Week 11

DS & G 6

Since talking and writing are the two components that allow an “in the head task” like comprehension to become visible, it is pertinent that we include time for them in our plans. The collaborative discussions open up the door for further engagement and deeper thinking of the texts. One key idea that stuck with me from this chapter is more students talking and less teacher talking. Pages 104 and 105 really reiterated the idea of incorporating inquiry into literacy. The teacher’s job is not to give the students the answers but facilitate their comprehension through modeling and asking them to elaborate on their thinking which will help them to think more critically about what they are reading. In doing this, students work together collaboratively to raise their own questions and conclusions of the text. The teacher’s ultimate goal is to use whole group instruction to model for students what high levels of discussion would look like in small teacher led groups and later student led groups. I really like the participation checklist for discussions and think this would be a beneficial tool to use in my own classroom, because it allows the students to see what is expected of them. The use of the fishbowl strategy is also a great way to show the students what is expected of them.

In regards to ELL students I learned that letting the students choose the language with which they discuss texts is very important. It also important for these students to have time to write down their thoughts prior to sharing, so that they can mentally rehearse what they are trying to stay. Higher order thinking skills are also positively impacted when the students have to decide how to share what they’ve discuss in their L1 with others in their L2.

When using the rubric on page 117, I determined that I definitely can improve on my own implementation of discussions. I need model more I wonder questions, so that my students can also do the same in small groups. My students also need more time to develop their own questions for the texts and share those with their groups to get others perspectives to help deepen their own understanding.  Another area of the rubric I need to focus on is helping my students to make connections with the characters.  In conclusion, I think we need to strive to not model parallel discussions, so that are students will learn to not do the same. In doing this, we can help them to be better problem solvers who can think for themselves and become stronger comprehenders.

What were your strengths or weaknesses from the rubric on page 117?

This chapter mentioned how to help students discuss narratives. What are some ways that you help teach your children how to discuss informative texts? Is there anything on the page 117 rubric that you would change/add in for nonfiction discussions besides the character/theme part?

The text mentioned the importance of having all students participate in high level discussions rather than just the same kids who do the thinking for everyone else. I feel like having the students read silently and respond in writing has been the most successful for me in allowing my students time to think before they share. Do you agree with this approach? What other ideas or strategies have worked for you?

How do you teach your students to take turns when discussing and speak spontaneously without raising their hands like page 11 suggests? I am not sure what the most effective way to do this might be with my third graders. I have used talking sticks and even had the kids hold cards that say speaker/listener with prompts, but I’m curious how to best help them with a true discussion where they give everyone a turn to speak, and where it happens naturally.

DS & G 7

The main idea of chapter seven was very cut and dry. Writing about texts without a doubt increases students’ reading comprehension, because it allows them to make connections between themselves and the text. This chapter definitely goes hand in hand with chapter six. For example, the author points out that student should write in their response logs prior to participating in high-level discussions of texts. I really like the idea of the response logs and wouldn’t mind teaching one response at a time, and then having my students practice one and then moving on to the others. I also really like the idea of the dialogue journal, since it gives me a way to model effective grammar especially with my ELL students. Page 129 suggested using mentor texts to help students mirror what the author has done in that particular genre to create their own little book. I would think that this would be a great way to teach text structures. One new idea that I really liked from the texts was the author’s suggestion to have students keep an idea notebook. This seems like it would be a helpful tool for students who struggle to get started with writing. I also never thought about use LEA to teach text structures. I love how authentic and purposeful this writing is for students. In response to assessment of writing, I couldn’t agree more with the author in that rubrics can be extremely powerful and helpful for improving writing. The author points out that rubrics are effective because they allow the students to see what you value and what is expected of them to write an effective paper. Like the author mentioned, I also think it is helpful for students to grade themselves with the rubric and then compare their results with the teacher. When conferencing with students, the author mentioned the importance of complimenting students on content, the overall message and improvements they’ve made. Students love to be complemented on their writing, and I think this is definitely something that we can do as teachers that is very powerful in promoting a love for writing in our students.

What are some ways that you teach your students about digital literacies that help them to use these tools to complete literacy tasks?  

