The concept of teaching oral language in chapter 4 of Bridging English appeals to me very much. I agree with the idea that teaching speaking skills is as important in the curriculum as teaching students to read and write. Understanding how to listen, how to communicate with others, is not only critical to cognitive development, but will aid students in their adult life. Once again, this book is filled with great ideas for lesson planning. I was particularly inspired by their suggestion to integrate StoryCorps into the classroom. I have listened to vignettes from StoryCorps for several years on NPR and feel that it not only is a great concept to use in the classroom, but exemplifies perfectly why oral language is as valid as a medium as written word. There is another program through NPR called This I Believe that focuses on short essays that are written and then read aloud. StoryCorps and This I Believe would make an interesting unit; one is meaningful, spontaneous, and rather unscripted, where This I Believe is just the opposite.
Chapter 4 in Language and Reflection was an interesting companion to this chapter because Gere et al. discussed the focus of language in English Classes, but more so in the form of reading and writing, as opposed to the speaking and listening focus of Milner et al. While the sample lecture of Beth Goldman seemed interesting and her teaching style mostly affective, it seemed contrary to the discussion based teaching we have been learning about. Many of the questions I was thinking about after last week’s class were answered in the section on grammar. I am evermore convinced that explicit grammar instruction should be reserved for interested students, while it is most helpful to pick and choose topics as needed for students that do not consider ELA to be their forte.
Classroom Assessment & Concepts has some parallels to the chapter on assessment I recently read for my Content Area Reading class. However, the discussion on reliability was quite different. In the other text objectivity was treated more as something teachers must avoid when assessing students because their personal feeling about the student might interfere. The idea that a teacher might unintentionally ask questions and introduce concepts that are far too easy because s(he) doesn’t want to feel unsuccessful never occurred to me, but it makes sense. Of course, we want to feel like we are doing a good job teaching, but by only assessing our students based on what we know they know we are doing them a great disservice. Teachers do not see a holistic picture of student comprehension if they are not willing to confront failure.
I agreed with what you wrote about from Language and Reflection. I was interested in Beth’s lecture and seeing her students succeed, but I was questioning how realistic it was. I thought it was interesting that this chapter also brought up the grammar debate and that really set it in stone for me that grammar should be left up to mini lessons at this age group.
I was intrigued by the idea of a teacher asking questions that they know the students know the answer to, but I did not look much into it. I thought of it more as an accident; which is essence it probably is but some teachers, like you said, may not be willing to confront failure. You couldn't be more right when you say that this is a disservice to the student. School is about pushing students and to challenge them; not make them bored with knowledge they already know. Asking questions about information students already know can be used to get a discussion going, not as any kind of assessment.
The fourth chapter in Russell et al. discusses formative assessment, which is essentially a running inner-dialogue measuring how successful the teacher’s instruction is during the lesson. The chapter continues similar ideas from previous readings, especially that students’ demeanors clues in terms of how the teacher is doing. Two sections really stuck out to me. First, on page 106, the author notes that teachers are tempted to skip over a topic with that excuse that it will be “too hard for my students,” which “may be a realistic appraisal of student readiness, or… a way for teachers to avoid instructional disappointment.” This really illustrates how formative assessment is measuring the students as well as the teacher himself. It is tempting to avoid the disappointment that a silent, unresponsive class provokes by asking only simple, easily-answered questions, but we might also be missing a great discussion or a possible moment for educational growth. A second part of the chapter that stood out to me was the “good-bad-good” rule which we’ve discussed in class and which the author cites on page 110. This still seems like a great way to encourage a student’s progress while also targeting specific areas for improvement.
I enjoyed the chapter from Gere et al. because it offered practical suggestions for lesson ideas for material we’ll likely be teaching in the future. While I personally love Nathaniel Hawthorne and Shirley Jackson, when I think of them as a teacher, I wonder how I can possibly make them accessible to students, let alone enjoyable. This chapter presented a number of great ideas for clarifying or expanding the ideas presented in these materials. I can definitely see myself turning back to this chapter in the future as I begin my teaching career, since these lessons can serve as a broader model for different novels, too.
The Milner chapter was an interesting look at an aspect of English instruction that I never encountered much as a student: oral instruction. While I think these activities would be fun and instructional in any English class, I think they would be especially beneficial for ELL students. Most of these lessons revolve around improvisation, spontaneous speech, or assuming a role and acting accordingly. This would force ELL students into conversation without leaving room for meditation or preplanning. I think that’s a crucial aspect of learning a language that has immediate application to the world outside the class. Plus, most of these lessons just seem fun for everyone involved. I especially like “Party Quirks” (107) and the Effective Practice 4-1 (110), as they offer the opportunity to imagine a character’s motivations or really feel the atmosphere of a story.
Ian, I too, was surprised by the section of Russell that talked about skipping certain lessons in fear of them being too hard for students. As you mention, it is certainly a way for formal assessment to look at the teacher as well as the students. For a teacher to be fearful of student failure seems to me to reflect poorly on the teacher. We have to be prepared to take risks and hope for the best. I feel as though the minute we start to expect failure is the minute we are going to start receiving it from our students. The teacher’s emotions are mirrored in the students, so we need to show them that we believe in them.
