The Five Minute University!

What a great and accurate video!!  I think I may have graduated from there!!  I think so much of what Fr. Guido says rings true in education today - memorization, and ultimately, remembering very little.  His description of Spanish and Economics is spot on!  I was actually talking to one of my roommates today and I mentioned something about economics and I said 'that is the only thing I remember from economics.' 

But as much as I feel that Fr. Guido's description is accurate, I also think that while we are in classes - and even memorization to a small extent, does exercise our brains where they otherwise wouldn't be.  I was thinking about math the other day.  In high school, I had to take through Pre-Calc.  To this day, I believe I have really only used addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and a very very small amount of percentage figuring (mostly estimating) in my life.  As I was teaching math to my students these past few years, I kept thinking about why they needed to know these advanced formulas or topics, and when they would even use them in real life.  I feel like the reality is, most won't.  Continuing in that line of thinking, I think that's where Montessori schools are really great because the children mainly focus on what they want, what they are drawn too.  Chances are, those areas of interest are going to be what they end up doing in later life.  However, I think that even the things we won't use help to stretch us and exercise our brain muscles.  Even the things we struggle with.  Do I use advanced math in my own life?  No.  Was it worth it to take all the way through Pre-Calc - I don't think so, I think I could have been exploring other things.  But I think it helps students to be more well-rounded and stretch their abilities when they do things that they don't love, though I think that should be in moderation!  However, I also think if a student is forced to do too much of something that they have no interest in or don't feel drawn too, school can become a turn-off and they may just shut down and disengage in all learning. 

My question this week is should we require students to take advanced classes in topics they have no interest in?  Is it valuable for them to learn things that they probably will not even use in their lives?

Writing as a Vehicle for Literacy

I think it is in the Hebert article where writing is compared to a vehicle to use for reading comprehension.  This seems a very appropriate image to describe a part writing can play in the world of literacy.  It is a way to transport information from the mind into a thought as it requires students to take something they have read and express it.  As the Keys article states 'writing has potential to foster the generation of knowledge by actively translating new meanings into verbal systems.'  Writing is almost like putting the foot to the gas pedal and taking what was read and going somewhere to it, its an action! 

As I'm writing this, I'm thinking about how our blogs do this for us and for our material.  One of the important aspects I took from the Keys, Labbo, and Hebert articles is the importance of letting students drive their own writing car, so to speak, to give them the freedom to go at the pace that they have set and on the course they want to go, to allow them to make 'personal interpretations' (Keys) and personal reactions (Hebert) of and to texts and topics.  In many ways, I feel we experience this in our blogs.  We get to process our readings and take what is personally meaningful and explore it.  Writing about the readings and materials helps me to process it and take meaning from it, to think about it, and to comprehend it.  The Keys article gives the example of science - how often, writing in this content involves such strategies as fill-in-the-blanks, etc, but does 'not often consider projecting personal interpretations, hypothesis, explanations into science writing...'  I think about how much more meaning our material has when we are given the freedom to dive in and to write about it.  If we were given fill-in's, the synthesis would remain superficial.  Each content area can benefit from having students write.  I think it takes time and teaching students how to write (Hebert), but if teachers make the investment in doing this, writing can become a powerful vehicle for students to explore and comprehend material. Writing also gives the students an understanding of what it means to be an author, and through this, as Hebert points out, they can improve their reading!

