May 23, 2013

Library Power: Organizing Books


 

A teacher friend, Allison, recently told us about watching her kindergarten students play Hi-Ho! Cherry-O. As they were deciding which tree and character each would play, an African-American boy said, “I know which one I will play,” and he turned the board so the dark skinned boy was in front of him. He said, “He looks like me.”


Allison also shared that she sometimes wonders if her concerns that students find themselves in the books she reads with them are somehow exaggerated. Does diversity in images really matter? After watching her students play Hi Ho! Cherry-O, she realized that not only is diversity an important text selection criterion, it is a critical one. Children need to see representations of themselves in the games they play, the television they watch, and the books they read.


At the moment, Kim and Jan are miles apart (New York and Georgia) knee deep in identical collections of all the books that Lerner Publisher publishes and distributes. We are working with them as they restructure their collection, reorganize their catalog, develop their books into topical categories, and consider the ways their content can support instruction in the Common Core. The collection includes an abundance of non-fiction, including biography, narrative nonfiction, informational texts about how things are made, etc.


We are charged with gathering books along themes and today, as we worked with other writers and educators moving books in and out of categories, our colleague,Bridget, noticed the many biographies in our “girl” collection. She said, “If you look at the covers of these books, you get a very different rendering of history than that traditionally told.”


Bridget went on to observe the real power of labeling book categories, sorting history, and teaching about people.  It’s a weighty responsibility and as we work to decide whether we name  a category “Strong Girls,” “Female Protagonists,” or “You Go Girl,” we will always second guess ourselves. Do we make libraries geared toward boys? Towards girls? If so, what goes in them? Do we give girls a book about monster trucks and boys a book about the color pink because this will break stereotypes? Which books are worthy of being included? Which ones do we throw out?

 

Much like our conversations about balance or scheduling a literacy block, the point can’t be that the categories are “right” or “best.” There will always be pros and cons to a categorization, whether books or schedules. The real point is recognizing the power that we wield when we sort something into a category, especially resources that teach children. Our choices subtly influence developing minds which means that if our intent is to act on the behalf and best interest of children,we must remain committed to questioning our choices and continuing our conversations about the choices we make.

 

Thursday Thought: Who’s Doing the Work

brain

 

This week, we have been reflecting on building background knowledge and how to support students without shouldering the weight of the work (and the learning). On Tuesday, we raised the question, Who’s doing the work? As we look back on old posts, we realize that certain questions surface as themes for us and this idea of shifting the burden of the workload to students is most definitely one of them. Today we return you to a post that we wrote this past November and aptly titled Who is Doing the Work?  Here we share four important questions that will help you help students do more of the work and more of the learning!

Building Background Knowledge: Harnessing the Power of the Internet

spider web

 

 

In yesterday’s post, Building Background Knowledge: Who’s Doing the Work?, we shared a story of fifth grade students working with Cyrus Cassells’s “Soul Make a Path Through Shining,” a sophisticated poem about the Civil Rights Movement. Containing words like “minotaur,” “hydra-headed,” and “maelstrom” the difficult vocabulary presented itself as the most obvious obstacle to understanding the poem prompting the fifth graders to collectively share their knowledge of the hard words and look up others words they did not know. What we did not share yesterday, however, was that while this contributed to clearing up some confusion, most students did not emerge with a crystal clear understanding of the poem.  They still felt like there were gaps in their understanding which meant that yet again, they were faced with a decision: Do I say “oh well” and call it good enough? Or do I continue to work to figure it out?

In fifth grade, informational reading standard seven requires that students “draw on information from multiple print or digital sources, demonstrating the ability to locate an answer to a question quickly or to solve a problem efficiently.” We have affectionately dubbed this  “The Multi Media Standard”  and are particularly drawn to the words “locate an answer to a question or to solve a problem efficiently.”