Along with this I really like what you said about oral instruction being beneficial to ELL students. I’m not sure how it would work to “force” ELL students to converse, but it would definitely be a great activity for them to practice and work on different skills. This and the different materials that Gere gives us with the different books he mentions were both very interesting to me. I think, like you said, I will definitely be going back to these chapters to reference once I start my career as a teacher!
Chapter four of Classroom Assessment (Russell & Airasian, 2012) discusses the importance of the decision-making process in the classroom in accordance with formative assessment procedures. Teachers, like most people, must frequently make decisions all day. However, the decisions teachers must make affect students directly in terms of learning, assessment, and their daily lives. Teachers decide when a lesson is working for his or her students and when it is not. Russell and Airasian caution teachers to beware the difference between the students’ high interest in a topic or lesson and the actual effectiveness of it. I felt that this was a very important point. Sometimes students can become very animated in a classroom setting when discussing topics they like, but completely miss the intended objective of the lesson. This is why it is important for us, as beginning teachers, to always be on the lookout for such occurrences in a lesson and to employ “higher level questions” in order to bring the students back on track (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 114).
The concept in Classroom Assessment about asking higher level questions compares to the focus on oral learning in chapter four of Bridging English (Milner et al., 2012). Asking questions in the classroom can help students develop their oral thinking skills just like other more activity-oriented strategies such as fishbowl discussions and creative drama. Group oral exercises, according to Milner et al., inspire not only new ways of thinking, but also the achievement of “personal growth goals” including “language development, cooperative learning, risk taking, role playing, and creativity (2012, p. 102). In a world where mediums like email and texting are prevalent, it is essential to encourage the students to orally present and engage with the content in order to ensure that they will be able to function in life after school.
In Language and Reflection, Gere et al. stress the importance of teaching texts as “artifacts” because they are vehicles through which writers can express views about the human condition (1992, p. 87). In other words, the activities in the classroom should focus for the most part on the text on which the lesson is based. The chapter began with a short case-study that analyzed Beth Goldman’s text-as-an-artifact teaching style, which I thought was maybe a little too teacher-centered although it seemed quite effective. There are pros and cons, of course, to this text-centered instructional practice, but, based on what we have read, I think balancing oral learning with text-as-an-artifact instruction and student-centered learning can create a successful classroom.
I sometimes worry about the notion of forming “higher level questions” spontaneously during class. I am capable of coming up with thoughtful questions that speak to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, but it usually requires some thought and effort. Can I do it on the spur of the moment, in the midst of a busy class when I’m trying to do literally dozens of other things at once? Perhaps this is a skill that comes with practice.
Your reference to speaking and listening skills brings up what is, in my mind, one of the most important points of this week’s readings: How can we as English teachers heighten student’s cognitive functions in all forms of language, not just reading and writing? Reading and writing seem to be what most curricula focus on, but I have met too many students who are quite strong at reading or writing but cannot seem listen to instructions or discussion points, or even string sentences together orally. I am grateful that the Common Core of Learning includes speaking and listening in its criteria, because for students to be fully rounded, they need to be able to process and synthesize all forms of language, whether it be oral or written.
I really like the idea of bringing performance into the classroom. I think it does engage students and it encourages them to be a bit more involved than normal. I also agree that it enlarges the understanding of the characters by allowing the students to almost walk in their shoes. I’m just nervous there will be too many reluctant students to even get them to that point. Starting off slow and having minor roles could ease them into getting more and more involved. I personally was always a fan of getting the chance to write from the perspective of a character from a novel or a certain persona. I think that acting it out or at least verbalizing things the character is saying gets a bit deeper. Writing about it first could help the students go deeper.
Gere 4: Language and Reflection
Reading about Beth Goldman’s classroom made me think: this is the class that doesn’t truly exist; it isn’t actually real. This is just how we want our students to be. Continuing the chapter, I liked in studying language, that we can ask questions that ask the importance of certain words in the text; I think they produce unique answers that show the reader’s understanding. However, I hated these questions as a high school student. Most students would either not try to answer or make obvious statements that really weren’t answering the question. I think the environment I grew up in when going through a text in this manner is affecting my view. If I can create a classroom that encourages students to be engaged and involved, these discussions would go much better. I find myself wondering if that’s a guarantee though. I do agree that if you can get your students to appreciate the language, it will be much easier to get them to appreciate studying literature. I thought it was interesting to get to the section that talked about potentials and limitations, and there were more limitations to the practice. After going through all this, I’m really starting to wonder about this method; it doesn't appear to be all that practical.
Russell 4: Classroom Assessment
I have become a big fan or informal assessment. I think it does a much better job of measuring what students do and do not know. I appreciated the section on page 101 that broke down how to conduct informal assessment during instruction. I imagine it can be very difficult to remember to assess students during instruction, but it’s very important to do so. I liked reading the teacher responses about knowing whether their instruction was successful or not. It sounds as though we mostly know when it’s not working; as long as students are engaged and eager, we know it’s working.
I really agree with your thoughts on performance in the classroom. Some students really respond to that type of lesson and get heavily involved, while some students may be more shy and reluctant to participate. I guess you have to approach it as differentiated assessment. We expect all students to write essays, even if it's not necessarily a strength of a particular individual. Why shouldn't we expect them all to participate in a speaking exercise? I personally hated acting things out in school, especially Shakespeare, but now I think those were probably the most valuable lessons for me. They're certainly the ones I remember most from high school.
