Connect your learnings from the first class sessions to what you read in the foreword and Chapter 1 of the Lent text. What connects? What doesn't connect? What questions do you have?
The discussion in class surrounding the idea of literacy being a collection of backpacks was powerful for me. I am a visual learner and this was a visual I could easily get my head around. I think this idea when given to children could be just as powerful. The visual of a backpack in each area of their lives representing all the ways in which they were literate is validating. In some ways it could balance the classroom playing field. Allowing children to be experts in non traditional school areas. The definition of literacy in the Lent book "...multifaceted social practices that are shaped by contexts, participants, and technologies." supports our classroom discussion and also suggests out literacy is always evolving and never ending. Lent also makes a connection to the social practices and the "renewed interest in collaborative learning" This is how I personally work best, when collaborating with my peers. I work hard to give multiple opportunities for collaboration in my class and have been pushing myself to create more chances for project based learning where the students can spend more time not only working together but diving deeper into their studies.It is not always easy to create these experiences and I am looking forward to reading more by Lent on her ideas surrounding collaboration. The ideas discussed in class are exciting to think about with regard to the possibility of it all. However working in a public school for the last fifteen years I am also a bit jaded. I have seen time and again the people in power make bad decision after bad decision. When will this cycle stop? What will it take to get people to understand what is important when teaching children? Lent spoke of a time when "cognition triumphed over regurgitation". This feels some days like a pipe dream. When I am with my team and other like minded educators the possibilities seem infinite, then I am about to take the next three weeks and give it up to the PARCC test and I am discouraged again.
Jessica, It seems you and I are struggling with a similar predicament in regards to testing and standards. I agree with you that when I am with like-minded colleagues, the ideas of possibilities of ways to be "creative" about your teaching of the standards seem endless. But then when you are handed down expectations from the higher ups, you can feel trapped. It is frustrating knowing that "cognition over regurgitation" is a better way to learn, yet we are forced, at times, to revert back to memorization and regurgitation. On a similar, yet slightly off-topic note, we, as schools, also do not allow students to get what they need in terms of activity, breaks, and social time. It is yet another example of how we know what's best for our students' learning, yet we are unable to make the systemic changes necessary to support them.
Yes! Have you used gonoodle? I try to fit a few brain breaks at least twice a day. It's goofy but the students love it. It is needed and I can feel the energy shift in my class once we have done one and gotten up and moved around.
I haven't yet used go noodle, but you told me about it. I will definitely check it out. Have you tried padlet before? It's easy, versatile, and doesn't require an account.
I agree with Jessica on brain breaks. I used it in one of the classes I was substituting in. I had a student teacher that day in the classroom with me who introduced me to Go Noodle videos. The class loved this website. I did it with the students. It gets the blood flowing and energizes the class and of course the teacher too!
What struck me in Lent and your post was the idea of "cognition triumphed over regurgitation" at some point. Cognition in science is very hard to measure without content (regurgitation). Content gives the student the context for cognition to happen. What is unfortunate is that test like PARCC and NECAP do not reward great cognition separate from content. A student may answer a constructed response question on the standardized test with some beautiful cognition but reaches the wrong conclusions based on their current content knowledge. That student showed they can think but did not have the context to answer the question the way the test giver envisioned. That student will not get high marks on the exam, should they? Is there a basic set of content all students should have before the test, so that they can reach the conclusions expected?
John, I understand what you are saying about how it can be difficult to measure cognition without content in science. I feel it is the same way with mathematics. In fact, I think that math classes are geared mostly towards content (memorization and regurgitation), and not towards cognition at all.
John, what you are saying is exactly why the standards have begun shifting to the Common Core. Theoretically, these standards address this idea of "cognition over regurgitation". The standards stress skills and not content, though in my opinion, some of the skill expectations are ludicrous for specific age groups. However, the tests have not caught up, and in some school systems, neither have the teacher evaluation systems. This certainly presents a predicament for teachers who are tasked to follow the standards and best practices, but who don't necessarily believe that all standards were created equal.
After reading the forward and chapter one, I immediately connect the idea of the "backpack" from class to the term "disciplinary literacy". NCTE's definition (2011) of disciplinary literacy is that literacy is a "set of multifaceted social practices that are shaped by contexts, participants, and technologies" (Lent p.4). Another article written by Roni Jo Draper (2015) defines it as "consisting of the ability to use texts in discipline appropriate ways or in ways that disciplinary experts would recognize as correct" (Lent p.5). Both definitions describe the idea that one can be literate in many different disciplines or content areas. To me, this idea is talking not only about traditional school content areas like reading, writing, science and math, but it is talking about the many different "backpacks" that we all wear. One can be literate in their discipline of karate, or gaming, or cooking, not just in the traditional academic disciplines. Just as we discussed in class, this different idea of what literacy actually is allows different people's literacies to be more valued than when literacy was thought of only as "reading and writing" the letters. On page 8, Lent raises the issue of how our policymakers make decisions that are not always in the best learning interest of the students. She predicts that, soon, our policymakers will catch up. While I do hope that she is right, we know, based on many years of history, that educational policies take decades to catch up to what teachers know is actually good education. The question I still have is: how do teachers balance the expectations of the somewhat antiquated standards and tests with teaching strategies that work for our 21st century students? We know that students need to use and apply knowledge (p. 8), but how can we teach them this while at the same time teaching them how to take a test? Clearly, this is something that I struggle with, Lent struggles with, and I am sure others do as well. Hopefully, together, we can unpack this question and figure out what is truly important in 21st century education.
