May 26, 2013

Top 12 Posts of 2012!

New Year Top 12 Image

As we ring in 2013, we’ve been looking back on the past nine months of blogging and reflecting on which of our posts really resonated. As a thank you to our readers for your feedback and many comments over the last few months, we share this list of our most popular posts.  Happy New Year!

12. The Coach and the Gradual Release of Responsibility (Part 2): Coach as Demonstrator

In this post, we think about the ways in which teachers “demonstrate” for students and advocate for messy modeling so that students come to understand success is the struggle.

11. If It Were a Snake, It Has Bitten Us: What Have We Been Waiting For? 

This post offers step-by-step suggestions for adjusting our instruction to the demands of the Common Core. We can show you how to teach WAR AND PEACE to your third-graders!

10. How Does Learning Mean? 

In this, our 200th blog post, we compare the way J. Evans Pritchard (Dead Poet’s Society)  suggests evaluating poems with the way the field of education uses standardized tests to evaluate student learning.

9. Textual Straits: Exploring Informational and Literary Genre Requirements

The journey we are taking to understand the Common Core can be both challenging and confusing. For a bit of a change, we present our ideas about trudging this rugged terrain in narrative.  Happy reading!

8. Condensing the Shifts

In this post, we discuss how the original six instructional shifts have been condensed to three by the authors of the Common Core standards.

7. The Coach and the Gradual Release of Responsibility (Part 1) 

In this post, the first in a four-part series, we set the stage for considering the coaching work a teacher does with students through read aloud, shared reading, small group reading, and independent reading.

6. What vs. How & Prereading Strategies, Part 2: The Apparatus

This post explores Common Core author, David Coleman’s, concerns about pre-reading strategies that interfere with student explorations of text. We address some pros and cons of his perspective and consider it from different grade levels.

5. Starving Readers

This is the first in a series of posts about “reading nutrition” in which we explore the “nutritional value” of informational and literary texts.  In this post, we meet Samuel, a fourth grader, who is currently starved of reading nutrition.

4. Core of the Common Core, Part 2: The Anchor Standards for Writing

In this post, we present educators images and metaphors for closely reading and understanding the Common Core writing standards.

3. Vision for 21st Century Schools

In this post, we ask readers to respond to the question, “In your vision of great education, what does schooling look like?”

2. 5 Tips for Planning Excellent Common Core Lessons

In this post, we offer five suggestions for planning instruction that will align with the Common Core standards as well as help accomplish the instructional ideals espoused by the Common Core.

1. Core of the Common Core, Part 1: The Anchor Standards for Reading

In this post, we present educators images and metaphors for closely reading and understanding the Common Core reading standards.

(Note to Readers: Because of the wild popularity of this blog series,  we have been working on a must-have compilation of illustrated tools to make planning Common Core lessons easier! Stay tuned–release date to be announced soon!)

Weekend Round Up October 13

Monday

Essential Questions

In this post, we discuss “essential questions” that have prompted our own thinking and offer teachers several others to consider as they work with students to deepen thinking and comprehension.

Tuesday

The Core of the Common Core, Part 1: The Anchor Standards for Reading 

In this post,, we present educators our shorthand version of the standards for reading.

Wednesday

The Core of the Common Core, Part 2: The Anchor Standards for Writing

In this post, we present educators our shorthand version of the standards for writing.

Thursday

The Core of the Common Core, Part 3: The Anchor Standards for Speaking and Listening

In this post, we present educators our shorthand version of the standards for speaking and listening.

Friday

The Core of the Common Core, Part 4: The Anchor Standards for Language

In this post, we present educators with our shorthand version of the Common Core anchor standards for language.

Weekend Round-Up August 4

Monday

How do the Common Core Standards Honor Practice? (Part 2)

This post looks at reading anchor standards 1-6 through the lens of practice and looks at the ways in which these standards imply the need to read a lot.

Tuesday

How do the Common Core Standards Honor Practice? (Part 3)

In this final post of our series about the importance of practice and the way in which it is honored by the Common Core State Standards, we analyze the final four reading anchor standards to explore how the importance of practice is implied by these standards.

Wednesday

Yeah, But What Will It Look Like in My Classroom?

In this post, we begin to look at implementing the Common Core standards.  What does it mean to “shift” our practice?

Thursday

Putting the Pieces Together: Of Sticky Notes and Egg Timers

This blog offers practical suggestions for making sure your literacy instruction is complete. It recommends a strategy for using sticky notes to plan a week schedule.