I also like your point about Beth Goldman's class seeming like an ideal, not a reality. As much as I like reading about these approaches, the textbooks don't really talk much about the problems or bumps in the road we're definitely going to run into. The teachers they talk about in the book all seem to have this mystical aura of control, but I wish there were more discussion about how to obtain that. The book talks about Beth's devotion to her craft and how that translates into her students respecting her, but I wonder how often it turns out the other way, especially for new teachers...
This week’s readings present us with varying – one might say conflicting – perspectives of language and text in the classroom. In Language and Reflection, Gere, et al examine a classroom where “the text is regarded as an artifact” (1992, p. 87). In Beth Goldman’s class, the canon is adhered to with an almost religious fervor, and students study the words in these classics as a priest might study the Bible: word by word, line by line, deconstructed and analyzed and appraised. From what I can tell, this approach assumes two things: first that English classrooms must abide by the mighty Canon, and second that text is a binding, static entity – words trapped on paper for all time, unchanging and unevolving. This notion makes me slightly wary, not only because I believe that language is always mutable and changeable but also because I believe that all art (the book, the play, the painting, the song) only becomes art when other people experience it and bring their own prior knowledge, viewpoints, and perspectives to it. A book, therefore, or any piece of text for that matter, is only as static as we allow it to be.
The other chapters bring a slightly different outlook to language. Classroom Assessment: Concepts and Applications reminds us that formative assessments are often oral, not textual, in nature. A variety of questions – diagnostic, information, challenge, action – are given as examples (Russel & Airasian, 2012, p. 113) of how language can be used to engage student learning and assess their comprehension. In Bridging English, we are presented with an entire chapter dedicated to oral literacy. The chapter’s agrument could be summed up with the simple statement, “Oral, not textual, language is the foundation of the language arts” (Milner, Milner, & Mitchell, 2007, p. 9). The oral activities included in Chapter 4 give us weeks worth of material for classes, and further support the notion that language is not and should not be bound and trapped on paper for all time, never to be changed. Language grows, evolves, develops, progresses, and advances for as long as humans use it, and we as teachers must use language to facilitate discussion, expound upon ideas, and deepen communication.
I am glad you are challenging the strict “text as an artifact” approach Gere et al. describes Beth Goldman using in Language and Reflection. I wondered about its place in the differentiated classroom as well. Although I have had some teachers and professors successfully teach in this style, I am not sure if I can see myself consistently modeling Beth’s teaching in the future. Where Beth’s style falls short, I believe, is the level of student engagement. Beth relies on her students’ abilities to pay attention to her lecture for extended periods of time. However, as we have discussed in class, this is not usually the case. Just like language, the focus of the students is always shifting. Therefore, I think you are right in this instance to turn to the other two texts for guidance on teaching and assessing through oral applications of knowledge. While as an English major, I personally love the idea of the teacher taking center stage as the expert to describe topics in literature, students at lower levels must interact with texts. Thus, perhaps we can modify the “text as an artifact” model to place the students on the stage in interpreting texts while the teacher facilitates and encourages the oral learning methods Milner et al. and Russell and Airasian support.
A big facet of formative assessment as discussed in chapter 4 of Classroom Assessment is the use of questioning techniques in the classroom. When used successfully, questioning--especially in group or class discussion--should be able to: engage students, provide a form of reinforcement and learning that goes beyond the superficial, allow students to learn from one another, and ultimately inform the teacher of what students still need to learn. Because questioning in class discussion should accomplish so many different things, it’s important that teachers use a variety of types of questions to involve students and address various needs. Essentially, questions should prompt various types of thinking and thus initiate many forms of responses.
Aside from using a variety of questioning techniques, teachers should also differentiate the types of questions asked in class so as to involve students of all abilities. The goal of each class discussion should really be to involve all students, engaging them through participation so as to elevate the level of learning taking place. Teachers can vary the way they frame questions in order to elicit responses that range in complexity. Questioning for class discussion can also be connected to a variety of approaches we have learned so far in our education classes. A few that come to mind at first are think, pair, share; do-nows, quick-writes, jig-saw readings that prep the class for discussion, and so on. There are a variety of means for preparing students for class discussion so that the questioning that goes on becomes even more effective.
Another aspect of class discussions is the development of oral language. This is addressed in chapter 4 of Bridging English. Right at the start of the chapter, in figure 4-1 Milner et al. state, “In 1965, Flanders found that almost 70 percent of talk in a typical classroom is done by teachers” (2012, p. 91). In reflecting on this study, I believe that 70 percent would be much too high a figure for my future classroom. A class where 70 percent of the talking is done by the teacher seems as though it would really be “sage on the stage” type model, rather than a student-centered approach. If the teacher is truly serving as a guide in the classroom, then that percentage should really be much lower. Students discussing and learning together should take up a large part of class.
Cassandra, I was also disturbed by the 70%. I know myself well enough to know that I am a talker. I can talk about anything and go on forever. Knowing that about myself I would like to go into the classroom with the mindset that my students should be doing all the talking and I am there to serve as their discussion guide. That is my ideal scenario. Knowing what I know about teaching, that is not always the case. No matter how well you know yourself and no matter how much you plan, you cannot account for everything.