My question is has cognition changed in the past 100 years? I would argue that changes in content have lead us and our students to new conclusions based on new content, but the basics of how to think and process information has not changed. Content allows for cognition to take place in a meaningful way, unfortunately the answer to the test question is expected to match the cognition of the test writer. So in teaching the student to take the test do we have to teach them to think like the test writer? Is that what we really mean when we teach to a test like PARCC or NECAP?
I think your questions are great, Sari. I'm not sure of the answer. But I think that if you can teach them beyond the content, teaching them of and through metacognitive strategies that they can then apply elsewhere, they should be able to take any test. Being able to strategically identify the nuts and bolts of whatever content area, and more importantly know what to do with those nuts and bolts, should help them in mostly any standardized test. With language learning, it is important to understand grammar, so students in ELA should be able to identify root words, suffixes, and affixes. In history, understanding the layout of an informational text (a subheader, for example), the purpose of bolding, or where to find date and author information, would allow students to decipher almost anything.
John, your comment also got me thinking back to this idea of literacy that we discussed in class, that literacy should be taken in the context of the individual. It makes me think that the test writers are writing with certain biases and literacies of their own that they expect all American students to ascribe to. So this means that inner city black student will be expected to have the same literacies as middle class white students and the same literacies as second generation Latino students. This is simply ludicrous. Who can create a test that tests all of these different types of experiences?
Sari, I appreciate you throwing that question out there regarding the inner-teacher conflict of standards-based/testing teaching and teaching students how to think in the world. Personally, I believe that in order for students to be able to consume information, they need to be able to process information and apply it. So, to me, I focus on the metacognition piece before the standards piece. As educators, we need to TEACH explicitly how to develop questions, how to evaluate, how to be citizens in the world. When students are equipped with these skills and experiences, then they can absorb content and strategy. It can be a back-and-forth process, not linear.
Our classroom time added new knowledge to my backpack and opened my mind to what is considered literacy. This created background knowledge that helped prepare me for this week's Lent reading. As a substitute teacher I have a different perspective. I see how disciplinary literacy is happening in different classrooms. For example today during lunch I had a conversation with a sixth grade ELA teacher that I am pleased to share. We discussed a project-based documentary that the students were working on. Their topic this year is sustainability. The students work in groups to research, interview and present new knowledge on their topic in a documentary movie. The ELA teacher told me that the ultimate goal is for the student to become the expert on the topic. This project- based documentary is an example of the University of Pittsburgh's Learning Research and Development Center's definition of disciplinary literacy: " Disciplinary Literacy involves the use of reading, reasoning, investigating, speaking, and writing required to learn and form complex content knowledge appropriate to a particular discipline" (McConachie, 2010, p.16). According to Lent (p.9) "Students must use knowledge and process as disciplinarians would use them-to develop products that answer nagging questions, share insight, and create new knowledge." How can we encourage teachers to support other teachers that are tackling these projects?
Cindy, this is a great example of disciplinary literacy. I like that the teacher is using various approaches to literacy that include technological literacy, reading, writing, and science literacy. This project allows students who have varying literary strengths and weaknesses to come together and apply their learning through collaboration and the creation of an authentic product. What a great example of disciplinary literacy.
This kind of project based learning is exactly what I am striving for in my classroom. I have been working with playlists for students - and am trying to balance what I need them to accomplish with letting them have voice in how it gets done. The example you have given is excellent and your question "How can we encourage teachers to support other teachers that are tackling these projects?" is a good one. I think part of the answer is to keep talking about the ideas we have. Offer suggestions and be willing to fail with each other.If administrators would support these types of teaching and learning and let the "data" take a back seat, teachers would be less afraid of getting out of their comfort zone.
I love collaborative learning projects. What I struggle with is the group that spends three or four days on a project and ends up with a conclusion far from reality. What went wrong with those students? Discovery lessons can be very powerful, it is fantastic when students reach the same conclusions about pendulums that Galileo did, but was more harm done to those students that didn't? Was it the teachers fault? or the students for the lack of ability to make the same conclusions from the same set of data?
I think this is where the teacher's role of a supervisor (if nothing else) comes in during a collaborative learning project. If a group of students is going so far off track from where they should be headed, I believe it is the teachers job to help get them back on track before the conclusion of their project, so that, like you said, more harm is not done to those students.