Friday

Friday Favorite: How “Results Rather than Means” Impacts CCSS Implementation

As we think about gearing up to implement the Common Core in the upcoming school year, we urge you to revisit our post about the language used in the Common Core document reminding teachers that the standards focus on “results rather than means.”

Recommended Reading

Reducing Instruction, Increasing Engagement 

Blog by Peter Johnston discussing what would happen if we focused less on teaching and more on engagement.

Top Ten Strategies for Reading the Common Core Standards

There are many sound ways to approach the Common Core, some of which overlap or connect. In the spirit of our developing Friday tradition, we offer you a top ten list: Top ten strategies for reading the Common Core State Standards. For further reading, each of these strategies is linked to a previous, related post.

Strategy 10: Interrogate the Common Core through non-educator perspectives. Pretend you don’t know a lot about what needs to happen in education, and see what truth or insight you can see in the standards. Related post:  Wild Things and the Four Corners of Text 

Strategy 9: Read the standards through the lens of their larger context. Who created them and what was the intent? Related post: How to Teach Vs. What to Teach

Strategy 8: When you have questions about the standards, go to the research behind the Common Core or look to writers who have done so.  Related post: A Close Reading of the Common Core Informational Text Recommendations 

Strategy 7: Filter extreme statements about what the Common Core does or doesn’t do, but read with consideration of these praises and criticisms.  Related Posts: Our Top Ten Common Sense Responses to the Sh*t People are Saying about the Common Core and Misunderstandings 

Strategy 6: Read through your favorite lens. If your passion is poetry, look for the places the Common Core supports poetry instruction.  Related post: Poetry and the Writing Standards 

Strategy 5: Read beyond your favorite lens. The Common Core is bigger than our own favorite parts of it, so we need to let it stretch us. Related post: Seeing the Common Core in our Own Image 

Strategy 4: Prioritize your implementation and wait to begin some parts. Particularly those that seem crazy. (We haven’t written about this yet, but we will!)

Strategy 3: Begin your lesson development with the text selection, then build out. Related posts: Should Illustrations be Removed for Close Reads of Picture Books? and Top Ten Picture Books that Illustrate Dynamic Learning Frames and Critical Sense and Sensibility 

Strategy 2: Read the standards through the lens of your larger purpose for teaching. Related post: The Third Generation of Standards Alignment 

Strategy 1: Assume goodwill.  Related Posts: Taking a Stand and A Close Reading of the Common Core Informational Standards: Recommendations Part 2 

Misunderstandings, Part 3: It’s a Complex Document Continued

Quantitative Measures of the Common Core
The Common Core recommends that educators also give consideration to quantitative measures when determining the complexity of a text. When we put the Reading Anchor Standards through Lexile analysis, its score was 1670.   The lexile range recommended by the Common Core for graduating seniors deemed “college and career ready” is 1215-1355, indicating that when looking at the Common Core document, one is minimally faced with college level reading, if not post-graduate level reading. Of course, all educators should be up to handling this level of complexity. This doesn’t mean that we won’t find the standards a challenge to understand.

Reader and Task Measures of the Common Core
This category of measuring text complexity takes into consideration reader motivation and knowledge about the content of the text. Given the precarious timing of the release of the Common Core, the standards have met with both praise from the contingent looking to reform education and resistance from those feeling beaten and demoralized by the heated political climate surrounding education. In addition to other influences, motivation for reading and understanding the Common Core will tend to correlate directly with morale, professional pressure, and a teacher’s sense of agency in implementation. While one might presume that reading the Common Core will be a little less complex for its cheerleaders and a bit more complex for its critics, we don’t see this pattern playing out in writings and discussions related to the Common Core. While motivation to understand the standards can make digging into them easier, cheerleaders and critics of the Common Core appear equally likely to engage in superficial readings and contribute to the growing misunderstandings.

So, in returning to our original question, How do these misunderstandings happen? Isn’t the Common Core too important a document for misinterpretation? we look again at the general notion of text complexity. The hallmark of a complex text is that it gives readers much to think about, a standard which most would agree the Common Core meets. In addition to being complex, however, the document is also confusing, particularly in light of the surrounding conversations. In order to grow our understandings of the standards and their political and educational contexts, the Common Core requires multiple readings. Even then, will we fully comprehend what this document really says and what it will mean for the next generation of teaching and learning?