Yesterday we shared that the students thought of dictionary.com as a potential resource for solving the problem of lack of word knowledge. Surely, typing in a word and having the definition pop up is efficient. However, while lack of word knowledge was the only problem these children could identify, it was not the only problem these students faced. The other part of the problem was understanding the bigger context of the poem which required knowing about Elizabeth Eckford and her first day of school at Little Rock Central High School on September 4, 1957. But when Kim asked students what they might google in order to find additional information to help them construct greater meaning about this text, the students perseverated on words. In their minds, the best solution to figuring out this puzzle was making sure they knew every word in the poem.

As teachers, one of the daily dilemmas of our jobs is knowing when to let inquiry guide student learning and when to intervene with direct, explicit instruction. In this case, students needed  to be taught how to further mine text for keywords that would assist their Google search for information to help them more thoroughly understand what they were reading. They needed to pay attention to the title of the poem and learn more about the poet.  They needed the bit of introductory text that explained that Cassells wrote this poem after being inspired by the documentary Eyes on the Prize. And they needed a teacher to help them see their needs.

While many of our Common Core aligned lessons have students reading closely and carefully to cite evidence and make logical inferences, we can say that only a few have paid attention to standard number seven and the ways in which digital resources need to support students’ meaning making processes. As you consider ways to build background knowledge, we ask you to think about whether you, like us, have adequately addressed standard number seven and taught students to harness the power of the Internet. And as always, we ask you to share with us what you have done to support this effort!

Building Background Knowledge: Who’s Doing the Work?

Weight Lifter

In yesterday’s post, The Power of Memorable Learning Experiences, we discussed the importance of building background knowledge by searching for companion texts to read aloud and share with students.  As we continue to think about this idea, we have a question for you: How many times have you read something and thought to yourself, “I have no idea what that is about”?  

When this happens as a reader, you have two choices.  The first, more passive response (the one that students most often choose) is to say, “Oh well” and continue on satisfied with not knowing. The second, more active response is to say, “How will I figure this out?” and work to pull together whatever resources you need to make it make sense.  While passivity has always stood in the path of deep thinking and learning, from the Common Core era all the way into lifelong learning, passivity on the part of readers has dire consequences. Standard number ten requires that students “read and comprehend literary and informational texts independently and proficiently,” so if students do not work to figure things out,  they are not practicing reading closely and carefully. If they are not practicing reading closely and carefully, they are not thinking about the big picture and considering what they know about words and how text works.  They are not thinking about the author’s point of view of utilizing their research skills to find answers to the questions about which they wonder. In short, they are practicing none of what standards 1-9, college and career readiness, or lifelong learner-ship ask of them. They are becoming neither more independent nor more proficient. Attaining independence and proficiency seems to begin with  nurturing a desire to know and nurturing a desire to persist until the curiosity is quelled.

In a recent demonstration lesson, Kim worked with a group of fifth graders reading Cyrus Cassells’s “Soul Make a Path Through Shining,”  a very sophisticated poem about the Civil Rights movement containing words like “minotaur” and “hydra-headed” and “maelstrom.” The class unanimously agreed that the poem was hard but rather than quit and say, “Oh well,” Kim nudged them to consider what they could do to figure it out. Several students said that they could reread the poem but others chimed in that they felt that rereading would do them no good because the real problem was the words.  How would reading the same unfamiliar words over and over help you? they wondered. That’s when they decided that if the piece that was missing from this puzzle was word knowledge, they’d need to somehow solve that problem. They decided that the first thing they’d do would be to talk to each other to collectively share what they knew about the words they didn’t know and after that they’d go to dictionary.com.  

Pre-Common Core, Kim might have begun this lesson by saying, “When you read this poem, you are going to meet some tough words.  To help you understand, let’s talk about what the word minotaur means … .”  Instead, Kim let students discover their own problems and work to find viable solutions.  In this teaching scenario, she assumed the role of coach, the one who stands to the side and lets the kids run around the field kicking the ball. She interjected advice and intervened when necessary and, by allowing them the opportunity to “excavate” for problems (Fisher and Frey, Building Background Knowledge, p.34, 2009), she nurtured the curiosity and persistence needed for creating independent and proficient readers.

