Search results matching tag 'teaching method'

MS Language Arts: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:56:13 GMT

Probably a subtitle more like: “Bravely going where no language arts teacher has gone before” might’ve been more appropriate.

Our middle school language arts teachers have been on quite a journey this year, and we’re capping it off with our second joint meeting tomorrow (ALL 14 teachers from grades 6-8 at both MS buildings, plus an intervention specialist, plus a media specialist). We’ve tackled BOTH text complexity and curriculum mapping simultaneously this year, and to say that it’s been chaotic is an understatement. But, it is with absolute appreciation for the hard work of these teachers that I can say we have accomplished something awesome.

Tackling Text Complexity

We started the year by making a decision 6-12 to look at the books we are currently using and figure out if they still fit in the context of the Common Core. In October’s department meetings (voluntary, after school), MS and HS teachers inventoried their book rooms and text purchases to create one list of all books currently used at each grade level. They also looked up the Lexiles for each of the texts.

I was operating under the assumption that if it fit the Lexile, there was no need to discuss whether or not the text fit in the grade level, but if it didn’t, then we needed to use a qualitative rubric to debate its appropriateness. We tried this, and quickly realized we could spend all of our precious department time debating the merits of a book until we talked ourselves into making it fit. So, using a qualitative rubric to assess books with lower Lexiles did not work for us.

Going back to the drawing board, as a group the MS teachers decided that no book whose Lexile was lower than the suggested grade band (925 on low end) could be used as a whole-class novel. We had a LOT of books on our list that weren’t up to the Lexile level, and we moved those to our “differentiating for struggling readers” list (more about this in a minute). With permission of our department heads, here is the list we finally settled on at the middle schools: ELA Text List*

We are now working to choose 1-2 texts (1 fiction and 1 informational) that will be the basis for common units at each grade level across the two buildings. So ALL 6th grade teachers would use the same whole-class novel and the same whole-class informational text, for example.

(*Side note: This list is our list of texts that work for our school district. Other districts may read the same texts at different grades)

The Parallel Conversation: Mapping Units

About a year ago on this blog I started talking about Sarah Wessling’s “fulcrum/context/texture” text idea (p. 22-28), which I love. I wanted to combine this idea with the PARCC Model Content Frameworks whereby a “fulcrum” text (Wessling) becomes the “extended” text (PARCC) and “Context/Texture” texts (Wessling) become the “short texts” (PARCC).

I then wanted to use this combined idea to reconcile the argument between “grade level” texts (those that meet the complexity expectations) and “instructional level” texts (those at student’s reading levels. (Again, something I discussed here and here). This Prezi describes how we will be pulling the three efforts together tomorrow to create two shared units at both buildings:

Going back to the ELA List above, books in the right column can only be used as context/texture for students reading below grade level, whereas books in the left column are the choices for whole-class, “extended text” usage. Planning for writing/research, language, and speaking and listening standards can be done within the context of planning thematic/topical units.

I’ll be spending much of this afternoon creating a visual representation that teachers can use tomorrow as a graphic organizer. As soon as its available, I’ll share.

My Takeaways:

Teachers shared that tackling both text complexity and mapping at the same time was a challenge.
On using the qualitative rubric–it was very easy for us to talk ourselves into defending any book at a grade level. As we all know, any book can be made infinitely more challenging depending on the level of the task, but we had to set a bar of expectation based on something concrete (like a Lexile score).
MS teachers (at least in our case) are coming from an instructional structure of constant differentiation. Our teachers have, rightfully so, taught reading at levels as defined by each students reading level (determined by an assessment). Asking them to require all students to read a high-Lexiled text is a complete mind shift for them. We are proceeding cautiously with the understanding that we are experimenting; we are going to scaffold the heck out of grade-level texts, and we are going to pre-plan close readings for struggling students over essential excerpts from the book. We are going to plan units that will provide appropriate amounts of context through differentiated pieces in preparation for the grade-level text. This is going to be a huge challenge, but we are moving forward with an expectation of revising.
Teachers see value in this kind of unit planning and like the idea of text sets.
I see little value in the textbook anthology–if the texts don’t fit our unit sets, why would we need 500+ pages of random stories? We design our units, not the textbook publishers. We could venture into iBooks and creating our own unit “text books.”
We have to keep a focus on the language strand. Grammar always tends to be moved to the back burner, but we need to ensure it as a priority.

Resurrecting a Post: Advice to New Teachers

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:18:47 GMT

I have been incredibly busy the last couple of weeks, and between moving two hours away to a new city, transitioning to a new, very exciting and amazing job, and finishing projects at my current job, I’m a little swamped.

I found this post from August, 2011, that I just had to repost because I still mean every word I wrote. Best of luck to all of you teachers (new and experienced) as you start this school year!