This is not a easy project. The teachers are recruiting other teachers to help. They are fine tuning the checklists for the project to make it accessible for all students. For example the school librarian teaches the students to use movie maker. What is nice about this project is that the community gets involved with it, in student led interviews and with the research. I like that at the end of this project the documentaries are show at the Jane Pickens Theater in downtown Newport. The documentaries are judged by a panel of teachers and the best three are given awards.
After our class on Saturday and reading the assigned pages in the Lent book I was struck by a few things. I had to laugh at the part of the Lent book that talked about reading strategies that were to be used in every class, because there is a poster of them posted in every classroom in our building. Lent made me feel vindicated. I have never been able to successfully use all of the reading strategies on the poster in my room that I am suppose to have the students do when reading the text, some just don’t make sense in the study of our science text. Each content area has a set of skills that must be learned to learn from text, and those skills must be directly taught. The context of content is vital in our cognition. It sets the parameters for our thinking. Lent argues at one point (p4-5) content and cognition cannot be separate in the study of a topic. What content and how much content is needed to prime the pump for meaningful cognition to take place? Can it be different for different people, or is there a universal set of knowledge in science needed for that to happen? Every person is different; I challenge my students the entire year to answer one question “What do I have to do to learn new material?” If they can answer that question they know how to be successful students, they than just have to apply it.
I agree that not every strategy will work in every discipline. I believe, as you said, that specific discipline-based strategies need to be explicitly taught. Moreover, students need to be able to pick which strategies to use when. They need to know how to apply these strategies. That's what makes your key question so important: "What do they have to do to learn new material?" Ay the end of the day, don't we want our students to simply know how to learn and enjoy the process of learning?
The idea of "strategy fatigue for for teachers" (Lent 3) stood out to me too. I have a giant poster in my classroom provided to me by our ELA curriculum, Springboard (The College Board). There over over 15 acronyms for strategies on that one poster. There are lessons embedded in our curriculum that are simply practice in the strategy. I feel like, as Lent said, "The difficult with strategies turned out to be twofold. First, as noted earlier, general across-the-curriculum strategies frequently turned into exercises rather than thoughtful tools for reading." (3) We are not showing them the importance of it, when to use it, how to use it within the content. They are used as standalone procedures! I agree with you when you said that CONTENT is what provides the CONTEXT.
Last week’s class and this week’s Lent reading really tie together for me through the “back pack” idea, like most other people have said. What connects for me is that literacy is different in each content area. On page 9, Danita Hubert really focuses on the idea of constant questioning. But not just asking any questions, asking the RIGHT questions. Connecting literacy to mathematics seems possible, but also seems difficult. Asking the right questions seems like one way to start disciplinary literacy in math. I also like the idea of project based learning in mathematics. This would allow the students to connect math to real life problems, and would teach them how to come up with the right questions in order to solve the problem. I think currently a lot of math courses are geared toward memorization. Instead of having students memorize formula’s, we should be teaching them where these formula’s come from, and what do these formula’s mean? As an undergraduate, I have recently visited many middle schools, and elementary schools. I am pleased to say that I have seen collaborative learning, and delving deeper into topics happening on a day to day basis in most of the schools I have visited. Unfortunately, it is not EVERY school. My question is, how do we get everyone on the same page? Like most people have said, it takes time for new policies to catch up to what us teachers know now. But if so many of us know it, is there a way to get everyone on board sooner?
Kristi, you said a lot of important things in your post. First off, I really want to stress this idea of students coming up with their own questions, as well as teachers asking the right questions. I believe that, as teachers, we are often asking kids questions, and not allowing them the time, space, and skills to ask their own questions. Inquiry is a crucial path towards learning for many students and subject matters.
As far as the issue of "getting everyone on the same page", I think this might bring us back to this idea of multiple literacies. Once again, let's think about how varied the American teaching pool is. Teachers come from different universities with different curricula, they come from different personal backgrounds, and they come with varying educational philosophies. Now, no matter how much the state can try to unify the expectations for teachers, it seems that this is simply not possible. Nor do I think that making teachers all the same is good or beneficial to students. Why not just have robo-teachers? What I am saying is that perhaps we need to begin looking at teacher education in a different way. Perhaps we need to reconfigure what our goals are for our students. Maybe those goals wouldn't be academic at all. The possibilities are infinite, yet it often feels that our systems are keeping us in this closed, neat box, when there is so much outside the box to be explored.
Hi Kristi, It's not a simple matter of learning something and trying to spread it nationwide. Because one idea work in one district it may not work in others. Some many different factors are involved. I do agree with you wholeheartedly about tying math in real world situations, so many of our students will not major in mathematics but want to know why they're doing that type of math. If we can consistently tie it into life situations we may be able to spark more interest.