The text mentions the website www.voicethread.com to help students create a digital story. Has anyone used this tool? It sounds like a lot of fun!

What books have you used as mentor texts for helping students to write their own texts that our modeled off the author’s use of various text structures?

West et al article

When reading this article, I was amazed that kindergartners could take part in such an in depth inquiry based learning project. I have seen the power of giving children choices and the effect the positive effect that it can have on student learning, so I can see why Genius Hour would be an effective tool to support literacy.  I have been trying to test the waters with inquiry based learning that focuses on student choices, and even attended training. However, I still feel as if I lack the knowledge about how to implement this type of learning in an organized and effective way, so that the standards are still being met. For me it has been tricky to balance how much help I offer the students as well as how much freedom they are given to tackle their own interests. This article offered us a glimpse into what this looks like in a real classroom and how one might implement it. I liked that the author explained the process step by step. Time wise the Genius Hour block seemed to favor independent and small group learning over whole group instruction. I like the idea of creating a graphic organizer to help students generate ideas. I have typically just let the students make a list of what they are interested in studying. However, I think the author’s idea is better organized. I also liked that the author mentioned spending time on helping students to pick ideas based on whether or not they were interesting or research friendly. I wound think the research friendly aspect would help students to not veer off too much. It helped to also see what types of mini lessons to include in the whole group time (note taking, good resources, interview questions for experts, and ways to sort/store notes).  I think it is important that the teacher modeled how to research her own topic first with the students and also explained which media types would best support the topic. This activity also seems beneficial because it helps the students to see that they can gather information from many sources (print, audio, internet, experts, etc). This idea reiterates the fact that being literate in the 21^st century looks different than it traditionally has in the past.  I think Genius Hour is also hard for teachers to implement because it is not how we traditionally taught in the past as well. However, I think this type of learning is needed in order for us to best prepare our students for learning in the real world.

Do you agree with the time allotment that the author suggested? (10-15 minutes for mini lessons and 45-50 mind individual and small group lessons) Genius Hour seems to be another example of the effectiveness of teaching in smaller more individualized settings.

What are some ideas that you have for implementing Genius Hours with 2^nd and 3^rd graders that still incorporate the same structures used in the article?

What tools would you use to allow your students to ask experts questions on their topic? I think of things like writing letters or bringing in people from the community.

I like the idea of using the text to speech feature on Ipads, especially for my struggling readers. Has anyone used this in their classrooms to help students who read below grade level?

Lightner article

In this article, the first thing I noticed was that the teacher never gave the students an answer. Rather the teacher helped the students to further analyze the text and their thinking by asking them to elaborate or using clarifying questioning. The author points out that using discussion in the classroom can greatly benefit close reading of texts, and speaking and listening. Furthermore, the author explains how discussions of texts with others can also help students build their comprehension. In turn these skills can be transferred and applied to stories that students read independently that may be unfamiliar to them. The terms efferent, expressive and critical analytic were new to me. However, after reading the definitions and examples, I have definitely witnessed my students taking on multiple stances as they read. I also see these stances apparent in their speaking, so again this reiterated the idea about how reading and speaking are connected. It seems to me as if the author suggests that when we have our students close read that we shouldn’t only focus on the efferent and critical analytic stances, but also their expressive stances. I’m not sure if I understood this right, I may be wrong.  I couldn’t help but think of us when w e write in response to the books we read for our grad classes, and how much it helps us to understand what is being talked about in the texts by connecting it to our own classroom experiences. When I can relate the text to my own teaching experiences, it is much easier for me to understand new concepts. Therefore, I can see how these connections should also be encouraged by our students in the classroom when they are trying to comprehend texts. When reading about the foreground an efferent stance, it seems as if there is a fine line for the teacher as a facilitator in the discussions. Where the teacher needs to guide students to the correct answer without giving a way to much information that leads you to just telling them what it is you want to hear. The author explained that we don’t necessarily need to stick to one type of discussion framework (I had no idea there were so many), and that we must use the approach that best meets our students needs and the standards. This article was a bit tricky for me to understand. Please let me know how you interpreted the information.

What types of discussions have you used in your own classroom? What was the purpose of choosing that type of discussion and how did it align with your standards?