Practical Advice for New Teachers

This will be my fifth year as an educator and, probably, the first year in which I feel confident, competent, and ready to branch out to new teaching strategies. All new teachers need to be told that teaching gets better with time. For me, years one and two flew by in a blur, year three was when I got the hang of classroom management, and year four was when I stopped sitting in front of my computer every night researching, researching, researching to prepare for the next day’s lessons. This year, I have some pretty lofty goals for myself and my classroom, but I have loftier goals for myself as an education and teacher advocate.

As a teacher advocate, I want to give some philosophical and practical advice to support new teachers. You, new teacher, need to know that it will get easier. Your first year will be the most difficult and draining, but it will get easier–just wait it out and don’t give up.

A mantra for new teachers: “Be like a duck. Calm on the surface, but always paddling like the dickens underneath.” (Michael Caine) It is possible to be a nervous wreck without having to appear like a nervous wreck. (*I remind myself of this quote every time I willingly accept a new role, responsibility, or duty into my already full life!*)

Dealing with challenging kids: Know that kids are resilient, and you’ll screw up when dealing with them. When you make mistakes (say something you probably shouldn’t, accuse a kid of doing something they may not have been doing, etc.), apologize and move on. The next day is a brand new day.

Dealing with challenging parents (something I’m still struggling with!!): As a parent myself, I now know that feeling of protection parents harbor for their children. I do want to protect my daughter from everything and everyone. Unfortunately, for some parents, this sense of protecting manifests itself in attacking the teacher. In these conversations, remind yourself that it is the parent’s right and responsibility to stand up for his/her child, and no matter what form this takes against you, you need to be firm in your own beliefs. Always do what is educationally sound, always apologize when something you said or did was a mistake, and always support those parents who email you once a day to check in on their children–over-involved parents are better for a child than apathetic and/or absent parents.

Also…when a parent, administrator, fellow teacher, other stakeholder, etc. sends you an angry email, or an email that sounds angry, open a new email, don’t type anything in the “To:” line, type the response you’d really like to send–complete with expletives, angry words, perfunctory remarks, and accusations–fume as you’re typing, sit back and pretend to hit the send button…then don’t. Close/delete the email. Then, type your less impulsive reply to the parent, administrator, fellow teacher, other stakeholder, etc. and actually it send.

Dealing with the stress of teaching: Take care of yourself. Know your boundaries and limits as a professional, and conduct yourself in a way that is aligned with your boundaries. If you cannot take that voluntary duty your administrator has asked you to do, tell him/her no. Teaching is both your job and your life, but that doesn’t mean you need to bleed for your building.

And now, some practical tips I’ve learned:

When you create a multiple choice test (I know, I know, not a good way to assess, but if you do create them…) make your left margin .5″ and format such that your answer lines are left aligned. When you grade, you can line up an entire class period horizontally across your desk/table and grade a group of them at once.
Know that when you need the copier, it will be down. Make your copies in advance.
Along with copying, reduce the number of copies you need. Be innovative in finding ways to reduce your handouts, worksheets, etc. No kid is benefiting from the stack of 150, one-sided copies of crossword puzzles you are using to practice vocabulary.
Touch the paper in your staff mailbox only once. Put it where it needs to go when you get it and avoid the every-growing stack of useless papers, magazines, surveys, and trash that accumulates on teacher desks.
Use dropbox.com. Many times I have gotten all the way to school only to find I left my flashdrive at home on my office desk. Dropbox saves all your files online to be accessed from any computer. Try it out–there’s nothing worse than having to come up with a lesson on the fly!
Assign seats. So many teachers today let students choose where they sit, but I have had much more luck with assigned seats. I think this is helpful in creating a collaborative, cooperative, discussive classroom because it avoids the cliques in the class who end up controlling all of the discussion (and the tone of your room).
Teachers make it a habit of moving the “annoying” kids toward the back of the room; I make it a habit of moving them right next to my teacher’s desk. This is my way of saying “I care” to the child while challenging myself to make every day contact with him or her.
Always do what you believe is right at the time, and be willing to admit when you have made a mistake. You will have to defend your choices at some point, be able and ready to do so.
Organize!!! I have a stack of “in boxes” and a stack of “out boxes” by class period. When I take work, I immediately put it into the “in box”. That way, I’m not losing papers. If you have a tendency to lose papers, your students will pick up on that and use it to their advantage!
Find coworkers who are supportive to talk to. Don’t be a “closed door” teacher; it’s a lonely way to teach.
Write your agenda on the board every day. Your students like to know what’s coming next, and it will keep you on track as well.
When you start feeling negative about your job, the kids, your school, the district, your peers, etc., stay out of the teachers’ lounge for a few days!!! I hate to say it, but sometimes, lunch is the most depressing part of the day. If the Mr. Curmudgeons are bringing you down, stay away for a little while. Just don’t make a habit of it and become an outcast!
Finally, “Fake it till you make it.” I participated in theater productions in high school, and I think this was one of the best experiences to guide me through teaching. When you don’t know the answer, when you aren’t prepared, when something happens that pulls you out of your routine and into chaos, act like you know what you’re doing, and eventually, you’ll feel more comfortable in the unpredictable. Youdon’t know everything, so when Mr. Smartypants in the front and center of your class asks a question just to challenge you, admit that you don’t know and TEACH HIM how you go about finding the answer by hopping on the computer yourself!