Before we enter the classroom, we must first ask a few questions and make a few choices. Almost everything aspect of teaching is a choice. In most cases, they are personal choices. What kind of classroom do we want to run? One major choice we need to make before we even put out resumes and go on job interviews is whether or not the literary canon is important to our teaching methods and beliefs. Some teachers and schools rely heavily on the all-knowing all-encompassing literary canon. Traditionalist and classicalist are fans of teaching the canon. I am not a fan of the literary canon. I believe each person creates their own canon based on what is important to them. For some, Hawthorne and Thoreau are inaccessible and not applicable to their lives. The writing style, though impressive, can inhibit today’s readers and a variety of learning styles. I believe in creating a curriculum that uses the interests and strengths of the students to make content matter. Current novels are far more effective at reaching students than some of the literary canon pieces. We can still teach the same concepts, themes, and styles using more modern pieces.
For example, instead of teaching just The Odyssey we can scaffold it with Percy Jackson. Percy Jackson mirrors a lot of events, themes, and beliefs from The Odyssey and may be used to give kids a clearer picture of what they are reading. Instead of eliminating The Odyssey entirely, teachers could include excerpts of The Odyssey that mirror Percy Jackson. Cengage Learning produces a collection of Shakespearean plays in comic book form. All of the content is included in the comic book version. The language is simplified and the dialogue modernized. In one of the classes I observed last semester, a teacher was using a Cengage copy of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Instead of removing the original version of the play, she would put up a quote from the play each day in its original format. As a Do Now activity, she would have the students identify what is happening in the play, who are the characters in this scene, the setting, and so on. Despite many objections to the merit of comic books, the students were able to accurately identify the quotes and explain in detail what was occurring. Not only did they have a strong grasp of the story but they were also engaged and interested in the story. It allowed a variety of learners to access the content and it minimized the amount of reading required to keep up with the conceptual work of the class.
Better late than never, right? What I had originally written in response to your post was all about how much I agreed with your statements. And then it was essentially what we discussed in class. Teachers try to introduce texts from the literary canon to an audience (students) that does not match the intended audience (educated adults). What I loved about your blog post is that it provided a great way to still incorporate the canon while preparing students for it with texts that were written with young adults in mind. I reflected upon the implications of having young adult literature approved by school boards, principals, administration. If we present current young adult literature books as access points for students to delve deeper into the canon, I'm sure that administration would be more likely to jump on board. If the goal is to support students in developing a deeper understanding of the texts that they are going to find on standardized tests, then introducing current young adult literature becomes much more practical and even encouraged. As you pointed out, appropriate scaffolding needs to take place. Students can get to that upper tier of synthesis and understanding, but they need the stairs in order to get there.
In Milner’s chapter there was so much going on that I hadn’t given a lot of forethought to. Oral instruction is something that never really crossed my mind until now, but there were so many good ideas here for lessons and activities. Instruction on oral strategies is so important for students because they are moving into adulthood and are going to have more interaction with a more mature audience. Many college classes and future jobs will at some point require talking in front of a group whether it be a boss, a presentation being made, or reading allowed a piece of work, which ties in reading and writing.
This leads to something that is mentioned in Gere, the idea that writers and even readers follow a repetitive path of “planning, translating, and monitoring and revising” (Gere et al., 1992, p. 117). By building great skills in reading and writing it can help orally and vice versa. Everything really is interconnected. Gere (1992) also states that, “according to cognitive theorists, children learn language by using it in a variety of situations” (p. 116). By combining these three pieces, students can really build up their language, reading, and writing skills in the classroom and outside of it.
All of this brings me to really appreciate the section of Russell that discusses questioning. By asking good leading questions we as teachers can hold great discussions and work on students oral skills as well. “Involving the entire class and giving the right amount of wait time,” are just two of the important pieces from this section that I know we have mentioned in class before (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 115). I also just had to point out the “good-bad-good” feedback suggestion made in this chapter because I cannot keep count how many times that has come up in class now (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 110)!
I agree with your point about students learning to speak well because of the roles they will face in adulthood. We talked about “code switching” recently in one of our classes. Students will benefit if they can successfully communicate no matter what setting they find themselves in. The more we can engage our students and encourage them to voice their opinion the more confident and able they will become.
Participating in discussion and answering questions also helps students gain better access to critical thinking strategies; thinking (well) on your feet is takes a good deal of practice. This feeds directly into your discussion about using language in all its forms. You cannot have a complete understanding of a concept unless you have looked at it from as many angles as possible. I loved the point that one of the authors made about plays being meant to be read aloud! I admit I appreciate Shakespeare so much more when I am actually watching a performance… even better, reading a long with my own copy of the play.
And to bring us full circle, questions are the key to learning how to speak and listen. Our students have great ideas, and we may find that their perspectives are just as illuminating as any interpretation of literature that we find in a textbook. Questions and answers on both sides can facilitate a true community of learners.