Recognizing our "backpacks" or funds of knowledge--and realizing that this exists within our students to varying degrees--is an important take-away from the first class. It is also a very important thing to incorporate into our teaching. I think one of the most important aspects, as Lent (2011) states, is recognizing the skill sets required for a student to be successful across content areas. Science texts require metalinguistic knowledge of passive voice and the ability to read charts and graphs for relevant data. In order to successfully teach students, a science teacher would then have to be able to identify and build this knowledge into lessons. However, I think one of the most important issues raised in the class is that, regardless of content area, we cannot be entirely focused on teaching content. There is a larger issue of access to that content, and that sometimes requires teachers (as well as students) to go outside of their comfort zones.
I agree with Hayley, that students need to be taught to read charts or graphs in different subject areas. It is considered literacy in the subject area. Teachers should use a mini-lesson to review the chart or graph that is used in science, math and social studies.
One takeaway for our first class was the "backpack" theory. I definitely see how kids can be put into labels and not feel like they're equipped. but a simple class discussion about bringing your own ideas and gifts to the table would be well worth it. I must say I felt a little overwhelmed but came o the realization that what I had in my backpack is super important to the my middle school students. In the Lent book what I was glad to see that was realized was the idea that strategies are important, but the student shouldn't be inundated with just that. They need to be how and when those strategies come in play as well as the content that goes with that strategy. In mathematics I find the need to teach a strategy but they definitely need to content/ foundation work beforehand. I also can relate to the section that discussed showing how to engage the student in disciplinary lit. by asking the higher level thinking questions. Why did you choose that strategy? What were you thinking when you did that? How else could you have done this?
The last section of your post takes me back to when I was in elementary/middle school. I used to hate being asked "Why did you do this? What were you thinking?" Because I didn't know what the answer was supposed to be! It wasn't a question we were asked regularly, and I thought there was one right answer, like most other things in school! It is this experience that drives me to one day have a classroom where we are frequently reflecting on our thinking, and emphasizing that everyone thinks differently!
As an English teacher who teaches both "CORE" content ELA and Literacy (Tier 1 and 2) instruction, I THOUGHT I would be able to define what reading is/what literacy is during the first class. As Professor Horwitz was reading the children's book to us, I thought she was just exposing us to childrne's literature as another avenue of accessing text. I THOUGHT she was using this as an intro to langauge aquisition and the importance of reading to children as they learn to read. After our discussion, I was able to develop a clearer definition as to what literacy/reading was. It isn't a neat/clean definition like I wanted it to be. It is much more ambiguous and focuses interpretation, ability to create stories (even without words), skills beyond just fluency and comprehension. This was an eye opening moment for me. As I read Lent's work I continuously tried to apply the content to my own work in the classroom/school. My concerns for my own school/faculty comes from Lent's point about literacy going through a "paradign shift" and moving into "a more discipline-based approach." (4). I don't feel like we prepared our other discipline teachers for this shift over the years. We neglect to support teachers with literacy strategies and understanding in science, math and history the most. We support ELA because we know from years and years that, "this is where reading happens" and we just haven't moved on from that mentality. When Lent mentions the idea of "specialized texts" in other subjects, this further proves the point made earlier on in Chapter 1 about strategies being used the best when students understand the content (3). They need to support one another and neither can act as a standalone. While this all may "sound scary" to teachers of disciplines who may not normally focused on contnet literacy, Lent states that, "along with this more reasonable approach comes a sense of empowerment for content-area teachers."(2). This is an opportunity to further develop content area teachers in literacy, but showcase their talents because they are using the content side by side with the new strategy.
I agree and thought that I'd be able to define literacy as well. But it isn't easy, it isn't clear. I think that most of us have accepted a very rigid and confined view of what literacy is. I still don't exactly know what I think it might be at this time after class. But going forward I'll definately be more mindful and open to other literacies that students bring into a classroom.
I think that I have the same takeaways as many of the rest of you. The concept of the back pack in relationship to literacy was not groundbreaking but it was incredibly relatable. There are tons of things that we know, things that we or our students are good at. I think that when you think about literacy in that way then the goal should be to take it a step further. Something in one back pack might be very usable in another. Something in one back might help to gain another. I guess what I’m really trying to say is that if students can learn to use their strengths, make relationships from what they currently know to concepts and ideas they don’t know, then we can expand or increase their literacy. We can help them gain new back packs! Lent said that blitz strategies in reading showed no significant increase in reading literacy for seniors. I don’t know what the strategies are that were used. But I bet that they were very set and defined with very little flexibility in them. Most likely a singular strategy appeal to a specific type of learner. It fits into only one back pack. I think we get so focused at times that the blinders go on and we can see only one thing. I thought of Zoom. If we are looking at things in only one way we’ll never see the whole or bigger picture. I think that we need to look at the bigger picture. I think that we need to help students do that as well. I think they need to learn to be able to make connections and create relations from one back pack to another so that they can gain more.