The past two years, I've done writers workshop with my students and this weeks readings have really made me reflect on how I have and should use this and other strategies as a teacher and how I can improve my students writing time to help them have a better experience and get the most out of it.  I love writers workshop time.  This past year, my students would beg to do it, and they would do it for as long as I let them, and most of them would use the time productively.  I could really relate to the Labbo article and it helped me to really reflect on how I do it and what I should do differently.  I tended to do things more hands-off than most of the things I've read about writers workshop, but it has mostly been out of fear of discouraging students, so I was a little excited when I read that article and suggested teachers should 'focus more on what the child is trying to do and less on what we are trying to teach' (Labbo).  Two years ago, when I first started using WW, I was far more structured and rigid, afraid if a student didn't have a formal outline.  This past year, I tried demonstrating and suggesting to students to use some kind of formal outline, but I wasn't as strict about it.  I let them volunteer what they wanted to share and if they wanted to share.  I tried to let them tell me more about their writing and decide what form of writing they wanted to use and how they wanted to approach it.  I feel like I can see the difference in my students desires to write.  It made a big difference allowing them to choose which tools they used that I provided.  I am thankful for the Labbo article because it helps me to be more intentional about how I approach my WW - I had already started changing some of the things I did, but out of fear, that article helps me to be intentional and confident in how I will approach it!! 

I felt like the Hebert reading was really valuable, practical, and useful for really applying to ones teaching, evidenced where it says 'practices in this report should be used by educators in a flexible and thoughtful way to support student learning' (p 5).  I thought the entire article was really good, but one thing that really stuck out to me was more the actual style of the article.  I was thinking about it compared to some of the other recent readings and I just feel like it was much more easy to read and to comprehend....I was wondering if anyone else had that experience and based on what we've learned in this course, why that might be?  :)

I guess my question for this week is focused on the Writers Workshop aspect of the reading.....from my own experience, I feel that I've learned the value and importance of giving students freedom in writing, but practically speaking, students must write a five paragraphed essay of different types in middle school and even more in high school.  Practically speaking, how do we balance freedom in writing and teaching the formalities?

The Sport of Academic Language

 

 

Academic language sure seems like an educational sport.  There is team-work, practice, learning of skills, a coach, etc that all work together to, hopefully create a win in the learning category.

 

 

In Chapter 6, Buehl brings up the idea of students wanting to imitate different sports figures and their 'moves.'  He specifically applies this metaphor to literacy saying that just as sports players have moves to win their sports, 'proficient readers have also established a repertoire of successful moves that enable them to handle a wide range of texts for a variety of useful purposes' (p 225).  Throughout the different readings this week, this is what really gave me some more clarity in the topic of academic language and how we can support our students in this.  Just as a coach is not present to play the game for the players, the teacher is there to give students the strategies and game plans/plays to go out on the court and play the best game they can.  All the different study skills and practices that Buehl went over seem comparable to plays a coach would provide for the players.  I like when he talks about how we must use the learning strategies - how he focuses on a solution to the problems that can block student learning and comprehension.  Particularly important, I think, is when he points out that  there the strategies shouldn't be limited, rather, students should be given 'disciplinary- specific strategies that will vary in form and application, depending on the natue of the text and the demands of the discipline' (p 223).  Students are not made from cookie cutters, and I think this point addresses a really foundational problem where all students are given the same strategy and expected to find success with it in whatever content they are in.  Just like a sports game, where plays are often determined based on the skills and plays of the specific opposing team (it seems like each team encountered could represent a different content area), strategies for reading comprehension and using academic language are going to be different depending on what topic and what student.  But again, a strategy without proper scaffolding or knowledge of how to use it will probably be fairly useless.

 

I remember playing elementary school sports, and before we could participate in the games, we had to have 10 practices under our belts.  When I was in fifth grade, I played basketball for the first time.  I remember asking what defense and offenses meant and which side you were suppose to stand on.  I didn't have a clue....but by the time I was playing as a high school sophomore, I'd figured those basic things out! :)  The readings really seem to point to this need for students to practice to learn the basic skills and strategies for reading comprehension and for learning academic language.  These gradual release of responsibility allows students to go from learning the basics and doing the skill drills, like dibbling and shooting, to scrimmaging, to actually playing a game on their own, with the coach on the sidelines.  To me, the Interactive Reading Guide (Buehl) and other English Language Development (ELD) (Donnelly) strategies are perfect drills to help students to learn those skills and to help students grasp and master important concepts like the six characteristics of academic language that are talked about in the Nagy reading. 