Because the Common Core has been adopted by the vast majority of the states, educators should feel both a sense of responsibility and urgency to read and understand exactly what the Common Core does and does not say.  We realize, however, that this is not an easy task, and we want to ease the burden of this responsibility. This post will serve as the first of several dedicated to guiding you through the process of unpacking and understanding the Common Core.  We hope that you will share your questions and join the conversation as we navigate these choppy waters together.

Misunderstandings, Part 2: It’s a Complex Document

In yesterday’s post, we began to look at some of the reasons behind the misconceptions about the Common Core and identified “the telephone game” as one of the culprits.  It stands to reason that as information is passed from individual to individual, it is filtered and diluted. However, the origins of these misunderstandings run deeper than “he said-she said.” Today we will look at a second factor contributing to this problem: the complexity of the Common Core document itself.

On matters of text complexity, the Common Core advises educators to evaluate text using three measures: qualitative, quantitative, and reader and task.  In using the same criteria for looking at the standards themselves, it is clear to us that this document is not exactly beach reading.

Qualitative Factors Affecting the Common Core
The first criterion for looking at a text qualitatively requires that we look at “levels of meaning or purpose.” In describing this criterion, Appendix A of the Common Core says, “informational texts with an explicitly stated purpose are generally easier to comprehend than informational texts with an implicit, hidden, or obscure purpose”(p. 5). While each of the anchor standards explicitly outlines the larger thinking behind each of the corresponding achievement goals, understanding how these standards will impact teaching and learning means that educators need to spend a fair amount of time considering what is implied by each standard.

The second criterion of qualitative analysis asks us to look at text structure.  Easy informational  texts are laid out in a straightforward, conventional way with clearly marked headings and supplemental graphics.  Readers can expect in a more complex text that information will be presented in a variety of ways, which is the case with the Common Core.  This document is a mix of expository text, charts, and tables.  There are sidenotes and footnotes, all of which contribute to a reader’s overall understanding of the contents of the document, and many of which may serve as the only presentation of a particular piece of information.

The third criterion for qualitative analysis requires that we look at the language of a text.  The Common Core freely uses domain-specific educational lingo like “determine,” “analyze,” “assess,” “integrate,” and “interpret” throughout the document.  While most educators are familiar with these words, we must carefully consider the context in which they are used and think hard about the author’s intended meaning in order to fully understand the information and message being conveyed.

The fourth and final criterion for understanding the qualitative arm of text complexity is “knowledge demands.” Complex text makes assumptions about what readers know. While different educators bring different experiences and background knowledge to the table, many are scrambling to understand things like text complexity and close reading and what it means to write argumentatively versus writing persuasively.  These notions are embodied within the text of the Common Core; this document makes many assumptions about the information that its intended readership will bring to the reading transaction.  The fact that there may be gaps between what readers know and what they need to know in order to truly comprehend adds layers of complexity to this document.

Misunderstandings


In our post Sh*t that People Say about the Common Core, Part 2 , we poked fun at some of the misinformation circulating about the Common Core. We chided those who say things like “It took us two weeks to closely read that paragraph” and “Now that the Common Core is here, we don’t have time to do independent reading.” But all kidding aside, if people are saying such things, somewhere along the line someone misunderstood the Common Core. How does this happen? you ask.  Isn’t the Common Core too important a document for misinterpretation? In fact, this is the case, with the potential consequence being that we will have no way of measuring the Common Core’s impact on student learning.

So how does one come to believe that close reading means sticking with the same text for weeks at a time or that implementing the Common Core means that there is no longer time for independent reading?   One possible explanation returns us to the childhood game of telephone where a message is whispered from one player’s ear to another. The fun of the game is waiting to hear how a sentence like “Let’s ask mom if we can pitch a tent and sleep outside” is twisted and distorted into something like “Let’s ask mom to itch the elephant’s teeth outside.”  This is sort of what has happened with information about  the Common Core. Because the standards are still so new, school officials and leaders have been tapping a variety of resources to fill their own gaps in understanding. As administrators learn new information, they convey it to faculty and staff members.  Our leaders make their best attempts to deliver accurate messages and understandings; however, some of the information inevitably gets lost in translation.

While the game of telephone is partly responsible for some of the “he said-she said” surrounding the Common Core, this is not the only culprit. In the next couple of posts, we will explore other possible explanations for the pervasive misunderstandings of the standards.

Weekend Round-Up June 2

Blog Posts

Monday

Happy Memorial Day!