The discussion in class surrounding the idea of literacy being a collection of backpacks was powerful for me. I am a visual learner and this was a visual I could easily get my head around. I think this idea when given to children could be just as powerful. The visual of a backpack in each area of their lives representing all the ways in which they were literate is validating. In some ways it could balance the classroom playing field. Allowing children to be experts in non traditional school areas. The definition of literacy in the Lent book "...multifaceted social practices that are shaped by contexts, participants, and technologies." supports our classroom discussion and also suggests out literacy is always evolving and never ending. Lent also makes a connection to the social practices and the "renewed interest in collaborative learning" This is how I personally work best, when collaborating with my peers. I work hard to give multiple opportunities for collaboration in my class and have been pushing myself to create more chances for project based learning where the students can spend more time not only working together but diving deeper into their studies.It is not always easy to create these experiences and I am looking forward to reading more by Lent on her ideas surrounding collaboration. The ideas discussed in class are exciting to think about with regard to the possibility of it all. However working in a public school for the last fifteen years I am also a bit jaded. I have seen time and again the people in power make bad decision after bad decision. When will this cycle stop? What will it take to get people to understand what is important when teaching children? Lent spoke of a time when "cognition triumphed over regurgitation". This feels some days like a pipe dream. When I am with my team and other like minded educators the possibilities seem infinite, then I am about to take the next three weeks and give it up to the PARCC test and I am discouraged again.
ReplyDeleteJessica,
DeleteIt seems you and I are struggling with a similar predicament in regards to testing and standards. I agree with you that when I am with like-minded colleagues, the ideas of possibilities of ways to be "creative" about your teaching of the standards seem endless. But then when you are handed down expectations from the higher ups, you can feel trapped. It is frustrating knowing that "cognition over regurgitation" is a better way to learn, yet we are forced, at times, to revert back to memorization and regurgitation.
On a similar, yet slightly off-topic note, we, as schools, also do not allow students to get what they need in terms of activity, breaks, and social time. It is yet another example of how we know what's best for our students' learning, yet we are unable to make the systemic changes necessary to support them.
Yes! Have you used gonoodle? I try to fit a few brain breaks at least twice a day. It's goofy but the students love it. It is needed and I can feel the energy shift in my class once we have done one and gotten up and moved around.
DeleteI haven't yet used go noodle, but you told me about it. I will definitely check it out. Have you tried padlet before? It's easy, versatile, and doesn't require an account.
DeleteI agree with Jessica on brain breaks. I used it in one of the classes I was substituting in. I had a student teacher that day in the classroom with me who introduced me to Go Noodle videos. The class loved this website. I did it with the students. It gets the blood flowing and energizes the class and of course the teacher too!
DeleteWhat struck me in Lent and your post was the idea of "cognition triumphed over regurgitation" at some point. Cognition in science is very hard to measure without content (regurgitation). Content gives the student the context for cognition to happen. What is unfortunate is that test like PARCC and NECAP do not reward great cognition separate from content. A student may answer a constructed response question on the standardized test with some beautiful cognition but reaches the wrong conclusions based on their current content knowledge. That student showed they can think but did not have the context to answer the question the way the test giver envisioned. That student will not get high marks on the exam, should they? Is there a basic set of content all students should have before the test, so that they can reach the conclusions expected?
DeleteJohn, I understand what you are saying about how it can be difficult to measure cognition without content in science. I feel it is the same way with mathematics. In fact, I think that math classes are geared mostly towards content (memorization and regurgitation), and not towards cognition at all.
DeleteJohn, what you are saying is exactly why the standards have begun shifting to the Common Core. Theoretically, these standards address this idea of "cognition over regurgitation". The standards stress skills and not content, though in my opinion, some of the skill expectations are ludicrous for specific age groups. However, the tests have not caught up, and in some school systems, neither have the teacher evaluation systems. This certainly presents a predicament for teachers who are tasked to follow the standards and best practices, but who don't necessarily believe that all standards were created equal.
DeleteI know I'm not commenting on the main post but Gonoodle is great for a quick mental break and the kids love it.
DeleteAfter reading the forward and chapter one, I immediately connect the idea of the "backpack" from class to the term "disciplinary literacy". NCTE's definition (2011) of disciplinary literacy is that literacy is a "set of multifaceted social practices that are shaped by contexts, participants, and technologies" (Lent p.4). Another article written by Roni Jo Draper (2015) defines it as "consisting of the ability to use texts in discipline appropriate ways or in ways that disciplinary experts would recognize as correct" (Lent p.5). Both definitions describe the idea that one can be literate in many different disciplines or content areas.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this idea is talking not only about traditional school content areas like reading, writing, science and math, but it is talking about the many different "backpacks" that we all wear. One can be literate in their discipline of karate, or gaming, or cooking, not just in the traditional academic disciplines. Just as we discussed in class, this different idea of what literacy actually is allows different people's literacies to be more valued than when literacy was thought of only as "reading and writing" the letters.