Remember, you are a professional, so act like one.

Best of luck in your first year. Stick around for years 2, 3, and 4–they get so much better!

RtI, FA, and Paying Attention to Each Student

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:28:20 GMT

I vaguely remember the moment when it hit me in my classroom…It was a couple years into my career as a secondary teacher, poring through half-sheet after half-sheet of reading pop quizzes from my 130 students, marking red “x” after red “x,” thinking to myself “We just talked about this! Why didn’t they pay attention when they were reading!!” and “Where on Earth did he get that answer?!?!”, when a sudden flashback on all of my experiences in education led me to a sudden realization….

Some high school kids can’t read.

Somewhere deep inside I knew it all along. I remember my own brother who struggled with reading all the way through school–the kid could sit for hours reading and have no idea what he read. He could read one sentence aloud, perfectly fluent, but have no clue what the words meant. I knew some kids couldn’t read, but because I didn’t know what to do about it (I was, after all, trained in my area of specialty–American literature), I chose to ignore that it happened. I told myself that if they couldn’t read by high school, they would have to figure out on their own how to fake it the rest of the way through school. I thought giving them audio recordings was the solution to all their problems, and I really thought those teachers in grades below me did the kid a disservice by passing him/her on to me without the necessary reading skills.

I sought to justify their reading difficulties (and often, their failing grades) because I didn’t know 1) their areas of weakness, or 2) how to help fix the problem.

Then, I learned about Response to Intervention (RtI). I’ve written on this blog time and time again about RtI and its benefits, but I’ve only recently started connecting the framework of RtI with the concept of formative assessment. Because I can see how these ideas fit together, I think of them less as educational fads and more as elements of good instruction. And because I see true benefits to combining formative instruction with RtI, I want to make them both as practical as possible for teachers to implement as soon as possible.

Let me make my case for RtI/FA in reading instruction, particularly at the secondary levels: Let’s face it, I am not the only teacher who willingly said, “Ok, they can’t read….Guess they need to figure that out.” I’m probably one of very few who would openly admit to thinking it, though. Like I said, as a secondary teacher, I wasn’t taught to teach reading. But as we move deeper into implementing the Common Core Standards, we all become reading teachers through all grades–we are just teaching reading at grade-level appropriate levels. As a 9th grade teacher, then, I am using 9th grade level texts to teach students how to cite specific evidence to prove what the text says. I am teaching comprehension and analysis of grade level texts. I am teaching reading. Using combined RtI/FA allows us to pinpoint areas of deficiencies, and if (like me) you aren’t familiar with specific interventions for those areas, a quick Google search will help you build an intervention toolbox for the long run.

Because we can 1) Identify the area(s) of weakness, and 2) Find methods to help fix the problem, it is unethical for us to continue to ignore the problem. Even if we are high school teachers steeped in our content.

Let’s talk very briefly about RtI and FA. I want to keep this brief because no matter how little or much you know about the two, the point isn’t to swim in the verbiage, it’s to grasp the main idea and find simple means of implementing these good practices into your own classroom.

Both RtI and FA are frameworks for thinking.
Both frameworks are adaptable to any situation.
Both are cyclical processes.
Both are elements of good instruction, and FA is something quality teachers do naturally all the time a thousand times a day.

Formative Assessment: Here’s a slightly verbose image to highlight a simple process–

In even simpler terms…

1. We teach something.

2. We assess somehow (exit slips, handout, observations, conference, thumbs up/down, etc.) to see who’s got it, who’s almost got it, and who’s in left field.

3. We do something to move those who have got it forward, to help those who have almost got it, and to really help those in left field.

4. We reassess somehow.

5. We try something else.

And the cycle goes on as we progress toward our learning goals. Good instruction is responsive to student needs–it doesn’t just truck through lesson plan after lesson plan; it is adjustable.

Response to Intervention: RtI is also cyclical, involves the formative assessment process, but quantifies FA with data.

1. We assess all students using a benchmark screener/diagnostic assessment (which will be repeated two more times during the year to see growth over time).

2. We use data from the screener to see who’s got it (on track for the year–approximately 80% of students will fall in this range), who’s almost got it (potentially on track–approximately 15% will be here), and who’s in left field (not on track–approximately 5% of students).

3. We then create customized learning paths for those students in the “struggling” 20%.

4. We teach something to all students, but we also use intervention techniques with the 20% we’ve identified as needing additional assistance (with progressively more assistance for those struggling the most).

5. We use our formative assessment practices with all students. (Teach, assess, change instruction; teach, assess, change instruction)

6. Periodically, we monitor the progress of the “struggling” 20%. Those who have almost got it could be assessed once a month or as needed, and those who are in left field can be assessed more often (up to weekly). Using the data from these progress monitoring assessments, we can figure out if the intervention we have been using with each student has worked, and if it hasn’t, we know we should try something else. We can try additional interventions until we find one that works for a student (as reflected in the progress monitoring and/or teacher professional expertise).