Them’s Fightin’ Words

When one thinks of the divisions in education or of the reasons educators bicker over pedagogical issues, we are hard pressed to come up with a more contentious topic than that of phonics instruction. No Child Left Behind placed explicit phonics instruction front and center. In contrast, the authors of the Common Core State Standards have treated instruction in the code as something of a stepchild. There is relatively limited discussion of how to teach how the written code works, presumably because this topic is so divisive. Say what you will about the Common Core authors, but for better or for worse, they were out to get things done, not get into debates, including the traditional debates over phonics.

We presume that Foundational Skills, the portion of the Common Core which addresses teaching how words work, are not included in the anchor standards because there are only four of them and they are not consistent through the grades. For the most part, the Common Core’s Foundational Skills’ anchor-ish standards seem to make room for the factions divided over how to teach the code, giving either extreme room to do what they want. That is, if systematic, explicit phonics instruction in the extreme, perhaps even that which is scripted, is your cup of tea, then nothing in the Common Core will stop you from teaching phonics this way. You will have to pay careful attention to meaning work, including read aloud and interactions with texts of substance, which tends to be neglected in such instruction, whether you want to admit it or not. What the Common Core doesn’t do, which seems to be making people angry, is say that everyone MUST teach this way.

If on the other hand, you prefer to teach word work in ways that are embedded in interactions with text that you feel are more authentic, or if you feel that children can learn the code in ways that are more holistic, then the Common Core won’t get in your way, either. You will have to work hard to get children to attend to the print and you will have to be systematic in your own right, as attention to the code is typically lacking in classrooms that take such an approach to an extreme. What the Common Core doesn’t do is say that children MUST learn to read in “authentic” texts, and this is making some other people angry.

As with the Common Core, you may notice that we are taking both sides of this issue. We don’t think there should be a fight. In both instructional philosophies, those teachers on either extreme, as well as those along the continuum between either extreme, will have to pay close attention to the truth of the criticisms lodged against them, instead of simply choosing to be angry. If you think there are no holes in your instructional philosophy, if you think you have the ONE right way to teach children to read, if you are angry because people don’t know everything you know, then take a deep breath, shut up, and listen for a change. Children can learn to read in either classroom setting, just as children can fail to read in either classroom setting. The success of the children has more to do with the quality of the teachers than with the philosophy of instruction, and we are all lucky if we have honest critics who can help us see what we are inclined to overlook.

 

Weekend Round Up May 3

Monday

 Getting to Know You: The Three Stages of Reading the Standards

In this post, we liken getting to know the Common Core Standards to getting to know a person. We discuss how at first our relationship is driven by our first impression and then as new understandings reveal themselves, our understanding changes.
Tuesday

The ABCs of the Common Core (Part 1) 

In this post, we begin to share our own thoughts about what we think the Common Core standards mean for the next generation of teaching and learning literacy. A is for agency.

Wednesday

The ABCs of the Common Core (Part 2)

In this post, we share our second thought about what the Common Core really means for literacy instruction and learning–we must balance our instructional structures to nurture well-balanced reading processes.
Thursday

The ABCs of the Common Core  (Part 3) 

In this post, we share our third thought about what the Common Core standards really mean for the next generation of literacy teaching and learning–complexity. Because this is a complex document, we need to be prepared for several generations of ideas for implementation.

The ABCs of the Common Core (Part 3)

maze

About a year ago, Jan lamented how her house was filled with boxes and bread bags that were haphazardly ripped open in her children’s hurried attempts to get at what was inside. She shared her exasperation at her teenaged son who tore into a box of tea with no regard for others who might like a fresh cup of tea in the future.  She told us how she taped the box back together and explained to him that before you open a box with your hands, you open it first with your mind. And in this post, Jan likened boxes of tea and bags of bread to the Common Core–before we tear in and go to work implementing, we must open them first with our minds.


This story brings us around to our third and final (for now!) thought about what the Common Core standards really mean for the next generation of literacy instruction:


C is for complexity.


