From now on, the objective of this blog will be a little different. Instead of documenting my analysis of our weekly readings each week, I will be reporting on my experience developing a unit of study that brings literacy and science together. I will be teaching my unit for five weeks with the fifth graders at Still Waters Elementary. My unit will focus on ecology, specifically organisms that are producers, consumers, and decomposers.
One aim of my unit is to deepen student knowledge of ecological science, of course. Another equally important goal, however, is to affect students' capacity for communicating their ideas about ecology. To accomplish this goal, I plan to incorporate a variety of literacy tasks into my curriculum. One assessment I am particularly excited to apply has students recreating our ecology lessons for younger grades. How will they use their own words to transmit their science knowledge? What format will their transmissions take? How, if at all, will technology play a role?
Five weeks is not a long time. I know this. But my ambitions are high, and the teachers and students have enthusiastically embraced my ideas so far. Now to set some concrete plans on paper…
My unit will address the following Indiana Science Standards for Grade 5:
SCI.5.3 2010 - Life Science
Observe, describe and ask questions about how changes in one part of an ecosystem create changes in other parts of the ecosystem.
SCI.5.3.1 2010
Observe and classify common Indiana organisms as producers, consumers, decomposers, predator and prey based on their relationships and interactions with other organisms in their ecosystem.
SCI.5.3.2 2010
Investigate the action of different decomposers and compare their role in an ecosystem with that of producers and consumers.
Literacy Standards next week!
Monday, February 17, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Try, Try Again
When I was student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I attended several lectures by Catherine Compton-Lilly, author of Sounding Out: A Pervasive Cultural Model of Reading. I even chatted with her in the hallway a few times, although she wouldn't remember me. It is odd for me to see Dr. Compton-Lilly listed as a visiting assistant professor here, because I know her as one of the well-established, all-star faculty members in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction there. Funny to think she could have ever been anything else, although of course this is the case.
I hope that you will believe me when I say I am not namedropping because I am a jerk. I am namedropping because I have had several experiences teaching reading since first encountering Compton-Lilly's call to actively challenge the myth of "sounding out." These experiences reflect, despite my best efforts, just how difficult letting go of this prominent cultural model for reading can be. For example, Compton-Lilly describes how she consciously avoids the phrase "sound it out" during her reading instruction. I have worked for some years to excise "sound it out" from my own instruction. Yet it is still there! Directing students to "sound it out" is one of the first strategies that comes to my mind when I am reading with them. Usually, I can catch myself before I ask students to sound it out, but occasionally, it slips through.
I do not ask students to sound it out because I believe it is a valid way of teaching reading. After careful reflection on my teaching practice, I believe my inclination toward "sound it out" remains because I am not confident in my depth of knowledge of reading strategies. That is, I panic when a reader starts to struggle and do not allow my training to overtake my (wrong) instincts. "Sound it out!" is a panicked plea, rather than a contemplative response.
Reading this article was a reminder that I can do better. More importantly, it was a reminder of why providing students with a wide range of useful word-solving strategies matters. Compton-Lilly's point that "sounding out" (and other issues of pronunciation) privileges "standard" forms of English and may cause students (and adults) that experience difficulties with pronunciation to feel like failures is a powerful rationale to expand our students' range of reading strategies. That "sounding out" is an ineffective strategy is almost beside the point.
Reference:
I hope that you will believe me when I say I am not namedropping because I am a jerk. I am namedropping because I have had several experiences teaching reading since first encountering Compton-Lilly's call to actively challenge the myth of "sounding out." These experiences reflect, despite my best efforts, just how difficult letting go of this prominent cultural model for reading can be. For example, Compton-Lilly describes how she consciously avoids the phrase "sound it out" during her reading instruction. I have worked for some years to excise "sound it out" from my own instruction. Yet it is still there! Directing students to "sound it out" is one of the first strategies that comes to my mind when I am reading with them. Usually, I can catch myself before I ask students to sound it out, but occasionally, it slips through.
I do not ask students to sound it out because I believe it is a valid way of teaching reading. After careful reflection on my teaching practice, I believe my inclination toward "sound it out" remains because I am not confident in my depth of knowledge of reading strategies. That is, I panic when a reader starts to struggle and do not allow my training to overtake my (wrong) instincts. "Sound it out!" is a panicked plea, rather than a contemplative response.
Reading this article was a reminder that I can do better. More importantly, it was a reminder of why providing students with a wide range of useful word-solving strategies matters. Compton-Lilly's point that "sounding out" (and other issues of pronunciation) privileges "standard" forms of English and may cause students (and adults) that experience difficulties with pronunciation to feel like failures is a powerful rationale to expand our students' range of reading strategies. That "sounding out" is an ineffective strategy is almost beside the point.
Reference:
Compton-Lilly, C. (2005). " Sounding Out": A Pervasive Cultural Model of Reading. Language Arts, 82(6), 441-451.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
A Peek at Kindergarten
This week, we start our spring early field experience placements. I've been assigned to a kindergarten class. Although I'm excited to see and learn all that I can about those little folks, I'm also very nervous. Kindergarten is a special place--a place where, for many kids, all that is magical and just about learning and school is still intact. To preserve that wonder is a big charge. To infuse all of that kindergarten magic with learning seems a still more daunting task!
It calmed me, then, to read Cusumano's "Every Mark on the Page." Not only was it a peek into what exactly writing looks like in kindergarten/first grade, it reminded me how flexible we should be with not only what counts as writing, but with children's learning processes as well. That is, that we should look for ways to be a student's champion--to celebrate what they know--instead of taking an inventory of the ways the student is wrong.
Another useful aspect of the Cusumano article was that reminded me what writing is for. It is not about making shapes on a page, it is about making meaning. The act of decoding children's writing is the act of uncovering a story. I like stories, and this approach appeals to me greatly! Finding the elements of a story--the author's voice, its beginning, middle, and end--now becomes a way of interacting with the child's imagination as well as their writing proficiency.
Cusumano also mentions the important role of drawing in a kindergartener's writing. Of course I've seen children draw before. However, I've never considered those drawings as a way of planning for writing. This seems so obvious, that I am embarrassed by my oversight! Of course children use drawings to tell their stories! It is lapses like this that make me nervous to teach kindergarten. But I'm determined not to let my fear win. I'd say "they're just kindergarteners," but we all know they are so, so much more!
It calmed me, then, to read Cusumano's "Every Mark on the Page." Not only was it a peek into what exactly writing looks like in kindergarten/first grade, it reminded me how flexible we should be with not only what counts as writing, but with children's learning processes as well. That is, that we should look for ways to be a student's champion--to celebrate what they know--instead of taking an inventory of the ways the student is wrong.
Another useful aspect of the Cusumano article was that reminded me what writing is for. It is not about making shapes on a page, it is about making meaning. The act of decoding children's writing is the act of uncovering a story. I like stories, and this approach appeals to me greatly! Finding the elements of a story--the author's voice, its beginning, middle, and end--now becomes a way of interacting with the child's imagination as well as their writing proficiency.
Cusumano also mentions the important role of drawing in a kindergartener's writing. Of course I've seen children draw before. However, I've never considered those drawings as a way of planning for writing. This seems so obvious, that I am embarrassed by my oversight! Of course children use drawings to tell their stories! It is lapses like this that make me nervous to teach kindergarten. But I'm determined not to let my fear win. I'd say "they're just kindergarteners," but we all know they are so, so much more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)