What this means for reading instruction (aka: How the heck do I incorporate this in my classroom?)

Benchmark screeners are a great starting point because they focus on the skills inherent in the common core. They can pinpoint skills (such as analyzing point of view) with which each student is struggling–and how amazing and wonderful would teaching be if we had this kind of information about each and every student? But given financial strain, I know beautiful benchmark screeners such as those by NWEA (MAP) and STAR that do a fantastic job of drilling down to standards-based areas of deficiencies while offering suggestions for intervention strategies for each individual student, are completely out of the question for many districts, but all hope is not lost. Look for benchmark assessments that are packaged with textbook materials and use those. Don’t have any of those? interventioncentral.org and/or rti4success.org have tools that allow you to create your own benchmark assessments for free.

I know, I know, that’s a lot of work, so I’m losing some of you in the verbiage again…

If you don’t have a benchmark tool you can use and you don’t feel like creating one, try using your district’s common assessments. No common assessments? How about creating a learning-target-based (NOT CONTENT BASED!) benchmark tool for your own classroom? (**Let me clarify…we’re looking as assessing reading skills–skills that are applicable in any context with any text; we are not looking to assess content knowledge, such as “Who wrote Grapes of Wrath?”) The key is to start with something that gives you a better picture of each student right away at the beginning of the year–no more waiting until November to finally have solid footing with each student’s strengths and weaknesses.

From there, focus on learning-target-based lessons and target-based grades that will allow you to track individual student progress that is aligned to the skills in the standards. Because you’ve adopted, created, manipulated a screener into place, you already have a working knowledge of students’ areas of strength and weakness. As you plan units based on learning targets, you’ll know which students need more assistance (because the targeted skill is an area of weakness) and which students you may need to push further (because the targeted skill is a strength). Constant formative assessment (that thing we do naturally when we say to ourselves, “Oh, he’s definitely got it!” or “I need to work more individually with her!”) tells us whether the student is advancing in those areas of weakness or if our strategy for working with that student is not working at all.

I hear you…”Wait, Christina, you just multiplied all my work ten-fold!” And here I will argue with you. I don’t believe anymore in nightly homework assignments or grading every piece of paper that comes across a teacher’s desk. In fact, I think the assessment that comes from using a tracking sheet and working your way around the classroom to observe and work individually with students is so much more valuable than the feedback given by an arbitrary 9/10 on an assignment. Imagine how much less grading you would have if you spent less time in front of the classroom lecturing (yeah, I’m calling myself out again for my own practices) and more time working with students on assignments. Do you need to collect a product from an activity when you have already worked with John on a skill and you know he is still developing? Likewise, do you need to “grade” each answer to questions 1-10 that are all focused on citing from a text when you know Sarah has already mastered that skill with the text you’re reading? I say no. When we remove some of the grading factor and make instruction more about the one-to-one exchange of teaching and learning, we make learning more effective for each learner.

Where you go from here…

It’s not as important that you understand every single facet of formative instruction or RtI to improve your instruction. But was is important is that you begin to look at each individual student’s strengths and weakness (skills, not content!), that you notice students who struggle with reading and work individually with those students to build reading skills and track progress over time. It is important that you (I) acknowledge these students and try new strategies to help them–instead of handing over an audio recording and saying good luck. Combining the basic tenets of RtI and FA into our instruction gives us an organized means of paying attention to each student and maximizing each student’s opportunity to learn. And in the era of Common Core, it’s important that we really step up our own game as teachers.

My mindset was TOTALLY unacceptable. I, once again, think of the kids to whom I did a great disservice as I passed them on knowing they couldn’t read.

ILE 2012

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:34:48 GMT

Tomorrow is the start of the Innovative Learning Environments Conference in Ohio, and I am so excited. Last year, I was only able to attend a few days, but this year, I’m in for the whole week.

Last year honestly changed my mindset. I wrote about being open to buying an iPhone (which I did), joining Twitter (which I did), and working diligently to incorporate more technology into my classroom (which I did). I took my learning back to the staff in my previous school district and shared everything I could. Hopped up on energy and enthusiasm for bringing cell phones into the classroom and thinking innovatively in times of financial adversity, I was ready to take risks and try new things.

And I was quickly stopped by the brick wall of fear. Fear about what students can do when we give them more access and try to teach them responsible digital citizenship. I was not allowed to try out cell phones in the classroom, which was so unfortunate for the school (which could have become a leader in innovation and technology in the county by taking such risks), the students (who were dying for these opportunities), and for me (who really wanted to do something unique, and was not allowed to do so).