On page 8, Lent raises the issue of how our policymakers make decisions that are not always in the best learning interest of the students. She predicts that, soon, our policymakers will catch up. While I do hope that she is right, we know, based on many years of history, that educational policies take decades to catch up to what teachers know is actually good education. The question I still have is: how do teachers balance the expectations of the somewhat antiquated standards and tests with teaching strategies that work for our 21st century students? We know that students need to use and apply knowledge (p. 8), but how can we teach them this while at the same time teaching them how to take a test?
Clearly, this is something that I struggle with, Lent struggles with, and I am sure others do as well. Hopefully, together, we can unpack this question and figure out what is truly important in 21st century education.
My question is has cognition changed in the past 100 years? I would argue that changes in content have lead us and our students to new conclusions based on new content, but the basics of how to think and process information has not changed. Content allows for cognition to take place in a meaningful way, unfortunately the answer to the test question is expected to match the cognition of the test writer. So in teaching the student to take the test do we have to teach them to think like the test writer? Is that what we really mean when we teach to a test like PARCC or NECAP?
DeleteI think your questions are great, Sari. I'm not sure of the answer. But I think that if you can teach them beyond the content, teaching them of and through metacognitive strategies that they can then apply elsewhere, they should be able to take any test. Being able to strategically identify the nuts and bolts of whatever content area, and more importantly know what to do with those nuts and bolts, should help them in mostly any standardized test. With language learning, it is important to understand grammar, so students in ELA should be able to identify root words, suffixes, and affixes. In history, understanding the layout of an informational text (a subheader, for example), the purpose of bolding, or where to find date and author information, would allow students to decipher almost anything.
DeleteJohn, your comment also got me thinking back to this idea of literacy that we discussed in class, that literacy should be taken in the context of the individual. It makes me think that the test writers are writing with certain biases and literacies of their own that they expect all American students to ascribe to. So this means that inner city black student will be expected to have the same literacies as middle class white students and the same literacies as second generation Latino students. This is simply ludicrous. Who can create a test that tests all of these different types of experiences?
DeleteSari, I appreciate you throwing that question out there regarding the inner-teacher conflict of standards-based/testing teaching and teaching students how to think in the world. Personally, I believe that in order for students to be able to consume information, they need to be able to process information and apply it. So, to me, I focus on the metacognition piece before the standards piece. As educators, we need to TEACH explicitly how to develop questions, how to evaluate, how to be citizens in the world. When students are equipped with these skills and experiences, then they can absorb content and strategy. It can be a back-and-forth process, not linear.
DeleteOur classroom time added new knowledge to my backpack and opened my mind to what is considered literacy. This created background knowledge that helped prepare me for this week's Lent reading.
ReplyDeleteAs a substitute teacher I have a different perspective. I see how disciplinary literacy is happening in different classrooms. For example today during lunch I had a conversation with a sixth grade ELA teacher that I am pleased to share. We discussed a project-based documentary that the students were working on. Their topic this year is sustainability. The students work in groups to research, interview and present new knowledge on their topic in a documentary movie. The ELA teacher told me that the ultimate goal is for the student to become the expert on the topic. This project- based documentary is an example of the University of Pittsburgh's Learning Research and Development Center's definition of disciplinary literacy: " Disciplinary Literacy involves the use of reading, reasoning, investigating, speaking, and writing required to learn and form complex content knowledge appropriate to a particular discipline" (McConachie, 2010, p.16). According to Lent (p.9) "Students must use knowledge and process as disciplinarians would use them-to develop products that answer nagging questions, share insight, and create new knowledge." How can we encourage teachers to support other teachers that are tackling these projects?
Cindy, this is a great example of disciplinary literacy. I like that the teacher is using various approaches to literacy that include technological literacy, reading, writing, and science literacy. This project allows students who have varying literary strengths and weaknesses to come together and apply their learning through collaboration and the creation of an authentic product. What a great example of disciplinary literacy.
DeleteThis kind of project based learning is exactly what I am striving for in my classroom. I have been working with playlists for students - and am trying to balance what I need them to accomplish with letting them have voice in how it gets done. The example you have given is excellent and your question "How can we encourage teachers to support other teachers that are tackling these projects?" is a good one. I think part of the answer is to keep talking about the ideas we have. Offer suggestions and be willing to fail with each other.If administrators would support these types of teaching and learning and let the "data" take a back seat, teachers would be less afraid of getting out of their comfort zone.
DeleteI love collaborative learning projects. What I struggle with is the group that spends three or four days on a project and ends up with a conclusion far from reality. What went wrong with those students? Discovery lessons can be very powerful, it is fantastic when students reach the same conclusions about pendulums that Galileo did, but was more harm done to those students that didn't? Was it the teachers fault? or the students for the lack of ability to make the same conclusions from the same set of data?