The concept of teaching oral language in chapter 4 of Bridging English appeals to me very much. I agree with the idea that teaching speaking skills is as important in the curriculum as teaching students to read and write. Understanding how to listen, how to communicate with others, is not only critical to cognitive development, but will aid students in their adult life. Once again, this book is filled with great ideas for lesson planning. I was particularly inspired by their suggestion to integrate StoryCorps into the classroom. I have listened to vignettes from StoryCorps for several years on NPR and feel that it not only is a great concept to use in the classroom, but exemplifies perfectly why oral language is as valid as a medium as written word. There is another program through NPR called This I Believe that focuses on short essays that are written and then read aloud. StoryCorps and This I Believe would make an interesting unit; one is meaningful, spontaneous, and rather unscripted, where This I Believe is just the opposite.
ReplyDeleteChapter 4 in Language and Reflection was an interesting companion to this chapter because Gere et al. discussed the focus of language in English Classes, but more so in the form of reading and writing, as opposed to the speaking and listening focus of Milner et al. While the sample lecture of Beth Goldman seemed interesting and her teaching style mostly affective, it seemed contrary to the discussion based teaching we have been learning about. Many of the questions I was thinking about after last week’s class were answered in the section on grammar. I am evermore convinced that explicit grammar instruction should be reserved for interested students, while it is most helpful to pick and choose topics as needed for students that do not consider ELA to be their forte.
Classroom Assessment & Concepts has some parallels to the chapter on assessment I recently read for my Content Area Reading class. However, the discussion on reliability was quite different. In the other text objectivity was treated more as something teachers must avoid when assessing students because their personal feeling about the student might interfere. The idea that a teacher might unintentionally ask questions and introduce concepts that are far too easy because s(he) doesn’t want to feel unsuccessful never occurred to me, but it makes sense. Of course, we want to feel like we are doing a good job teaching, but by only assessing our students based on what we know they know we are doing them a great disservice. Teachers do not see a holistic picture of student comprehension if they are not willing to confront failure.
Trish,
DeleteI agreed with what you wrote about from Language and Reflection. I was interested in Beth’s lecture and seeing her students succeed, but I was questioning how realistic it was. I thought it was interesting that this chapter also brought up the grammar debate and that really set it in stone for me that grammar should be left up to mini lessons at this age group.
I was intrigued by the idea of a teacher asking questions that they know the students know the answer to, but I did not look much into it. I thought of it more as an accident; which is essence it probably is but some teachers, like you said, may not be willing to confront failure. You couldn't be more right when you say that this is a disservice to the student. School is about pushing students and to challenge them; not make them bored with knowledge they already know. Asking questions about information students already know can be used to get a discussion going, not as any kind of assessment.
The fourth chapter in Russell et al. discusses formative assessment, which is essentially a running inner-dialogue measuring how successful the teacher’s instruction is during the lesson. The chapter continues similar ideas from previous readings, especially that students’ demeanors clues in terms of how the teacher is doing. Two sections really stuck out to me. First, on page 106, the author notes that teachers are tempted to skip over a topic with that excuse that it will be “too hard for my students,” which “may be a realistic appraisal of student readiness, or… a way for teachers to avoid instructional disappointment.” This really illustrates how formative assessment is measuring the students as well as the teacher himself. It is tempting to avoid the disappointment that a silent, unresponsive class provokes by asking only simple, easily-answered questions, but we might also be missing a great discussion or a possible moment for educational growth. A second part of the chapter that stood out to me was the “good-bad-good” rule which we’ve discussed in class and which the author cites on page 110. This still seems like a great way to encourage a student’s progress while also targeting specific areas for improvement.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the chapter from Gere et al. because it offered practical suggestions for lesson ideas for material we’ll likely be teaching in the future. While I personally love Nathaniel Hawthorne and Shirley Jackson, when I think of them as a teacher, I wonder how I can possibly make them accessible to students, let alone enjoyable. This chapter presented a number of great ideas for clarifying or expanding the ideas presented in these materials. I can definitely see myself turning back to this chapter in the future as I begin my teaching career, since these lessons can serve as a broader model for different novels, too.
The Milner chapter was an interesting look at an aspect of English instruction that I never encountered much as a student: oral instruction. While I think these activities would be fun and instructional in any English class, I think they would be especially beneficial for ELL students. Most of these lessons revolve around improvisation, spontaneous speech, or assuming a role and acting accordingly. This would force ELL students into conversation without leaving room for meditation or preplanning. I think that’s a crucial aspect of learning a language that has immediate application to the world outside the class. Plus, most of these lessons just seem fun for everyone involved. I especially like “Party Quirks” (107) and the Effective Practice 4-1 (110), as they offer the opportunity to imagine a character’s motivations or really feel the atmosphere of a story.
Ian, I too, was surprised by the section of Russell that talked about skipping certain lessons in fear of them being too hard for students. As you mention, it is certainly a way for formal assessment to look at the teacher as well as the students. For a teacher to be fearful of student failure seems to me to reflect poorly on the teacher. We have to be prepared to take risks and hope for the best. I feel as though the minute we start to expect failure is the minute we are going to start receiving it from our students. The teacher’s emotions are mirrored in the students, so we need to show them that we believe in them.
