Spotlight
on Literacy
Seeking Connections “To read, to write, to think critically, to reason, to analyze and evaluate information, to communicate effectively in a variety of forms, and to inquire systematically into any important matter.” This year I set a personal learning goal to investigate the Cornerstone definition of literacy as a means to deepen my vision for how it might look instructionally. Cornerstone Literacy Fellows, the Muscogee County Cornerstone coaches, and I are working to construct this vision for the network at the 2008 Winter Conference. We are seeking to make connections between inquiry, comprehension strategies--particularly questioning, and the integration of science and literacy. At present, we are wrestling with how best to guide the Lesson Study on Friday, February 1st, support the demonstration teachers, and lead students to the intersection of science, inquiry, and literacy. Walking a fine line between knowing the intersection of literacy, inquiry, and questioning must be tackled and wanting to be safe in our instructional choices, the Literacy Fellows and I continue to read and research the most succinct instructional methods for this process. This difficult stage in the planning process for the 2008 Winter Conference means moving away from the familiar and safe. There is no choice about the direction we must lead as far as content. The world is changing for our children and a bold path is required. Furthermore, the most respected literacy researchers are proving what we already know. Michigan State University education researcher Nell Duke found in a study published in 2000 that first graders were exposed to an average of only 3.6 minutes of informational text per day. Students in lower socioeconomic groups fared even worse, with less than two minutes of such exposure per day. Despite a quarter of a century of research on comprehension, it seems that many teachers still lack understanding of the reading comprehension process (Baker, 2002). Classroom observations indicate that qualitative as well as quantitative research still has not had much impact on the practice of classroom teachers (Dole, 2000; Pressley, 2000). Ogle and Blachowicz (2002) reiterate that we know much more about reading comprehension, particularly expository text comprehension, than we are using in classroom practice. They go a step further and state that students are being shortchanged in today’s classrooms. If Literacy Fellows stick with the safe instructional principles that are familiar to us, we would go no further than the reading comprehension strategies. Fellows and many Cornerstone coaches are coming to realize we must take a new approach and walk the tight rope of concept-oriented instruction in nonfiction texts. When I use “tight rope”, I mean a tight rope literally. One misstep could cause scores to drop and students to struggle with instructional strategies that we cannot clearly plan out and define for them. A quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln brings to mind this dilemma. It reads something like this: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.” As you visit Cornerstone schools of 2007 and other schools across our country, a change from our “quiet past” has transpired. The “stormy present” is upon us in the guise of AYP, school take-over, and high stakes testing. The good news: Researchers and staff developers are rising to the occasion to meet the dilemma of connecting science, literacy, inquiry, and the comprehension strategies. Promising research by Guthrie, Wigfield, and Perencevich (2004) is available in teacher friendly texts. Publication of their research can be found in Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) is a research-supported framework for integrating science curriculum with reading instruction and fostering long-term engagement in reading. This research presents a clear instructional path that is based upon action. So how do you connect and integrate science, inquiry, literacy, and comprehension strategies without reading all the research and more books on instruction? In this article, I am looking to create an intersection of meaning between inquiry and questioning and develop a simple implementation tool for teachers to connect the curricula they are required to teach. It is my hope that the simplicity of the ideas presented next will lead teachers in the direction of concept-oriented reading instruction with massive amounts of reading in nonfiction texts.
Questioning: The Linchpin for Connecting Inquiry and Literacy “Questions: The Heart of Inquiry. There are basically two types of questions: research (or read-to-find-out) questions and testable questions.” (Pearce, 1999, p. 12) Would it be possible that we as teachers desiring to integrate, science, literacy, and comprehension strategies, could design anchor charts to deepen conceptual knowledge and integrate curricula at the same time? Could it be that simple? Has this been thought of before? If so, why do I not know about it? I believe questioning is the linchpin that allows for the integration of science, literacy, and the comprehension strategies. This year, I invited the Muscogee coaches to join me in my inquiry
of making the Cornerstone definition of literacy come alive at the
2008 Winter Conference. Each school team will conduct a simple teacher
inquiry project prior to the conference. I have asked Susan Wilheit
and Andrea Walker, Cornerstone coaches at Downtown Elementary in
Muscogee County, to research the development of inquiry in their
first-grade classroom. Last week I observed and video taped the first-graders.
I was immersed in an environment of rigor, intimacy, and engagement. My
mind has been spinning since the experience. As I watched the
class for a full instructional day and learned where they were in
the process of moving toward an inquiry approach to learning, I wondered
about a simple and clear approach to moving the children deeper into
inquiry. What could I do to help the students and coaches on their
journey? Connecting my notes, photographs (some appearing at the
end of this article), video, and conversations with the coaches,
I designed the anchor chart below. Influenced by the research on
concept-oriented reading instruction, this chart requires a trial
run in a classroom rich with opportunities to use nonfiction text
and topics such as the one provided by Susan and Andrea. So
here it is, my challenge to the young scientists in their first grade
class. Try out the chart and see where it takes you in your
learning. Think about your questions and how you will find
your answers and please let us know how it goes! We are all
waiting to learn from you and find out if questions are the connectors
between science, literacy, and comprehension strategies.
In the real world “To read, to write, to think
critically, to reason, to analyze and evaluate Andrea, Susan, and their first-grade scientists will be featured in our November 19th Focus Group on Inquiry led by Barbara Stripling. Thanks to these teacher researchers for inquiring into the important literacy work that matters to children.
REFERENCES Dole, J. A. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 52-69). New York: Teachers College Press. Duke, N.K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Ed.). (2004) Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ogle, D. & Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles: Helping students comprehend informational texts. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Practices (pp. 259-275). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pearce, C. (1999). Nurturing Inquiry: Real Science for the Elementary Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Pressley, M. (2000 a). What should comprehension instruction be
the instruction of? |
||||||||||||||||