The Common Core standards are filled with subtleties and nuances that if read only cursorily, are likely overlooked. There is as much written between the lines of the CCSS document as there is within the lines. This means that hurried attempts to implement the standards will often skip key ideas and details.


Our first year with the standards represents implementation 1.0, which means that there is still much to think about and consider as we move forward to further implement the standards. We must continue to think about ways to help expand children’s stores of academic vocabulary and make the staircase of text complexity ever more accessible without creating dependency (See Tuesday’s post on agency!). While we want to continue to think about asking the kinds of questions that help children dig into the deeper meanings of text, we also want to think about the limitations of the strategies and approaches that have been suggested as the standards have been rolled out.

The Common Core State Standards are complex, as is the mission of helping children achieve them. If we are to attain our goals of helping children become independent and proficient readers, writers, speakers, and listeners, it is imperative that we continue to open this box with our minds to evolve and deepen our understandings of the explicit and implicit intent of the standards. Such close reading of the standards seems the best preparation for implementation 2.0.

The ABCs of the Common Core (Part 2)

balance

Between consulting, maintaining a daily blog and websites to support literacy instruction, working on a professional book and a myriad of other projects related to teaching and learning, like most educators, we are very busy. And did we mention that between us we have half a dozen sons and we both have husbands and a host of things that we like to do like read, watch movies, exercise, garden, and play the ukelele? We’d like to say that we spend equal amounts of time at work and play but the reality of our existence is that more often than not,  the scale tips in the direction of work. We struggle to balance the competing forces of our lives and oftentimes, feel like we are fighting a futile battle.


In education, we encounter competing forces that leave us with similar feelings of futility. Now more than ever, we struggle to figure out how much teacher guidance we provide and how much choice we allow students. How much whole group instruction do we need and how often do we conduct small groups? How much direct instruction do students need and when do we allow children to explore and discover new concepts and ideas for themselves?   Do we ask text-based questions or should we allow students to make connections and achieve their own insights and ideas about the story? How much do we prepare students for assessments that claim to determine college and career readiness and how much do we nurture goals for lifelong learning?


B is for balance.


On this blog, we have long advocated the need for balance and when we look deeply at the Common Core standards and consider the implications for the next generation of literacy teaching and learning, there seems to be a resounding message of balance.  If we are going to arrive at a place where students can cite evidence, make logical inferences, and read, write, and speak independently and proficiently, then it seems that we must be mindful of the way in which we release responsibility for learning to our students. If the scale tips too heavily in the direction of one teaching structure over another (for example if we favor guided reading over read aloud or shared or independent reading) then what we are more likely to have students with reading processes that are imbalanced in some way. Perhaps they read well in narrative text but struggle with non-fiction. Perhaps they can decode but struggle with deep understandings of text. As we wrestle with the competing demands of instructional decision making, it is important that we strive to maintain balance lest we arrive at a place that falls short of the goals for independence and proficiency. Here are a few areas that keep surfacing as places we need to focus on balance:


  • Decoding and negotiating the print vs. reading for meaning. (FYI-next week’s posts are about foundational skills.)

  • Connecting to text vs. text-based responses.

  • Student choice vs. teacher direction.

  • Informational vs. Literary texts.

  • Small group instruction vs. Whole group instruction

  • Instructional level texts vs. Grade level texts

This list goes on and on. Basically, look at your schedule. Whatever you love, whatever you favor, become friends with its opposite. Do you love the Common Core? Spend some time with people who hate it. Do you hate the Common Core? Spend some time with some people who love it. In our work with students, just as in our personal lives, we are creatures of habit, and these habits can cause us to overlook the necessary counterpoints to our strengths. Any strength taken to an extreme, becomes a weakness.