DeleteAlong with this I really like what you said about oral instruction being beneficial to ELL students. I’m not sure how it would work to “force” ELL students to converse, but it would definitely be a great activity for them to practice and work on different skills. This and the different materials that Gere gives us with the different books he mentions were both very interesting to me. I think, like you said, I will definitely be going back to these chapters to reference once I start my career as a teacher!
Chapter four of Classroom Assessment (Russell & Airasian, 2012) discusses the importance of the decision-making process in the classroom in accordance with formative assessment procedures. Teachers, like most people, must frequently make decisions all day. However, the decisions teachers must make affect students directly in terms of learning, assessment, and their daily lives. Teachers decide when a lesson is working for his or her students and when it is not. Russell and Airasian caution teachers to beware the difference between the students’ high interest in a topic or lesson and the actual effectiveness of it. I felt that this was a very important point. Sometimes students can become very animated in a classroom setting when discussing topics they like, but completely miss the intended objective of the lesson. This is why it is important for us, as beginning teachers, to always be on the lookout for such occurrences in a lesson and to employ “higher level questions” in order to bring the students back on track (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 114).
ReplyDeleteThe concept in Classroom Assessment about asking higher level questions compares to the focus on oral learning in chapter four of Bridging English (Milner et al., 2012). Asking questions in the classroom can help students develop their oral thinking skills just like other more activity-oriented strategies such as fishbowl discussions and creative drama. Group oral exercises, according to Milner et al., inspire not only new ways of thinking, but also the achievement of “personal growth goals” including “language development, cooperative learning, risk taking, role playing, and creativity (2012, p. 102). In a world where mediums like email and texting are prevalent, it is essential to encourage the students to orally present and engage with the content in order to ensure that they will be able to function in life after school.
In Language and Reflection, Gere et al. stress the importance of teaching texts as “artifacts” because they are vehicles through which writers can express views about the human condition (1992, p. 87). In other words, the activities in the classroom should focus for the most part on the text on which the lesson is based. The chapter began with a short case-study that analyzed Beth Goldman’s text-as-an-artifact teaching style, which I thought was maybe a little too teacher-centered although it seemed quite effective. There are pros and cons, of course, to this text-centered instructional practice, but, based on what we have read, I think balancing oral learning with text-as-an-artifact instruction and student-centered learning can create a successful classroom.
Kate,
DeleteI sometimes worry about the notion of forming “higher level questions” spontaneously during class. I am capable of coming up with thoughtful questions that speak to the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, but it usually requires some thought and effort. Can I do it on the spur of the moment, in the midst of a busy class when I’m trying to do literally dozens of other things at once? Perhaps this is a skill that comes with practice.
Your reference to speaking and listening skills brings up what is, in my mind, one of the most important points of this week’s readings: How can we as English teachers heighten student’s cognitive functions in all forms of language, not just reading and writing? Reading and writing seem to be what most curricula focus on, but I have met too many students who are quite strong at reading or writing but cannot seem listen to instructions or discussion points, or even string sentences together orally. I am grateful that the Common Core of Learning includes speaking and listening in its criteria, because for students to be fully rounded, they need to be able to process and synthesize all forms of language, whether it be oral or written.
Milner 4: Bridging English
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of bringing performance into the classroom. I think it does engage students and it encourages them to be a bit more involved than normal. I also agree that it enlarges the understanding of the characters by allowing the students to almost walk in their shoes. I’m just nervous there will be too many reluctant students to even get them to that point. Starting off slow and having minor roles could ease them into getting more and more involved. I personally was always a fan of getting the chance to write from the perspective of a character from a novel or a certain persona. I think that acting it out or at least verbalizing things the character is saying gets a bit deeper. Writing about it first could help the students go deeper.
Gere 4: Language and Reflection
Reading about Beth Goldman’s classroom made me think: this is the class that doesn’t truly exist; it isn’t actually real. This is just how we want our students to be. Continuing the chapter, I liked in studying language, that we can ask questions that ask the importance of certain words in the text; I think they produce unique answers that show the reader’s understanding. However, I hated these questions as a high school student. Most students would either not try to answer or make obvious statements that really weren’t answering the question. I think the environment I grew up in when going through a text in this manner is affecting my view. If I can create a classroom that encourages students to be engaged and involved, these discussions would go much better. I find myself wondering if that’s a guarantee though. I do agree that if you can get your students to appreciate the language, it will be much easier to get them to appreciate studying literature. I thought it was interesting to get to the section that talked about potentials and limitations, and there were more limitations to the practice. After going through all this, I’m really starting to wonder about this method; it doesn't appear to be all that practical.
Russell 4: Classroom Assessment
I have become a big fan or informal assessment. I think it does a much better job of measuring what students do and do not know. I appreciated the section on page 101 that broke down how to conduct informal assessment during instruction. I imagine it can be very difficult to remember to assess students during instruction, but it’s very important to do so. I liked reading the teacher responses about knowing whether their instruction was successful or not. It sounds as though we mostly know when it’s not working; as long as students are engaged and eager, we know it’s working.
Briana,
DeleteI really agree with your thoughts on performance in the classroom. Some students really respond to that type of lesson and get heavily involved, while some students may be more shy and reluctant to participate. I guess you have to approach it as differentiated assessment. We expect all students to write essays, even if it's not necessarily a strength of a particular individual. Why shouldn't we expect them all to participate in a speaking exercise? I personally hated acting things out in school, especially Shakespeare, but now I think those were probably the most valuable lessons for me. They're certainly the ones I remember most from high school.