Like the rebel I am, though, I still gave a couple of my very trustworthy class periods the opportunity…In my now famous Butter Battle lesson, I asked certain classes to take their cell phones out and search for information about the Cold War. I gave them a two-minute time limit, and guess what they did? They didn’t start texting, harassing others, or looking at inappropriate websites; they searched for information. Afterwards, for my own information, I asked them how many had sent a text or did something they weren’t supposed to. The response? ”I didn’t even think to do that!” They were given a task, they were engaged, they were excited to take those illicit devices out of their pockets, and their learning advanced in that underground experiment I ran.

I also did several Poll Everywhere polls as formative assessments…Guess what happened then? They took the polls, I quickly assessed what needed to happen, I adjusted my lesson, and we moved forward.

What I’m getting at here is that ILE 2011 was mind-blowing to my sensibilities. I left feeling like a true believer in what education could be doing for our students and how technology makes life easier NOT more challenging for educators. In fact, technology can make cash-strapped schools operate more efficiently and save time and energy if we give it a chance to do so.

Another key idea that shifted my mindset was a metaphor I heard last year. I can’t remember if it was Ian Jukes or Will Richardson who said it last year, but one of them compared trainings such as this conference to stretching a rubber band. When educators go to these conferences, they become stretched. It stretches their minds, their openness, their entire teaching paradigm. When the conference has ended, the educator, like the rubber band, will snap right back into old habits if there is no support in place. I keep this idea in mind in all of my professional life. We all need support to stay stretched in everything we do…When we take a risk or try something new and it falls flat on its face, we need someone to help us figure out how to try again, what went wrong, and to let us work through it. Complete shift in the way I approach my job and my role in education.

I have high hopes and expectations that this week is going to be just as mind-blowing and beneficial as last year, and I consider myself incredibly lucky to have the opportunity to attend all five days (with my iPad in tow!)

Why I Would Not Post “I Can” Statements

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:04:43 GMT

I was checking out the Google searches that were leading people to my blog today, and I saw an overabundance (over the last month) of people searching for “posting ‘I Can’” statements. Once the images of automaton teachers and automaton students reciting the daily learning objectives in monotonous, synchronized voices subsided, I decided I needed to address this issue head on.

There is a difference between sharing learning targets with students and turning the Common Core standards into a checklist.

1. Deconstruction

Deconstructing is a process by which one dives into the very broad, non-specific, somewhat convoluted Common Core standards statements (a phrase ODE is shying away from) and tears them down into manageable learning targets that a teacher can envision. The process that I posed, which has gotten tremendous traffic on this blog, is only one kind of process, one that works in my very linear mind, but one of only many processes to try and understand the expectations of The Core.

Deconstruction amounts to specific learning targets for knowledge, reasoning, performing, or producing.

2. Sharing Learning Targets

It is important that learning targets are shared with students because they need to have a clear understanding of the expectation. What is it, exactly, that you are asking them to know and/or do? When they know this information, they can focus on the outcome. If, for example, you want them to trace the development of a theme, and you tell them to “trace the development of a theme,” they should know they will be assessed on their ability to trace the development of a theme and not their spelling and grammar. The beauty of clear expectations is it makes your grading easier (you know what you are looking for) and their work and progress toward learning easier (I know exactly what I need to work on).

I would actually avoid using the “I Know…”, “I can….”, “I understand…” sentence starters for the learning targets because 1) they are boring, 2) they produce a sense of completion when the target is reached as if no further learning can/will occur in the future, and 3) any student over the age of 10 is going to feel demeaned by the childlike redundancy.

3. Posting Learning Targets

When I see that people are concerned about posting learning targets, I immediately worry about this checklist mentality that develops when the standards are broken down into such manageable pieces. It would be easy to create a looooooooong checklist of all the learning targets and check them off as they are taught and assessed, but this practice (one that has been the ill of the standards movement) is in stark contrast to the cyclical progression of the Common Core standards. I would hate to walk into a classroom and see lists of learning targets and checkboxes around the room.

The beauty of the Common Core is the interwoven nature of the standards themselves, which also applies to the deconstructed learning target statements. It would be impossible to teach the development of theme (RL) without also addressing what the text says explicitly and what is implied (RL). It would be impossible to write an argument (W) in response to a text without first understanding how the author uses claims to support his argument (RI). Any good ELA lesson would combine learning targets from standards throughout the ELA strands. When planning for assessment, though, you could zoom in on one target at that moment in time, but signifying to students that this target has been taught, assessed, and completed by checking it off on a poster in the classroom does not recognize this interconnectedness. Students aren’t “done” learning that target, but that is what they think when this happens. Heck, I’d say some teachers may check off the learning target and consider it a done deal once it has been taught and assessed at one point.

Consider the expectation that levels of text complexity should increase throughout the year–can you ever really “check off” a “cite what the text says explicitly” learning target if the texts are increasingly more difficult? No, because the expectation is that students will struggle again and again with the same learning targets as the year progresses.

So, yes, I’m a little nervous when I see these kinds of search phrases. We need to move away from the checklist mentality of learning and think about learning as a spiral in which we will revisit, revisit, and revisit learning targets as they become more challenging through the school year as well as in subsequent years. Take those checklists off your walls, please!

