First Steps
[1,362 words]
First Steps
[1,362 words]
I have identified the following common practices in both language arts classes and certain other content area classes as leading to the loss of learning opportunities:
A few principals have approached me with questions of implementation. If you recognize this is happening in your schools to the detriment of student achievement, how do you proceed to replace these practices with more effective ones? How do you start? Department chairs and individual teachers have approached me with this questions, “If you remove nearly everything I do in the classroom, what will I do instead?” One principal asked for baby steps. Here are a series of initial steps I would recommend.
Step One: Make all learning begin in text. If teaching staffs were to commit to this step alone, it would reform so much of the way they teach, that other goals would be met as well. Having all learning begin in text seems like such a simple concept, but it is largely absent from most classrooms. Much of the blame can be laid at the door of the 7 step lesson plan, especially lesson design which begins with the ‘anticipatory set,’ which had many original functions:
Current learning theory has placed such a premium on prior knowledge that many anticipatory sets are now being used not only to access prior knowledge, but to provide it. In this way, the essential learning is often forecast to, rather than discovered by, the learner. Here are two examples: (1) all the difficult vocabulary, including parts of speech and definitions, are supplied before the students read the selection; (2) the main idea of the reading is stated before the student reads the selection.
I have even noticed this theory invading popular culture. Foreshadowing is an ancient device of storytelling designed to create suspense and keep the audience involved. Notice now that key scenes, carrying the main message, are often shown before the T.V. segment begins, then re-seen in its normal chronological place and then replayed once more at the end of the segment. Theatrical trailers used to be teasers, brief scenes, often out of sequence, designed to whet the appetite of the audience. Many trailers now present most, if not all, of the key scenes of the movie in chronological order. I am not sure whether this current theory is a profound belief that this is how students, or audiences, comprehend best, or more a display of a cynical contempt for human intelligence, a dumbing down of student, or audience, learning expectations that continues to spiral ever lower.
But how does a staff “make all learning begin in text.” Here are some steps:
1. Return the anticipatory set to its original purpose, to provide motivation, to set the purpose for the learning, or to access prior knowledge. Then, whenever possible, make the actual learning begin in text, RATHER THAN OUT OF THE TEACHER’S MOUTH. If students have a text for the class, it is a natural place to begin with the learning. For novels, poems and plays, let the students attempt independent mastery first. For students having a difficult time with understanding, encourage a 2nd reading before offering scaffolds for temporary use. Is it really necessary for students to be subjected to 5-10 motivational sets a day times 182 days of school? I would recommend limiting such sets to the beginning of units or projects. It does not need to lead every lesson. There are quite a few inductive learners who thrive best in discovery situations.
2. Acknowledge the special relationship between writer and reader. For the most part, this is silent communication between two people. This is just as true for informational text, such as textbooks, as it is for literary text. It is the writer’s job to engage his reader and access his prior knowledge. It is the teacher’s job to step in whenever there is a breakdown in communication. Again, it is a good idea to encourage a 2nd reading before offering scaffolds.
3. When mastering skills, it is best to assess content standards using new material. This approach seriously curtails reviews in preparation for tests of previously learned material and prevents the teacher from orally summarizing everything that has been taught.
4. It is perfectly appropriate to test students on material a teacher has not directly instructed. In fact, a portion of every test should assess concepts students have independently mastered through reading. This privileges written discourse and acts as a check on a student’s normal inclination to wait for a teacher to say it before he becomes concerned about it. Teaching should be more than talking and learning should be more than listening.
Step Two: Eliminate most oral reading of text in the classroom. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for orally rendering text in class. Here are just a few:
1. To model reading, as in read-alouds or think-alouds. These are strategies that should be used sparingly, of course, and to meet a specific objective.
2. In the service of close reading of selected passages. However, there is no need to read and explicate every line of text in an entire selection.
3. For public performance, as in speeches, plays and dramatic monologues. Once again, longer plays need not be read aloud in their entirety. Selected scenes or passages are sufficient.