The ABCs of the Common Core (Part 1)

ABC 2

In yesterday’s post, we shared three stages through which our learning about the Common Core Standards has progressed bringing us to a place where we are considering what the Common Core standards actually mean for teaching and learning. Wrestling with the language and meaning of the standards has helped us to distill our thinking about the deep rooted implications of the standards and we have arrived at a place where we can say this: The standards are as simple as A-B-C. :)

 

 

A is for Agency

One day this past fall, Kim pulled her Toyota Sienna minivan into the garage next to her husband’s sedan.  Living in a home built long before the obsession for oversized vehicles, when Kim’s cars are parked side by side in the garage, there isn’t a lot of room to pass between them. When the garage door is down, there is absolutely no getting behind them.  On this particular day, Kim pulled into the garage, hopped out of the car, shut the garage door and went into the house. Meanwhile, her fourth grade son was taking his time getting out of the car and after a few minutes, Kim heard him calling from the garage, “I-I-I’-m-m-m s-s-s-t-t-t-u-u-u-u-c-k!”


When she went out to see what the problem was, she saw that he had gotten out on the passenger side and was standing in the narrow passage between her husband’s car and her own, unable to pass behind the car because the garage door was down. His best and only solution for getting unstuck was to call for help. He didn’t think to climb over the hood of the van. He didn’t try to walk across the bumper pressed to the front wall. He didn’t even think to open the car door and climb across to get out on the driver’s side of the car.


Instances of learned helplessness happen all of the time in both homes and schools. Think about a student who just won’t write. Perhaps, you regularly sit beside this student and help him/her think through a writing topic. This is the student who, at the end of writing time, rarely has anything written on his/her paper.  Instead of cajoling or prompting and solving this student’s challenges, let the student figure it out. We inadvertently reinforce this sense of helplessness by giving the most attention to the students who seem to try the least. Try responding the same way Kim responded with her son: do nothing.


As you might have guessed, when left to figure it out on his own, Kim’s son thought to go back through the car and get out on the other side. The students with whom we work in classrooms, many of whom typically write very little, often surprise us and their teachers by writing more than they have before.

When children struggle, our instinct is to ride in on our white horse to save the day, but when we do that,  we deny them opportunities to feel the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. In turn, we teach them to rely on us.The standards call for students to arrive at “independence and proficiency” which makes us think hard about what will need to change in order to help students arrive at this place. We need our children to be able to solve problems leaving us to think that instead of teaching children to “call us when they need help,”  the mantra of the Common Core instruction should be this: Call me when you’ve figured something out.

Getting to Know You: The Three Stages of Reading the Standards

Getting to know you


Getting to know the Common Core State State Standards is a bit like developing a relationship with someone new. First, you meet someone and notice what they say. You think about their words on face value. Next, as you spend more time with a person, you begin to notice patterns that make that person more than the sum of the parts. Finally, you spend A LOT of time with this new friend and you begin to deeply understand him or her. You sometimes look back on your initial impressions, which may or may not hold up after long term scrutiny.


In reflecting on our work with the Common Core state standards, we have come to realize that our process for getting to know the standards has gone through three stages, similar to those in an evolving relationship. In each stage, we are driven by a different question.


Stage 1: What do the CCSS say?

Stage 2: What do the CCSS seem to mean?

Stage 3: No, seriously, what do the CCSS really mean?


Initially, we spent time becoming acquainted with the standards.  We were learning what distinguished a reading standard from a language standard. We thought about words like “analyze” and “evaluate” and how doing both might help children become stronger readers. Then we moved onto rereading to help us begin to understand how we would approach Language Arts instruction in ways that would help children achieve the standards outlined in each grade level. We have wondered out loud what we would need to do to help children become “independent and proficient” and we have begun to re-envision instruction in ways that allow us to imagine students “citing evidence” and reading and writing in ways that help them achieve new understandings.


Now, we are stopping to ask what does this all really mean?  What are the deepest implications of the Common Core Standards on teaching and learning? When we read the standards, what do they really seem to be saying?


This week, we are asking ourselves, What do the standards really seem to be saying? What does this mean for teaching and learning? Before we share our thinking, how would you answer these questions? Please, share your thoughts with us.

(c) 2012-2013 Burkins and Yaris. All Rights Reserved