Using Subtext (an iPad App)

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:05:05 GMT

At IRA I stopped at the Subtext booth and was completely surprised to find out that it was a FREE app for iPads. I just started exploring it today to see how it might be used in a classroom, and I thought I’d pass along what I’ve found.

First, you have to download it. Search the app store for Subtext. Download it. Ta-da! Step one complete

Once you get signed in, you’ll find an invitation to a couple “getting started” groups, and your sign in screen should look something like this:

Using the icons in the upper right corner, you can create a “group” for each of your class periods. For the purpose of this demonstration, I created an English 9 group, which you can add using the following information. (This is also what your students will see if you send a group email. Or, you could just give them the code.)

You can then search for books to add to your bookshelves. While you will have to pay for some books, you can access all out-of-copyright texts for free. For a list, check out Gleeditions which offers free e-texts of all common core materials. I used the texts listed on this site when I was searching for books because I knew I’d be able to come up with a free copy to download.

Here’s what adding books looks like:

And here’s what your students will see when they look at the bookshelf you have created for them:

Once you are reading a text, you can add your own notes, which I can see being useful in a variety of ways: encouraging deep reading by calling out specific questions/words/passages as the students read, differentiating for varying levels of comprehension (you could set up the readings by instructional level instead of by class period), eliciting conversation from students as they read. If I were using this app, I would encourage students to try reading the entire text first and then go back to view the questions–I have always been annoyed by footnotes and sidenotes because they break my reading concentration, so I imagine these questions in the margins would become distracting to students.

To add a poll/quiz, quest, discussion, or link, you tap and hold on a word or phrase:

In this preface to the piece, I wanted students to get an understanding of what $8.00 would be like today, so I linked them to a site:

When more questions (etc) are added, they show up as an icon with your picture (which happens to come from your Facebook account if linked). Students can tap the picture and respond to the question.

What a cool free app. I’ve been hearing about a lot of schools purchasing iPads in Ohio recently, and I hope the plan is to use them in ways that are innovative, engaging, and enhancing instruction. After all, the technology itself isn’t the innovation, but how you USE the technology is.

Hope this helps!

Guest Post: Some Questions about Text Dependent Questions

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:46:14 GMT

Vicki Vinton is a literacy consultant and writer who works in the New York City public schools and other districts around the country. Her most recent book What Readers Really Do, co-authored with Dorothy Barnhouse and published by Heinemann, explores how to invite students to read closely and deeply in the age of the Common Core Standards. She is also the voice of “To Make a Prairie: A Blog about Reading, Writing, Teaching and the Joys of a Literate Life,” which can be found at http://tomakeaprairie.wordpress.com.

As the school year finally begins to wind down here in New York City, a new term is the air: text dependent questions. I first encountered the term in the Common Core Standards Publishers Criteria, which recommends that Standards-based instructional material includes a sequence of “rigorous text dependent questions that require students to demonstrate that they not only can follow the details of what is explicitly stated but also are able to make valid claims that square with all the evidence in the text.” And nowStudent Achievement Partners, the group founded by several of the Common Core authors, has issued a “Guide to Creating Text Dependent Questions” along with an ever-growing number of “Close Reading Exemplars” that show this method in action.

These text dependent questions stand in contrast to some of the common kinds of questions often heard in classrooms, such as questions about students’ own feelings or experiences and questions related to strategies or skills, like “What’s the main idea?” I agree that these kinds of questions are problematic and should be used sparingly. The first kind can shift students’ attention away from the text to their own thoughts, while the second can turn the act of reading into a scavenger hunt, as I explored a few weeks ago in my post on basal readers.

But text dependent questions seem problematic, as well. The Student Achievement Partners’ guide says that text dependent questions aim to “help students see something worthwhile that they would not have seen in a more cursory reading.” This is a goal I completely share. But the text dependent question approach relies on teachers directing and prompting students to what they want them to see, not on teaching in a way that empowers students to more independently notice what there is to be noticed through their own agency. And in this way text dependent questions run the risk of creating teacher dependent students instead of strong, flexible readers.

To see what I mean, let’s look at one of the Close Reading Exemplars from the Student Achievement Partners’ Achieve the Core site. Here eighth graders are asked to dip into a passage from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass an American Slave, Written by Himself, which begins like this:

Like all the Exemplars, this one asks students to first read the passage silently to themselves, without any introduction or instruction. They then follow along for a second go through as the teacher reads the text aloud in order to offer “all students access to this complex text.” Then the questions start:

This read-listen-then-answer-questions sequence seems to almost guarantee that some, if not most, students will read and listen to the passage passively, waiting for the teacher to tell them what to do. It also seems to mirror standardized tests, where students don’t often begin to think until they hit the questions, rather than the moment they first begin to read.

