| Questions From the September 29th Focus Group "Struggling Reader" Immediately following the focus group session, all participating sites spent time reflecting upon and discussing what they had seen and heard. Below are some specific questions and reflections that emerged. Stamford’s Kim Still-Gilbert, Cornerstone coach and demonstration teacher, along with Rebecca McKay responded. Mark your calendars for Cornerstone’s next focus group on November 19, entitled “Connecting Science, Literacy and Inquiry” and addressing the achievement gap through equitable access to inquiry-based curricula. Barbara Stripling, Director of Library Services for New York City’s Department of Education, will lead and you will see a first-grade class in action. Ms. Stripling has researched and been a proponent of inquiry-based learning for much of her professional life and is excited to join this video-conference session in considering the need of all students to experience inquiry learning opportunities. How do students select books for the book bag
and how do you manage this process?
In addition to self-selected books, children also keep their books from guided reading lessons in their bags of books. Every week, the children “shop” for new books. I confer with them about which books they would like to trade out of their bag and what level and types of books they should look for in the classroom library. Becky McKay responded: When I taught first-grade struggling readers, I put great emphasis on the amount of independent reading children did. I remember the first time I realized how many words that children read who were high scorers on standardized achievement tests. I was shocked and knew my class, already labeled as strugglers, would have to be persistent and diligent over the whole year to change their status as readers. I used a process of having children work on a book, retell to a partner, and then talk about the book in a book-talk setting. No new books were selected until they could actually talk about their current book or books. I still believe in the power of retelling, and feel children should work on books of their choice within a range of easy, just right, and challenge. Keeping three books going and work on retelling and meeting reading goals was so important that I taught my students’ parents to help us. Each night they took one book from their bag of books home to practice. After conferencing with me first thing in the morning, I knew whether they were ready to select a new book to add to their bag. I kept my parents in the loop and it really worked. They were looking for that new book to come home in the afternoon. I did not know as much about reading fluency then as I do now…but I think I was really building fluency by this extra home practice. As a class we decided how many books we thought we could read in a week and then we set to work on setting individual reading goals. We checked in each day to see how the class was faring and during reading conferences we monitored individual progress in meeting our reading goals. How do you ensure that students are on task
and doing “meaningful” work
during “composing meaning” while you work with groups? How much time do you spend on teaching students to explain
their thinking? (Students seem to grapple with how to express themselves) How much time do you spend teaching each of the strategies
for learning new words (one over time or integrate right away?) How much flexibility do you use within the WILF? (We liked
that you only had one objective for the beginning of first grade)
When would you add must, should, could? I agree with the folks that posed this question. I also liked the fact that Kim used one WILF because clarity was there for her students. When this WILF idea was first started from our the work of our London colleagues, clarity and understanding was the key rationale for writing the WILF. I think this should always be our goal: Does this WILF make it clear to my students exactly what I want them to do? What other strategies are used to support ELL
students? Becky McKay responded: One strategy that I feel is useful for ELL learners as well as for struggling readers is the technique of Interactive Writing. A simple book, Sharing the Pen: Interactive Writing with Young Children by Gail Tompkins and Stephanie Collom is one I would recommend. There is also a video. I would be glad to share my text or the video.
This engaging book, co-authored by one
of the most respected literacy and language arts authors today, is
the resource for teaching interactive writing to children. Everything
you need to know in order to gain these instructional skills is presented
in a clearly written, interesting format. Step-by-step implementation
ideas, relevant student feedback, and an easy-to-use chart of teacher
guidelines clearly illustrate how phonemic awareness, phonics, print
awareness, and vocabulary... How do determine “true” understanding
from thumbs up; what other ways do you assess their understanding. When and how did
you teach the word “strategy”? (This
word is used consistently throughout the lesson.) Is there a difference between developing “academic
routines” and classroom management? Dr. Pat Paugh responded: To build on that: From my emerging understandings, the idea of “register” helps here. For example, a “regulative register” creates language of control while an “instructional register” creates language of learning – so that is one way to distinguish. On a more practical note – I think the relationship between the teacher and student is key. Power is shared in ways that listen to students, acknowledge students’ ideas and invite students into a “literacy community” where everyone is responsible for participating in the academic routines and in the learning community. You can scaffold that with a set of “rules” but what you saw with Kim was more than “imposing” rules, it was a careful instructional design that clearly communicates the structures in which to develop literacy but in a way that values students as participants in the literacy community not as compliers with a set of rules. That keeps learning at the focus rather than behavior. It would be interesting to have teachers look at the specific relationships between students and teachers and students and students during actual classroom instruction where the value of what they have to say is a priority in the academic learning of skills and strategies. Last year in the ACCELA class we compared a video clip from the National Reading Panel video – where a teacher was teaching a “phonics” skill, she asked a question and a child answered this drawing on “meaning” – a very appropriate answer – but it was not the specific answer the teacher was looking for at the time – so she ignored the student and continued to “trawl” for the correct response. This sent a message to that child that her very appropriate and meaningful answer was not of value – and her thinking was not of value. So that attention to students’ responses as always meaningful is important. If you think of the idea of “miscue” analysis – miscues are always important information about how a student is making meaning from the text – in that same way, unexpected responses of students are always important as well as the expected. So to get back to academic routines – setting routines in ways that pay attention to how students are making sense of the purpose of the learning, rather than setting up “rules and laws” where the goals are compliance, is the distinction.
Book Bags: How many per child and how
did you decide levels? What do you do with the child/children
who say “I’m
all done” after 5 minutes into your mini-lesson? I determine the children’s levels at the beginning of the year by looking at their DRA scores from May. As the first weeks go by, I make adjustments to the levels students are reading by analyzing the running records I’ve taken. I have found that when students have books that are at their “just right” level, they don’t say “I’m all done” after five minutes.
|