DeleteI think this is where the teacher's role of a supervisor (if nothing else) comes in during a collaborative learning project. If a group of students is going so far off track from where they should be headed, I believe it is the teachers job to help get them back on track before the conclusion of their project, so that, like you said, more harm is not done to those students.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a easy project. The teachers are recruiting other teachers to help. They are fine tuning the checklists for the project to make it accessible for all students. For example the school librarian teaches the students to use movie maker. What is nice about this project is that the community gets involved with it, in student led interviews and with the research. I like that at the end of this project the documentaries are show at the Jane Pickens Theater in downtown Newport. The documentaries are judged by a panel of teachers and the best three are given awards.
ReplyDeleteAfter our class on Saturday and reading the assigned pages in the Lent book I was struck by a few things. I had to laugh at the part of the Lent book that talked about reading strategies that were to be used in every class, because there is a poster of them posted in every classroom in our building. Lent made me feel vindicated. I have never been able to successfully use all of the reading strategies on the poster in my room that I am suppose to have the students do when reading the text, some just don’t make sense in the study of our science text. Each content area has a set of skills that must be learned to learn from text, and those skills must be directly taught. The context of content is vital in our cognition. It sets the parameters for our thinking.
ReplyDeleteLent argues at one point (p4-5) content and cognition cannot be separate in the study of a topic. What content and how much content is needed to prime the pump for meaningful cognition to take place? Can it be different for different people, or is there a universal set of knowledge in science needed for that to happen?
Every person is different; I challenge my students the entire year to answer one question “What do I have to do to learn new material?” If they can answer that question they know how to be successful students, they than just have to apply it.
I agree that not every strategy will work in every discipline. I believe, as you said, that specific discipline-based strategies need to be explicitly taught. Moreover, students need to be able to pick which strategies to use when. They need to know how to apply these strategies. That's what makes your key question so important: "What do they have to do to learn new material?" Ay the end of the day, don't we want our students to simply know how to learn and enjoy the process of learning?
DeleteHi John,
DeleteThe idea of "strategy fatigue for for teachers" (Lent 3) stood out to me too. I have a giant poster in my classroom provided to me by our ELA curriculum, Springboard (The College Board). There over over 15 acronyms for strategies on that one poster. There are lessons embedded in our curriculum that are simply practice in the strategy. I feel like, as Lent said, "The difficult with strategies turned out to be twofold. First, as noted earlier, general across-the-curriculum strategies frequently turned into exercises rather than thoughtful tools for reading." (3) We are not showing them the importance of it, when to use it, how to use it within the content. They are used as standalone procedures! I agree with you when you said that CONTENT is what provides the CONTEXT.
Last week’s class and this week’s Lent reading really tie together for me through the “back pack” idea, like most other people have said. What connects for me is that literacy is different in each content area. On page 9, Danita Hubert really focuses on the idea of constant questioning. But not just asking any questions, asking the RIGHT questions. Connecting literacy to mathematics seems possible, but also seems difficult. Asking the right questions seems like one way to start disciplinary literacy in math. I also like the idea of project based learning in mathematics. This would allow the students to connect math to real life problems, and would teach them how to come up with the right questions in order to solve the problem. I think currently a lot of math courses are geared toward memorization. Instead of having students memorize formula’s, we should be teaching them where these formula’s come from, and what do these formula’s mean? As an undergraduate, I have recently visited many middle schools, and elementary schools. I am pleased to say that I have seen collaborative learning, and delving deeper into topics happening on a day to day basis in most of the schools I have visited. Unfortunately, it is not EVERY school. My question is, how do we get everyone on the same page? Like most people have said, it takes time for new policies to catch up to what us teachers know now. But if so many of us know it, is there a way to get everyone on board sooner?
ReplyDeleteKristi, you said a lot of important things in your post. First off, I really want to stress this idea of students coming up with their own questions, as well as teachers asking the right questions. I believe that, as teachers, we are often asking kids questions, and not allowing them the time, space, and skills to ask their own questions. Inquiry is a crucial path towards learning for many students and subject matters.
DeleteAs far as the issue of "getting everyone on the same page", I think this might bring us back to this idea of multiple literacies. Once again, let's think about how varied the American teaching pool is. Teachers come from different universities with different curricula, they come from different personal backgrounds, and they come with varying educational philosophies. Now, no matter how much the state can try to unify the expectations for teachers, it seems that this is simply not possible. Nor do I think that making teachers all the same is good or beneficial to students. Why not just have robo-teachers? What I am saying is that perhaps we need to begin looking at teacher education in a different way. Perhaps we need to reconfigure what our goals are for our students. Maybe those goals wouldn't be academic at all. The possibilities are infinite, yet it often feels that our systems are keeping us in this closed, neat box, when there is so much outside the box to be explored.
Hi Kristi,
DeleteIt's not a simple matter of learning something and trying to spread it nationwide. Because one idea work in one district it may not work in others. Some many different factors are involved. I do agree with you wholeheartedly about tying math in real world situations, so many of our students will not major in mathematics but want to know why they're doing that type of math. If we can consistently tie it into life situations we may be able to spark more interest.