The questions themselves also seem test-like; you can almost imagine them being followed by a choice of four possible answers. That’s because there seems to be one right answer, and the questions are seeing if you ‘got it’ or not. In this way, the questions are assessing comprehension, not helping students build it, which means that students who are able to comprehend will probably do fine, while those who can’t, will not. And one can only imagine how those answers might be pulled and yanked like a tooth from those struggling students through continued prompting.

But what if, instead, we taught students that every reader enters a text not knowing where it’s headed, and because of that they keep track of what they’re learning and what they’re confused or wondering about, knowing that they’ll figure out more as they both read forward and think backwards? This vision of what readers do acknowledges that reading is just as much a process of drafting and revising as writing is, with readers constantly questioning and developing their understanding of what an author is saying as they make their way through a text. And it supports the idea that readers are actively engaged and thinking about how the pieces of a text fit together, beginning with the very first line.

To make this process more visible to students, Dorothy Barnhouse and I developed our text-based Know/Wonder chart. Depending on students’ familiarity with the chart, we might briefly model how we use it in a way that encourages students to acknowledge their confusion by reading the first two sentences and noting the following:

Students who had noticed the title, might say that the narrator was a slave, which would help answer the first question and also raise a lot more, including how a slave got to be friends with white boys; where, exactly, was this taking place; how old is/was the narrator; and, as they read further on, how did he manage to get a book and was he allowed to take the bread or had he stolen it. Reading forward on the lookout for answers to these student-generated questions, the students would pick up clues that engaged them in considering the third text dependent question about how Douglass’s life as a slave differed from those of the boys. And those students who hadn’t caught the title could hold on to the question, made visible by the chart, until later on in the passage where they’d encounter more clues. And at that point they’d need to think backwards to revise whatever they’d made of the text so far in light of this realization.

Thus, all this could happen the first time the students read the text with virtually no teacher prompting, because they’d be reading closely from the get-go, fitting details together like puzzle pieces to see the larger picture they revealed. And doing so without any prompting would contribute to an increase in both their engagement and their ability as readers. It would also be an experience they could transfer to the next complex text they read.

Additionally all this drafting and revising would eventually enable students to “make valid claims that square with all the evidence in the text,” in a much more independent way than the text dependent question method permits, because so much more of the thinking istheirs. So let’s not jump so quickly on the text dependent question bandwagon and consider, instead, making the process of meaning making more visible to our students, by offering instruction not directions and giving them time to practice–and perhaps remembering that asking a question doesn’t constitute teaching, nor does answering one always mean learning.

Teaching Methods and the CCS

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:52:00 GMT

I just read this post by Vicki Vinton (at the suggestion of Darren Burris–@dgburris–thanks!), and it raised a couple of points I hadn’t thought of in regards to using Coleman’s text-dependent questioning strategy.

Vinton says, “But the text dependent question approach relies on teachers directing and prompting students to what they want them to see, not on teaching in a way that empowers students to more independently notice what there is to be noticed through their own agency.”

I can see how this strategy may end up reflecting the kind of teaching I criticized in my text-dependent post. If, for example, I were teaching a close reading on a passage from The Great Gatsby and I used text-dependent questions to zoom students’ attention in on materialism in the passage, I am, effectively, doing the same things I was doing when I dissected The Butter Battle for my students in the pre-reading stage. Is there a way, then, for teacher bias and teacher interpretation of a text to NOT influence the kinds of questions asked? Can text-dependent questions be broad enough to allow students to uncover the meaning of the text on their own? Or, will even text-dependent questions give too much information away running “the risk of creating teacher dependent students instead of strong, flexible readers”? (Vinton)

Vinton examines the exemplar lessons on achievethecore.org, which require students to read silently, the teacher to then read aloud, and then work on close analysis. She says, “students will read and listen to the passage passively, waiting for the teacher to tell them what to do.” I can also see how this would happen–after all, the fundamental reason for pre-reading is to engage students’ prior knowledge and provide a purpose for reading. Without any prereading activities, without knowing why they are reading, how well will students engage with the text? (I would argue, though, that appropriate context building through the use of context texts in lieu of a prereading activity such as an anticipation guide would help students be prepared for a cold reading.) If text-dependent questioning is the only teaching method a teacher uses, then yes, I can see how students would not know what to do with the text without guidance.

I am seeing some confusion in the ELA world about how to implement the CCSS, which is resulting in some of the tension against Coleman. Even in the Engage NY videos, Coleman explicitly says his text-dependent questioning method (and those lesson exemplars on achievethecore.org) are one method for meeting CC expectations. If you taught every lesson the way Coleman teaches the Frederick Douglass lesson, your students would be bored out of their minds, and they would absolutely read and wait for the teacher to tell them what to do.

As I said in my comment on Vinton’s post, there are many ways to meet the intent of the standards. Gallagher, Fisher/Frey, and many other experts are touting other teaching methods and strategies that also reach the intent of the standards. I think some of the Coleman backlash comes from misinformation in that many are assuming his method is the only method, and having watched many of his videos and read much of the research surrounding CCS, that is not the vibe I am getting. I believe he is encouraging teachers to use their professional expertise to raise expectations. Asking questions like, “Where did they go? What did they do? Who is the main character?” is doing our students a disservice and not teaching them appropriate literacy skills, but asking text-dependent questions is not the only way to increase rigor in our classrooms.