 

I think one key to all of it is intention.  If a player doesn't know the point of the game is to score baskets and get the most points, they are not going to be motivated to practice or play.  They may not see how a skill they are having to drill with is going to apply to the game.  The same goes for the study skills and strategies.  For example, Buehl mentions graphic representations/organizers and how they must be used as more than chaotic representations of materials - that students must be shown several examples and their must be a scaffolding to the point where students are ready to create their own, which has more meaning.  If they don't understand the point of  the activity, their work will lack focus.

 

One more thing that stood out to me was the need for team-work.  Both Buehl and Donnelly speak to the need for that, for example, Buehl's reading guides, and the instance pointed out in Donnelly when students were asked to write a Venn Diagram, but it didn't require students to even talk or really write about the concept.  Their is a need for students to interact and share.  Just as in most sports, you can accomplish more with a team, so it is in academics, having a chance to talk with peers provides students an opportunity to put their skills in practice and get feedback and assistance in strengthening their academic muscles.

 

My question this week came to mind when I was reading the Nagy article.  It mentioned that their is usually an increase in the difficulty of academic language starting in fourth grade.  Yet, they also say the interventions don't begin until the secondary level.  I know most of what we are learning can be used at earlier grades to help lessen the need for intervention, but shouldn't the system start putting in more support when the increase in difficulty begins?  What are some preventative measures that can be taken earlier to decrease the need for intervention? 

 

 

P.S. Whoever can find a grammatical metaphor (Nagy) in this post wins!  ;)

Vocabulary: The Key Ingredient in the Recipe of Literacy

Terse:  Short and to the point.  That is one vocab word and definition I remember specifically from school.  From time to time, I don't know why, it pops in my head.  How many times have I come across this word since, very infrequently.  Every Friday during high school, no matter what grade or teacher, there would be a vocabulary test.  We had 20 vocab words we had to know and usually we would be tested on 10 of them.   I remember every Thursday night, I would make flash cards and cram my studying of them in so I could remember the definition long enough to pass the test.

When I was reading this weeks materials, one of the things that stood out to me was the fact that in the academic world, vocab is often treated as its own separate subject, set aside from contents.  The more I read, the more I come to see that vocabulary is actually very much a part of each subject, and is in fact a foundational piece, the key ingredient that without, the recipe for literacy would fall apart. 

If I could compare disciplinary literacy to a food, I'm thinking it would be cookies.  Each content would be its own type of cookie, but the vocabulary in each content - specifically the understanding of the vocabulary - would really be like the egg part of the recipe - because it is what really holds all the other ingredients together!  Forget the egg in a cookie recipe and you are most likely going to end up with a product not even a dog would want to eat!!  Vocabulary and understanding academic language is really key in students being successful in comprehending what they are reading.

There are many types of cookies out there.....and people can often add many different things to their recipe - extra cinnamon, extra chocolate chips, nuts, M&M's, etc.  There is not just one recipe for a cookie - but many, just as in academic language, there is not just one definition, rather, it is changing and often 'dependent on the social and critical contexts' (Baumann).  As I was reading, I was reflecting on how this could be a problem in that when it is being talked about, people can often be using the same phrase to describe different things, but for the most part, I think it is just like the cookies - different recipes, but really the same goal and the same common ingredients. 

After reading this weeks material, I think that there needs to be a real emphasis put on vocabulary, and using it not just separated and isolated, as my high school experience was, rather, that it needs to be mixed into the recipe of every class and content.  In high school, we were given the vocab mostly in our English class.  But the idea that vocab is the building blocks to comprehending a content is really foundational and important.  If we begin to take care of the simple idea of vocabulary (which as we see is not so simple), perhaps a lot of children, no matter their identities will begin to comprehend.  If a student doesn't understand the words being used, the text or whatever means is being used to communicate, may as well be a foreign language! 