I also like your point about Beth Goldman's class seeming like an ideal, not a reality. As much as I like reading about these approaches, the textbooks don't really talk much about the problems or bumps in the road we're definitely going to run into. The teachers they talk about in the book all seem to have this mystical aura of control, but I wish there were more discussion about how to obtain that. The book talks about Beth's devotion to her craft and how that translates into her students respecting her, but I wonder how often it turns out the other way, especially for new teachers...
This week’s readings present us with varying – one might say conflicting – perspectives of language and text in the classroom. In Language and Reflection, Gere, et al examine a classroom where “the text is regarded as an artifact” (1992, p. 87). In Beth Goldman’s class, the canon is adhered to with an almost religious fervor, and students study the words in these classics as a priest might study the Bible: word by word, line by line, deconstructed and analyzed and appraised. From what I can tell, this approach assumes two things: first that English classrooms must abide by the mighty Canon, and second that text is a binding, static entity – words trapped on paper for all time, unchanging and unevolving. This notion makes me slightly wary, not only because I believe that language is always mutable and changeable but also because I believe that all art (the book, the play, the painting, the song) only becomes art when other people experience it and bring their own prior knowledge, viewpoints, and perspectives to it. A book, therefore, or any piece of text for that matter, is only as static as we allow it to be.
ReplyDeleteThe other chapters bring a slightly different outlook to language. Classroom Assessment: Concepts and Applications reminds us that formative assessments are often oral, not textual, in nature. A variety of questions – diagnostic, information, challenge, action – are given as examples (Russel & Airasian, 2012, p. 113) of how language can be used to engage student learning and assess their comprehension. In Bridging English, we are presented with an entire chapter dedicated to oral literacy. The chapter’s agrument could be summed up with the simple statement, “Oral, not textual, language is the foundation of the language arts” (Milner, Milner, & Mitchell, 2007, p. 9). The oral activities included in Chapter 4 give us weeks worth of material for classes, and further support the notion that language is not and should not be bound and trapped on paper for all time, never to be changed. Language grows, evolves, develops, progresses, and advances for as long as humans use it, and we as teachers must use language to facilitate discussion, expound upon ideas, and deepen communication.
Scott,
DeleteI am glad you are challenging the strict “text as an artifact” approach Gere et al. describes Beth Goldman using in Language and Reflection. I wondered about its place in the differentiated classroom as well. Although I have had some teachers and professors successfully teach in this style, I am not sure if I can see myself consistently modeling Beth’s teaching in the future. Where Beth’s style falls short, I believe, is the level of student engagement. Beth relies on her students’ abilities to pay attention to her lecture for extended periods of time. However, as we have discussed in class, this is not usually the case. Just like language, the focus of the students is always shifting. Therefore, I think you are right in this instance to turn to the other two texts for guidance on teaching and assessing through oral applications of knowledge. While as an English major, I personally love the idea of the teacher taking center stage as the expert to describe topics in literature, students at lower levels must interact with texts. Thus, perhaps we can modify the “text as an artifact” model to place the students on the stage in interpreting texts while the teacher facilitates and encourages the oral learning methods Milner et al. and Russell and Airasian support.
A big facet of formative assessment as discussed in chapter 4 of Classroom Assessment is the use of questioning techniques in the classroom. When used successfully, questioning--especially in group or class discussion--should be able to: engage students, provide a form of reinforcement and learning that goes beyond the superficial, allow students to learn from one another, and ultimately inform the teacher of what students still need to learn. Because questioning in class discussion should accomplish so many different things, it’s important that teachers use a variety of types of questions to involve students and address various needs. Essentially, questions should prompt various types of thinking and thus initiate many forms of responses.
ReplyDeleteAside from using a variety of questioning techniques, teachers should also differentiate the types of questions asked in class so as to involve students of all abilities. The goal of each class discussion should really be to involve all students, engaging them through participation so as to elevate the level of learning taking place. Teachers can vary the way they frame questions in order to elicit responses that range in complexity. Questioning for class discussion can also be connected to a variety of approaches we have learned so far in our education classes. A few that come to mind at first are think, pair, share; do-nows, quick-writes, jig-saw readings that prep the class for discussion, and so on. There are a variety of means for preparing students for class discussion so that the questioning that goes on becomes even more effective.
Another aspect of class discussions is the development of oral language. This is addressed in chapter 4 of Bridging English. Right at the start of the chapter, in figure 4-1 Milner et al. state, “In 1965, Flanders found that almost 70 percent of talk in a typical classroom is done by teachers” (2012, p. 91). In reflecting on this study, I believe that 70 percent would be much too high a figure for my future classroom. A class where 70 percent of the talking is done by the teacher seems as though it would really be “sage on the stage” type model, rather than a student-centered approach. If the teacher is truly serving as a guide in the classroom, then that percentage should really be much lower. Students discussing and learning together should take up a large part of class.
Cassandra,
DeleteI was also disturbed by the 70%. I know myself well enough to know that I am a talker. I can talk about anything and go on forever. Knowing that about myself I would like to go into the classroom with the mindset that my students should be doing all the talking and I am there to serve as their discussion guide. That is my ideal scenario. Knowing what I know about teaching, that is not always the case. No matter how well you know yourself and no matter how much you plan, you cannot account for everything.