Tuesday

Should Illustrations be Removed for Close Reads of Picture Books?

As educators work to comply with the shifts of the Common Core, there is much confusion about how best to go about implementing them.  One misconception we’ve heard was that text-based answers are based on written text only.  In this post, we explore the opportunities of reading with the illustrations.

Wednesday

The Habit of Thinking

Does a small change have the power to unlock big change? In this post, Kim reflects on her dinnertime conversations with her children and realizes that reading anything closely helps to habituate the practice of thinking critically.

Thursday

Forced Learning

Can we make students learn?  In this post, Jan reflects on   new ideas garnered from Peter Johnston and Herbert Kohl and imagines what can happen when we help students reframe their perceptions of themselves as learners.

Friday

Top 10 Picture Books that Illustrate Dynamic Learning Frames

In the spirit of Peter Johnston’s work, we round out the week with a list of our top ten picture books which illustrate for students dynamic ways to think about and approach their learning. Some of them offer metaphors that can saturate your classroom and make it easier to communicate the ways your students are in charge of their learning. These books can lend your students some agency, whether tackling complex texts or changing their worlds.

Recommended Resources

The Text Itself: What’s Wrong with the Common Core Standards? 

Reading is more than just decoding!

Forced Learning

We’ve each written individual reflections this week, thinking around the theme of habits. Relatedly, I have been reading through Opening Minds, the new book by Peter Johnston, as well as skimming a complementary stack of books dealing with the ways students can choose not to let us teach them. Johnston describes a body of research that explores the ways teacher language helps or hinders student development of self-perceptions that include a dynamic frame. A student with a dynamic frame knows that just because he or she doesn’t feel like a “good” writer today, it doesn’t mean that he or she can’t work on becoming better at writing in order to, eventually, be a “good” writer. Students with static-frames tend to think that they are born as “bad” writers and will always be “bad” at writing. Couple Johnston’s new work with Herbert Kohl’s work, “I Won’t Learn From You (1994),” throw in the learning patterns of four sons ages 4-16, and one creates a tempest of the mind!

One of my sixteen-year-olds never really learned to swim until he was fourteen. He was always resourceful enough in the water to enjoy himself and keep me from worrying, but at fourteen I decided to sign him up for swim team during the summer. I knew he would learn actual strokes and technique, not to mention how to dive, a skill towards which he had adopted a decidedly static frame.

His sudden enrollment in swimming was met with vocal resistance. He had swimming practice daily, and daily I heard protests ranging from loud complaints–It is unfair for you to sign me up to swim early every day of the summer without even asking me!–to articulate arguments–Really? Is this the kind of mother you want to be? One who dismisses her son’s feelings and opinions?

I did what any mother would do. I resorted to coercion–If you don’t stick with swim team you can’t go to the pool alone this summer. You will only be able to go to the pool when I go with you.

The neighborhood pool is around the corner from our house and going there unsupervised to hang out with friends during the summer is the hallmark of independence. One could take a small notebook to the pool and record, Jane-Goodall-like, awkward, animated, nervous human pubescence as it unfolded on the pooldeck jungle.

Duncan acquiesced, despite the fact that he was grouped with the six- to eight-year-old “guppies” because his skill set was so far below the rest of the swimmers his age and size. As parents do every five minutes, I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but safety prevailed and I needed to know that he knew how to handle himself in the water.

Oddly, one morning he did not resist going to the pool. He got himself out of bed and to the pool without any argument. When he was late returning from practice, I created a reason to go to the pool and touch base with the coach. Was he playing pool hookey? I braced myself for an impending confrontation.

Arriving at the pool, I looked in from afar. I was startled to see him in the shallow end with a host of other “guppies,” each offering him advice on his form. The coach couldn’t resist, and wandered over to offer her advice. The lifeguard had opinions, as well as the parent of a child swimming nearby. Duncan welcomed all advice. He didn’t respond with defensiveness. He didn’t shut down. He tried to follow each direction and then checked in for more feedback–Was that better? Of course, it was.

Duncan swam all year that year. He is built like a swimmer, which coupled with a sense of agency and a perception of himself as a dynamic learner, readied him to work as a lifeguard the next summer. Now sixteen, he is on the swim team during the school year and works as a lifeguard during the summer.

