm trying to emulate that next time!" By reading all the works of a particular author and recognizing his or her style, the craft and the syntax that made the text uniquely theirs. By getting goosebumps after reading a sentence or paragraphy that moved me, and thinking I wanted to be able to do that too. I realized, through my experience as a literature lover, that the best teacher of writing was writing itself, whether it be writing I enjoy from another author or by writing I compose as an inspired member of a literate community. It is for that reason that I feel I am a competent writing teacher now: I understand what inspires a writer, and I understand that burning urge to put pencil to paper and create. I also understand the constriction and frustration experienced when given a prompt with which to write to...the very nature of writer's block, to me, is being blocked in by a narrow, uninteresting prompt. And I understand the power of the red pencil; it's ability to either break a young writer's spirit or it's potential to be a teaching tool when coupled with thoughtful conversation with a more competent peer or teacher.
And I know my students feel the same way. I know this because I have taught writing to students in both manners: as a beginning teacher, the structured, yet uninstructional way in which I was taught; as a more seasoned teacher, the more literary, Writer's Workshop manner in which I wish I were taught. When I teach using the Writer's Workshop pedagogy, I get amazing work from students; impassioned, imagery-rich prose and poetry that sometimes gives me chills. I get groans of disappointment when I tell my class it is time to end our writing session for the day. I get inspiration to write my own pieces from the work they share. I see writers.
Entry #1: Teacher-to-Teacher Philosophy Discussion
As some of my colleagues know, I am married to a kindergarten teacher; in my opinion, the best kindergarten teacher in the district. His students consistently demonstrate above average literacy skills as assessed by standardized tests and bodies of classroom evidence. It is rare that a student is on an ILP at the end of a year spent with him. He has helped me so much in my quest to become an effective literacy teacher, always at the ready with new strategies for me to try and a nonjudgmental ear for me to fill with my struggles and successes. Therefore, when the opportunity to have a philosophical discussion about literacy instruction arose, I immediately knew which teacher I was going to talk with: my phenomenal husband and mentor, Shane.
I teach fifth grade, which is fundamentally different than kindergarten in the area of literacy instruction. We upper grade teachers tend to focus more on the instruction of vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. However, because I teach the fifth graders who struggle greatly in reading (two years or more below grade level), Shane's expertise in the area of phonics, phonemic awareness, and language acquisition has definitely helped me to meet the instructional needs of these students in ways I never have before. I now find myself teaching phoneme manipulation and rudimentary aspects of phonics because these students so desperately need these skills in order to find success in reading. In that way, my philosophy of literacy instruction has been forever altered: I now see that, in order for students to become competent readers, they need direct instruction in all five components of reading, regardless of their age.
This is also the core philosophy of my husband; furthermore, he believes that a comprehensive literacy program must also include whole language aspects as well as a focus on oral language development. He believes that students must be immersed in literature from day one of school. Students must be read to, read with, and encouraged to engage in reading behaviors from the moment they walk in the door in order to fully develop a love of literature. He believes students must first see the value of the written word before they will "buy into" the explicit instruction he will provide during the year. A focus on oral language is key also, Shane states. If children do not enter his classroom with a strong language background, whether they are ELLs or from a language-deprived household, Shane will provide this for them. He accomplishes this through consistent social interaction, modeling appropriate speech and reading behavior, and through constant conversations.
This is not to say that Shane spends most of his instructional time developing these literacy and oral language behaviors. He believes in striking a balance between whole language and systematic, scaffolded, fast-paced reading instruction in all five components. He believes in providing multiple exposures each day, and he does so in such an engaging and fast-paced manner that students receive much more than the recommended number of repetitions without realizing it! Shane also firmly believes in scaffolding; his approach follows the To, With, By framework recommended by noted reading experts. His modeling is deliberate, as he "thinks aloud" to demonstrate comprehension strategies until they can do this independently and his read alouds also model appropriate thinking skills for his students as they listen.
Shane's belief that social interaction is a must for oral language development as well as strengthening reading skills is evident in his thoughtful use of centers. Each student participates in centers daily, providing the social interaction and multiple repetitions he believes will give them the best literacy instruction in the shortest time. The students are also encouraged to play with words, by participating in repeated choral readings of poetry and reader's theater. It is his belief that this will strengthen their phonemic awareness as they experience rhymes and chants.
I could certainly continue to elaborate on Shane's philosophy of education, as he is inspiring to me and to so many others who have come to observe him. However, I will conclude by saying that by discussing his educational philosophy with me, he has now inspired me to go into my classroom tomorrow and adopt some of his methods for engagement and scaffolding!
I teach fifth grade, which is fundamentally different than kindergarten in the area of literacy instruction. We upper grade teachers tend to focus more on the instruction of vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. However, because I teach the fifth graders who struggle greatly in reading (two years or more below grade level), Shane's expertise in the area of phonics, phonemic awareness, and language acquisition has definitely helped me to meet the instructional needs of these students in ways I never have before. I now find myself teaching phoneme manipulation and rudimentary aspects of phonics because these students so desperately need these skills in order to find success in reading. In that way, my philosophy of literacy instruction has been forever altered: I now see that, in order for students to become competent readers, they need direct instruction in all five components of reading, regardless of their age.
This is also the core philosophy of my husband; furthermore, he believes that a comprehensive literacy program must also include whole language aspects as well as a focus on oral language development. He believes that students must be immersed in literature from day one of school. Students must be read to, read with, and encouraged to engage in reading behaviors from the moment they walk in the door in order to fully develop a love of literature. He believes students must first see the value of the written word before they will "buy into" the explicit instruction he will provide during the year. A focus on oral language is key also, Shane states. If children do not enter his classroom with a strong language background, whether they are ELLs or from a language-deprived household, Shane will provide this for them. He accomplishes this through consistent social interaction, modeling appropriate speech and reading behavior, and through constant conversations.
This is not to say that Shane spends most of his instructional time developing these literacy and oral language behaviors. He believes in striking a balance between whole language and systematic, scaffolded, fast-paced reading instruction in all five components. He believes in providing multiple exposures each day, and he does so in such an engaging and fast-paced manner that students receive much more than the recommended number of repetitions without realizing it! Shane also firmly believes in scaffolding; his approach follows the To, With, By framework recommended by noted reading experts. His modeling is deliberate, as he "thinks aloud" to demonstrate comprehension strategies until they can do this independently and his read alouds also model appropriate thinking skills for his students as they listen.
Shane's belief that social interaction is a must for oral language development as well as strengthening reading skills is evident in his thoughtful use of centers. Each student participates in centers daily, providing the social interaction and multiple repetitions he believes will give them the best literacy instruction in the shortest time. The students are also encouraged to play with words, by participating in repeated choral readings of poetry and reader's theater. It is his belief that this will strengthen their phonemic awareness as they experience rhymes and chants.
I could certainly continue to elaborate on Shane's philosophy of education, as he is inspiring to me and to so many others who have come to observe him. However, I will conclude by saying that by discussing his educational philosophy with me, he has now inspired me to go into my classroom tomorrow and adopt some of his methods for engagement and scaffolding!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)