Recognizing our "backpacks" or funds of knowledge--and realizing that this exists within our students to varying degrees--is an important take-away from the first class. It is also a very important thing to incorporate into our teaching. I think one of the most important aspects, as Lent (2011) states, is recognizing the skill sets required for a student to be successful across content areas. Science texts require metalinguistic knowledge of passive voice and the ability to read charts and graphs for relevant data. In order to successfully teach students, a science teacher would then have to be able to identify and build this knowledge into lessons. However, I think one of the most important issues raised in the class is that, regardless of content area, we cannot be entirely focused on teaching content. There is a larger issue of access to that content, and that sometimes requires teachers (as well as students) to go outside of their comfort zones.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hayley, that students need to be taught to read charts or graphs in different subject areas. It is considered literacy in the subject area. Teachers should use a mini-lesson to review the chart or graph that is used in science, math and social studies.
DeleteOne takeaway for our first class was the "backpack" theory. I definitely see how kids can be put into labels and not feel like they're equipped. but a simple class discussion about bringing your own ideas and gifts to the table would be well worth it. I must say I felt a little overwhelmed but came o the realization that what I had in my backpack is super important to the my middle school students. In the Lent book what I was glad to see that was realized was the idea that strategies are important, but the student shouldn't be inundated with just that. They need to be how and when those strategies come in play as well as the content that goes with that strategy.
ReplyDeleteIn mathematics I find the need to teach a strategy but they definitely need to content/ foundation work beforehand. I also can relate to the section that discussed showing how to engage the student in disciplinary lit. by asking the higher level thinking questions. Why did you choose that strategy? What were you thinking when you did that? How else could you have done this?
The last section of your post takes me back to when I was in elementary/middle school. I used to hate being asked "Why did you do this? What were you thinking?" Because I didn't know what the answer was supposed to be! It wasn't a question we were asked regularly, and I thought there was one right answer, like most other things in school! It is this experience that drives me to one day have a classroom where we are frequently reflecting on our thinking, and emphasizing that everyone thinks differently!
DeleteAs an English teacher who teaches both "CORE" content ELA and Literacy (Tier 1 and 2) instruction, I THOUGHT I would be able to define what reading is/what literacy is during the first class. As Professor Horwitz was reading the children's book to us, I thought she was just exposing us to childrne's literature as another avenue of accessing text. I THOUGHT she was using this as an intro to langauge aquisition and the importance of reading to children as they learn to read. After our discussion, I was able to develop a clearer definition as to what literacy/reading was. It isn't a neat/clean definition like I wanted it to be. It is much more ambiguous and focuses interpretation, ability to create stories (even without words), skills beyond just fluency and comprehension. This was an eye opening moment for me. As I read Lent's work I continuously tried to apply the content to my own work in the classroom/school. My concerns for my own school/faculty comes from Lent's point about literacy going through a "paradign shift" and moving into "a more discipline-based approach." (4). I don't feel like we prepared our other discipline teachers for this shift over the years. We neglect to support teachers with literacy strategies and understanding in science, math and history the most. We support ELA because we know from years and years that, "this is where reading happens" and we just haven't moved on from that mentality. When Lent mentions the idea of "specialized texts" in other subjects, this further proves the point made earlier on in Chapter 1 about strategies being used the best when students understand the content (3). They need to support one another and neither can act as a standalone. While this all may "sound scary" to teachers of disciplines who may not normally focused on contnet literacy, Lent states that, "along with this more reasonable approach comes a sense of empowerment for content-area teachers."(2). This is an opportunity to further develop content area teachers in literacy, but showcase their talents because they are using the content side by side with the new strategy.
ReplyDeleteI agree and thought that I'd be able to define literacy as well. But it isn't easy, it isn't clear. I think that most of us have accepted a very rigid and confined view of what literacy is. I still don't exactly know what I think it might be at this time after class. But going forward I'll definately be more mindful and open to other literacies that students bring into a classroom.
DeleteI think that I have the same takeaways as many of the rest of you. The concept of the back pack in relationship to literacy was not groundbreaking but it was incredibly relatable. There are tons of things that we know, things that we or our students are good at. I think that when you think about literacy in that way then the goal should be to take it a step further. Something in one back pack might be very usable in another. Something in one back might help to gain another. I guess what I’m really trying to say is that if students can learn to use their strengths, make relationships from what they currently know to concepts and ideas they don’t know, then we can expand or increase their literacy. We can help them gain new back packs!
ReplyDeleteLent said that blitz strategies in reading showed no significant increase in reading literacy for seniors. I don’t know what the strategies are that were used. But I bet that they were very set and defined with very little flexibility in them. Most likely a singular strategy appeal to a specific type of learner. It fits into only one back pack. I think we get so focused at times that the blinders go on and we can see only one thing.
I thought of Zoom. If we are looking at things in only one way we’ll never see the whole or bigger picture. I think that we need to look at the bigger picture. I think that we need to help students do that as well. I think they need to learn to be able to make connections and create relations from one back pack to another so that they can gain more.