4. To begin a longer selection. Teachers often begin by reading, or having student volunteers, read the first few paragraphs of a longer selection. While I do not think this is necessary to do very often, if at all, I concede it has a legitimate function.
What happens in practice, however, is entire novels, or nearly entire novels are read aloud by student volunteers, the teacher or, sometimes, professional readers on tape or compact disk. Entire chapters, or very nearly entire chapters, in content area texts, as in geography or history books, are read in the same manner. I have argued before that many teachers unconsciously use this as a classroom management tool, but it is an incredible waste of instructional time, does not align with any content standards, and, in no way prepares students for post-secondary education.
If all, or nearly all, learning began in text and most of text was mastered silently and independently by students on a first or second reading, our students would be well on their way to acquiring the rich vocabulary, the academic language and the critical thinking skills our high standards call for.
In the interests of brevity I will defer a discussion of steps 3-5 until next time.
Step Three: Limit cooperative learning to those situations where such a learning design directly supports content standard mastery.
Step Four: Discourage or seriously limit the 'crayola curriculum.'
Step Five: Place the theory of multiple intelligences on the back burner.
Note that none of these first steps addresses the first observation I made, that many teachers miss-target instruction by aiming below content standard expectations. While I have observed this in many classrooms, the solution does not reside in reading pedagogy. Some schools have engaged in staff development utiizing curriculum calibration and lesson study to address this concern. It is a much larger instructional issue than the others. It involves what to teach, rather than how to teach.
© Jack Farrell, Conejo Valley Unified School District, 2005
[1,362 words]
I have identified the following common practices in both language arts classes and certain other content area classes as leading to the loss of learning opportunities:
- Miss-targeted instruction. Typically grade level appropriate subject matter is explored through the lens of content standards one or more grade levels below the course.
- Oral reading of text. Typically the only content area reading students experience is in the classroom, rendered orally by the teacher, the students or a professional reader on tape or compact disk.
- Cooperative learning. Too many routine skill building tasks are done in pairs, or trios, or other groupings for classroom variety, or out of a mistaken belief that students learn best from each other.
- The Crayola Curriculum. The visual depiction of ideas, scenes, plot points, etc. in the belief that this serves the multiple intelligences.
A few principals have approached me with questions of implementation. If you recognize this is happening in your schools to the detriment of student achievement, how do you proceed to replace these practices with more effective ones? How do you start? Department chairs and individual teachers have approached me with this questions, “If you remove nearly everything I do in the classroom, what will I do instead?” One principal asked for baby steps. Here are a series of initial steps I would recommend.
Step One: Make all learning begin in text. If teaching staffs were to commit to this step alone, it would reform so much of the way they teach, that other goals would be met as well. Having all learning begin in text seems like such a simple concept, but it is largely absent from most classrooms. Much of the blame can be laid at the door of the 7 step lesson plan, especially lesson design which begins with the ‘anticipatory set,’ which had many original functions:
- To act as a motivational piece designed to spark student interest in the learning.
- To access prior knowledge to connect the new learning with what has previously been learned.
- To place the learning in context [paint the big picture].
- To set the purpose for the learning.
Current learning theory has placed such a premium on prior knowledge that many anticipatory sets are now being used not only to access prior knowledge, but to provide it. In this way, the essential learning is often forecast to, rather than discovered by, the learner. Here are two examples: (1) all the difficult vocabulary, including parts of speech and definitions, are supplied before the students read the selection; (2) the main idea of the reading is stated before the student reads the selection.
I have even noticed this theory invading popular culture. Foreshadowing is an ancient device of storytelling designed to create suspense and keep the audience involved. Notice now that key scenes, carrying the main message, are often shown before the T.V. segment begins, then re-seen in its normal chronological place and then replayed once more at the end of the segment. Theatrical trailers used to be teasers, brief scenes, often out of sequence, designed to whet the appetite of the audience. Many trailers now present most, if not all, of the key scenes of the movie in chronological order. I am not sure whether this current theory is a profound belief that this is how students, or audiences, comprehend best, or more a display of a cynical contempt for human intelligence, a dumbing down of student, or audience, learning expectations that continues to spiral ever lower.