Vinton says, “But what if, instead, we taught students that every reader enters a text not knowing where it’s headed, and because of that they keep track of what they’re learning and what they’re confused or wondering about, knowing that they’ll figure out more as they both read forward and think backwards?” Ultimately, I think this is the intent of the CC; we want students to become critical readers and to struggle with complex texts. The truth is there are many ways to achieve this!

My comment on Vinton’s post:

Coleman states throughout those videos that his method is one method of teaching more rigorously with texts, and I think there is some value in his method. I think what has happened is that teachers have moved far away from letting the text speak for itself and letting students learn how to grapple with a text. In my own teaching, I was more apt to give the answer and/or focus students’ attention on my own takeaways from a text than to let them struggle through on their own. The value to me, then, in Coleman’s text-dependent questioning method is refocusing the attention of teachers and students on what the text says, not on what the teacher says the text says.

The methods themselves are not the focus of the standards; the standards themselves do not say, “You must teach using text-dependent questions.” Instead, experts are interpreting the standards and focusing in on reading strategies that make students more accountable and raise the rigor expectations. Educators must look at all of the methods/strategies being suggested by these experts, compare these with what they are already doing, and ensure are challenging students at a level reflective of the CCS expectations (i.e. teaching students how to struggle with text rather than telling them the answers–after all, no one is going to tell them the answers when they read as adults). When you pair Coleman’s text-dependent questioning method with the work of Gallagher and Frey/Fisher, you can get a more complete picture of common core expectations. For example, pre-reading isn’t off the table, but using methods Gallagher details in “Deep Reading” that do not unlock all the secrets of the text prior to reading the text DOES meet the intent of the CCS. Asking text-to-self questions is also not off the table, but as Nancy Frey says, these questions should be INFORMED by a close reading of the text first.

Teaching methods abound for reaching the new standards, and your “What we Know/Wonder” strategy is another great idea to add to the toolbox. Thanks!

What do I do with that Model Curriculum ODE Produced?

Anonymous — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:10:57 GMT

Ever since I began hearing about the Ohio Department of Education’s model curriculum for ELA, I have thought, ‘Teachers will never use that!’ Each grade level document is long with lots of words (not that we ELA people don’t love words, but what classroom teacher has the time to read all. those. words?), and I’m not sure classroom teachers have seen or will see the value in the model curriculum.

…..unless someone provides some very practical guidance in how to use it!

That’s my queue. *Clears throat*

I’m working on a giant task in which I am trying to combine the frameworks of Understanding by Design (Wiggins/McTighe), fulcrum/context/texture texts (Wessling), and Response to Intervention into creating units that are 1) based on learning targets, 2) scaffolded but still requiring grade-level reading complexity, 3) accessible to learners of all abilities, and 4) incorporate good instruction: text-dependent questions (Coleman and Frey/Fisher), close reading (Frey/Fisher, Gallagher, Shanahan), and appropriate pre-reading (Gallagher).

Whew! Huge undertaking.

In starting the work today, I found myself actually using the model curriculum. And I thought, why not share with people the practical, very real, very appropriate use of ODE’s model curriculum? So, here we go.

I started my work by selecting standards I would use in this giant unit. Let me bring you into my work with step 2 in which I make meaning of the standards I have chosen:

Step 2: Make meaning of those standards—Right now in my planning, I have chosen 5 standards that are conveniently written in language that does not give me a concrete image of what I need students to know and do. So…using one of the many strategies available, I want to break them down in to something I can actually imagine. Because I really like deconstructing using the Chappuis (2012) method, I’m going to do a little combining of the Chappuis method with the Wiggins/McTighe “Sideways Approach”

First, I used the deconstruction template [CH1] created by ORC to guide my thinking for each standard. As I went through each standard, I consulted the ODE ELA Model Curriculum to refine what it meant.

Example Standard: RL.7.3. Analyze how particular elements of a story or drama interact (e.g., how setting shapes the characters or plot).

From here, I was able to begin deconstructing the standard with a better, more well-informed understanding:

So, the practical application here was using the model curriculum to 1) better understand the expectation of the standard, 2) plan appropriate instructional strategies, and 3) brainstorm some ways to move the ODE suggested instructional strategies toward more formative assessment.

The model curriculum is helpful!

Related Posts:

Deconstructing Standards

Creating Units Based on Learning Targets

ASCD Webinar with Grant Wiggins

[CH1]I was once asked by a teacher if it would be beneficial to just sit down and deconstruct all the standards at once. If I had a collection of deconstructions as I’m creating this right now, I could skip this step because I’d already have the work ready to pull and go.

The Networked Educator Presentation

Anonymous — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:17:34 GMT

This is from a presentation I am doing this week with my ORC work. Feel free to use:

Social Networking for Teachers