Questioning and Choices
ReplyDeleteBefore we enter the classroom, we must first ask a few questions and make a few choices. Almost everything aspect of teaching is a choice. In most cases, they are personal choices. What kind of classroom do we want to run? One major choice we need to make before we even put out resumes and go on job interviews is whether or not the literary canon is important to our teaching methods and beliefs. Some teachers and schools rely heavily on the all-knowing all-encompassing literary canon. Traditionalist and classicalist are fans of teaching the canon. I am not a fan of the literary canon. I believe each person creates their own canon based on what is important to them. For some, Hawthorne and Thoreau are inaccessible and not applicable to their lives. The writing style, though impressive, can inhibit today’s readers and a variety of learning styles. I believe in creating a curriculum that uses the interests and strengths of the students to make content matter. Current novels are far more effective at reaching students than some of the literary canon pieces. We can still teach the same concepts, themes, and styles using more modern pieces.
For example, instead of teaching just The Odyssey we can scaffold it with Percy Jackson. Percy Jackson mirrors a lot of events, themes, and beliefs from The Odyssey and may be used to give kids a clearer picture of what they are reading. Instead of eliminating The Odyssey entirely, teachers could include excerpts of The Odyssey that mirror Percy Jackson. Cengage Learning produces a collection of Shakespearean plays in comic book form. All of the content is included in the comic book version. The language is simplified and the dialogue modernized. In one of the classes I observed last semester, a teacher was using a Cengage copy of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Instead of removing the original version of the play, she would put up a quote from the play each day in its original format. As a Do Now activity, she would have the students identify what is happening in the play, who are the characters in this scene, the setting, and so on. Despite many objections to the merit of comic books, the students were able to accurately identify the quotes and explain in detail what was occurring. Not only did they have a strong grasp of the story but they were also engaged and interested in the story. It allowed a variety of learners to access the content and it minimized the amount of reading required to keep up with the conceptual work of the class.
Better late than never, right?
DeleteWhat I had originally written in response to your post was all about how much I agreed with your statements. And then it was essentially what we discussed in class. Teachers try to introduce texts from the literary canon to an audience (students) that does not match the intended audience (educated adults). What I loved about your blog post is that it provided a great way to still incorporate the canon while preparing students for it with texts that were written with young adults in mind.
I reflected upon the implications of having young adult literature approved by school boards, principals, administration. If we present current young adult literature books as access points for students to delve deeper into the canon, I'm sure that administration would be more likely to jump on board. If the goal is to support students in developing a deeper understanding of the texts that they are going to find on standardized tests, then introducing current young adult literature becomes much more practical and even encouraged. As you pointed out, appropriate scaffolding needs to take place. Students can get to that upper tier of synthesis and understanding, but they need the stairs in order to get there.
In Milner’s chapter there was so much going on that I hadn’t given a lot of forethought to. Oral instruction is something that never really crossed my mind until now, but there were so many good ideas here for lessons and activities. Instruction on oral strategies is so important for students because they are moving into adulthood and are going to have more interaction with a more mature audience. Many college classes and future jobs will at some point require talking in front of a group whether it be a boss, a presentation being made, or reading allowed a piece of work, which ties in reading and writing.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to something that is mentioned in Gere, the idea that writers and even readers follow a repetitive path of “planning, translating, and monitoring and revising” (Gere et al., 1992, p. 117). By building great skills in reading and writing it can help orally and vice versa. Everything really is interconnected. Gere (1992) also states that, “according to cognitive theorists, children learn language by using it in a variety of situations” (p. 116). By combining these three pieces, students can really build up their language, reading, and writing skills in the classroom and outside of it.
All of this brings me to really appreciate the section of Russell that discusses questioning. By asking good leading questions we as teachers can hold great discussions and work on students oral skills as well. “Involving the entire class and giving the right amount of wait time,” are just two of the important pieces from this section that I know we have mentioned in class before (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 115). I also just had to point out the “good-bad-good” feedback suggestion made in this chapter because I cannot keep count how many times that has come up in class now (Russell & Airasian, 2012, p. 110)!
Hi Rae,
DeleteI agree with your point about students learning to speak well because of the roles they will face in adulthood. We talked about “code switching” recently in one of our classes. Students will benefit if they can successfully communicate no matter what setting they find themselves in. The more we can engage our students and encourage them to voice their opinion the more confident and able they will become.
Participating in discussion and answering questions also helps students gain better access to critical thinking strategies; thinking (well) on your feet is takes a good deal of practice. This feeds directly into your discussion about using language in all its forms. You cannot have a complete understanding of a concept unless you have looked at it from as many angles as possible. I loved the point that one of the authors made about plays being meant to be read aloud! I admit I appreciate Shakespeare so much more when I am actually watching a performance… even better, reading a long with my own copy of the play.
And to bring us full circle, questions are the key to learning how to speak and listen. Our students have great ideas, and we may find that their perspectives are just as illuminating as any interpretation of literature that we find in a textbook. Questions and answers on both sides can facilitate a true community of learners.
~Trish