This summer our son, Natie, is nine. I signed him up for swim team without asking him. It seemed a reasonable idea given the way things worked out with his older brother. Once again I was met with constant vocal resistance. Once again I was regaled with concrete evidence that I was not measuring up as a mother. After he hid when I was trying to round him up for swim team, I threw in the beach towel. I told him he could quit or not, that he could do what he wanted either way. I could give his lessons to a friend’s child. I washed my hands of the whole thing and, without outward anger, told him he was in charge of himself. Two days later  we received this note, which I read against the backdrop of his self-directed violin practice:

Dear Mom Dad,

I humbly apoligize for not getting in the car when you told me to and hiding. As a child, you can’t quite expect me to do everything right. I’ll admit that I wasn’t coopertive during that scene. by the way I am kind of starting to like swim team, and I don’t want you to get rid of my lessons. it’s also the same thing with violin. The problem is that I can’t find a time to practice. Manby (?) we can set up a plan.

Yours sincerly,
Natie Burkins

There is little we can do to “make” students learn. Peter Johnston has some advice about helping children change their self-perceptions from static frames to dynamic frames. What percentage of student learning challenges could be met if students were leaning into what we were trying to teach them rather than away from it? And how much of their posture is in response to ours? Helping students reframe their self-perceptions as learners holds great promise for students about to dive into complex text.

The Habit of Thinking

Every family has its traditions and since my children were little, my husband and I have always made it a point to check in with our two boys at dinner by asking them to share their day’s “best” and “worst.” Through the years, we have been regaled with stories about what happened on the bus, school assemblies, games on the playground, and other highs and lows of their daily lives.  “Best and worst” has become an important family tradition, but as my children grow older, I wonder if reflecting on the day’s events is enough.  Might I need to do more to inspire their conversation and thinking skills? In mulling over my options, I decided to add a new conversation prompt at dinner and follow up “best and worst” with “What’s your new idea?”

When I began this, my children were perplexed.  After sharing a story of a music teacher who all but dashed his best friend’s hope of becoming a musician,  my sixth grade son, Matthew, looked at me with squinty, confused eyes, “What do you mean, ‘what’s my new idea?’” he asked, almost annoyed at the extra work required of this new layer of thinking. But I coached him to think about why that story struck him as the day’s low. As he began to reflect, he quickly shared that his new idea was that there’s absolutely no truth to the adage “sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” He thought out loud about the pain of a punch versus the power of words and he decided that while a bruise or a bump might last for a week, words can stay with people forever.

I was struck by how a simple question had the power to elevate the quality of our conversation and wondered if I had stumbled upon beginner’s luck or if, perhaps, I was witnessing the beginning of a shift. Since beginning this ritual of asking, “What’s your new idea?”, we have had many interesting dinnertime conversations. We have talked about society’s infatuation with movie stars and have formulated the idea that perhaps we need to choose our idols carefully.  “Wouldn’t it be better,” my third grade son, Nathan, thought, “if we admired scientists and inventors and other people  who help to change the world?” On another occasion, my older son Matthew described his plan to construct a Lego universe, sharing that his big idea was that he’d need to create a capital city because after all, “all roads lead to Rome.”

As we’ve habituated reflecting on our living and learning, I’ve noticed that the practice of asking, “what’s your new idea?” has begun to spill over into other aspects of my children’s lives.  One night, my older son announced that his summer reading plan would involve rereading the Harry Potter series.  This time, he decided, he would read it much slower and flip back and forth between the pages to find how things connect. (His plan, I swear!) He told us that he had already begun to do this and “he had a new idea.” As he read, he noticed that when everybody else was referring to Voldemort as “You-Know-Who,” Dumbledore’s position was “…I have never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort’s name” (The Sorcerer’s Stone, p.11) which made him think that there might be some sort of mutual respect between Voldemort and Dumbledore.  It is his plan as he continues to reread to follow this theory and see if he finds other places that support this idea about Dumbledore and Voldemort’s relationship.

Time has helped me to realize that our dinnertime conversation is a shift.  In fact, it is a shift that mimics the fourth shift of the Common Core Standards that emphasizes text-based responses.   When I ask my children “what’s your new idea,” I am prompting them to regard their lives as text and question, analyze, interpret, evaluate, and integrate new ideas.  No matter whether individuals do this by thinking about what happened on the playground or closely reading the words or illustrations in a book, the benefit remains the same: they develop a habit for critical thinking. As a conduit to problem solving, innovation, and creativity, critical thinking leads not only to infinitely more interesting dinner conversation, but also to a higher achieving student body and even better, to a more insightful citizenry.

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