But how does a staff “make all learning begin in text.” Here are some steps:
1. Return the anticipatory set to its original purpose, to provide motivation, to set the purpose for the learning, or to access prior knowledge. Then, whenever possible, make the actual learning begin in text, RATHER THAN OUT OF THE TEACHER’S MOUTH. If students have a text for the class, it is a natural place to begin with the learning. For novels, poems and plays, let the students attempt independent mastery first. For students having a difficult time with understanding, encourage a 2nd reading before offering scaffolds for temporary use. Is it really necessary for students to be subjected to 5-10 motivational sets a day times 182 days of school? I would recommend limiting such sets to the beginning of units or projects. It does not need to lead every lesson. There are quite a few inductive learners who thrive best in discovery situations.
2. Acknowledge the special relationship between writer and reader. For the most part, this is silent communication between two people. This is just as true for informational text, such as textbooks, as it is for literary text. It is the writer’s job to engage his reader and access his prior knowledge. It is the teacher’s job to step in whenever there is a breakdown in communication. Again, it is a good idea to encourage a 2nd reading before offering scaffolds.
3. When mastering skills, it is best to assess content standards using new material. This approach seriously curtails reviews in preparation for tests of previously learned material and prevents the teacher from orally summarizing everything that has been taught.
4. It is perfectly appropriate to test students on material a teacher has not directly instructed. In fact, a portion of every test should assess concepts students have independently mastered through reading. This privileges written discourse and acts as a check on a student’s normal inclination to wait for a teacher to say it before he becomes concerned about it. Teaching should be more than talking and learning should be more than listening.
Step Two: Eliminate most oral reading of text in the classroom. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for orally rendering text in class. Here are just a few:
1. To model reading, as in read-alouds or think-alouds. These are strategies that should be used sparingly, of course, and to meet a specific objective.
2. In the service of close reading of selected passages. However, there is no need to read and explicate every line of text in an entire selection.
3. For public performance, as in speeches, plays and dramatic monologues. Once again, longer plays need not be read aloud in their entirety. Selected scenes or passages are sufficient.
4. To begin a longer selection. Teachers often begin by reading, or having student volunteers, read the first few paragraphs of a longer selection. While I do not think this is necessary to do very often, if at all, I concede it has a legitimate function.
What happens in practice, however, is entire novels, or nearly entire novels are read aloud by student volunteers, the teacher or, sometimes, professional readers on tape or compact disk. Entire chapters, or very nearly entire chapters, in content area texts, as in geography or history books, are read in the same manner. I have argued before that many teachers unconsciously use this as a classroom management tool, but it is an incredible waste of instructional time, does not align with any content standards, and, in no way prepares students for post-secondary education.
If all, or nearly all, learning began in text and most of text was mastered silently and independently by students on a first or second reading, our students would be well on their way to acquiring the rich vocabulary, the academic language and the critical thinking skills our high standards call for.
In the interests of brevity I will defer a discussion of steps 3-5 until next time.
Step Three: Limit cooperative learning to those situations where such a learning design directly supports content standard mastery.
Step Four: Discourage or seriously limit the 'crayola curriculum.'
Step Five: Place the theory of multiple intelligences on the back burner.
Note that none of these first steps addresses the first observation I made, that many teachers miss-target instruction by aiming below content standard expectations. While I have observed this in many classrooms, the solution does not reside in reading pedagogy. Some schools have engaged in staff development utiizing curriculum calibration and lesson study to address this concern. It is a much larger instructional issue than the others. It involves what to teach, rather than how to teach.
© Jack Farrell, Conejo Valley Unified School District, 2005