A few other things stood out to me from the readings.  One was in the Blachowicz reading which addressed the gap in vocab knowledge between economically disadvantaged and advantaged children.  The reading said it begins in Preschool, but one thing that came to my mind is that maybe that is true as far as school goes, but really doesn't it begin when the child is a baby....because they absorb so much and grow up immersed in the language of their homes....I guess I am just thinking about different people I know who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds.  Some of them who have even gone to private schools or college still at times speak with a lower vocabulary, while some seem to speak much differently than their families. 

Another point that stood out to me was in the Blachowicz article when it spoke about the need not to just use a list of words to teach vocab, but a common philosophy and shared practice within a school or district.  Then it said there 'is no mode of instruction that is uniformly effective.'

This leads me to my question for this week:  How can we, as staffs, schools, and/or districts practically and uniformly teach vocabulary while at the same time leave room for creativity and freedom to teach in one's own style?

Also, in the Snow article, it was touched on how academic language can vary in degrees, with less academic being closer to oral language, and how students tend to like that best.  How can we reach students using less academic language with the goal of getting them to embrace higher academic language?

I do think vocabulary is the ingredient that is the key in successful reading comprehension in the different content areas and in general!

Reading Relationships: A Two-Sided Conversation

If you were going to go for a ride in a hot air balloon, and the hot air was missing and the balloon was deflated, you probably would feel pretty unsatisfied!  The hot air is what brings the experience to life and without it, not only would you be grounded, but you'd probably feel frustrated, like you'd wasted your time.  Its when the air fills up the balloon and you lift off the ground that the experience becomes real and has meaning.  Its almost like an interaction or conversation between the balloon and the air that brings life to the experience.  The same is true with reading -- if their is no life in the reading, no interaction, it is useless.  Teaching students to question one of the best methods to bring about that interaction that brings life to what students are reading.

One of my favorite things to do as a teacher is to get my students to ask questions.  I've felt for a long time that you can really tell if a student is learning when they start asking questions, so I was really excited to read the materials this week as they related to that, as they gave specific insight into how to get students to ask those important questions.  The statistic in the Commeyras reading is one that I've seen play out many times in the classroom when working to get students to ask quality questions - the article pointed to a study where students asked questions, and out of the 508 questions they asked, 64.5% started with 'why?'  While that's a start, whats really needed is the deeper questions. 

Buehl brings up a good point when he says "questions are used to assess if students got it, but rarely are designed to help students get it" (p171).  Its when a student can ask a question, we know that they have interacted enough with the text, had a conversation with the text and grasped something to have a question about, and that is what I think shows learning more than any other thing!  Over the past two years, I've often had students use QAR's (Question Answer Relationship) - which involved students using four different levels of questioning (right there, think and search, author and me, and on my own) to engage the students interaction with the text and make it a conversation.  As I had them in small reading groups, they would use cards with info on each type, and every couple of pages, they would stop and have to come up with the type of question they had on their card for the text and then discuss it.  They would then switch cards so they would have to experience all the different types of questions.

This is a link I just found to a short explanation of those types of questions!  I haven't used this website before, but because I can't the cards, I found this link and the first page gives a good overview of the QAR's!

http://education.ky.gov/curriculum/lit/Documents/RF_LS_8_Handouts.pdf

As much as I liked this method, the materials this week really gave me a deeper understanding of how to get students to use questions in a way that really engages them more fully and so that they can be involved in an 'active process of constructing meaning (Beck)' from the text.  I think the method of Questioning the Author (QtA) is incredible!!  It reminds me of that reading that spoke about when students approached the same reading from a different role, they each got something different from it.  When we shift the purpose of the reading from simply reading to read to reading to question the author, it changes the students interaction.  It no longer becomes a one sided conversation, where the author is automatically right, but it gives students a purpose and instead of just putting the info through there minds, they are dissecting it - its like the air being blown into the hot air ballon - they can then soar!  Having students have a dialogue with the author means they must grasp the material.

To me, looking at my students questions is a much more accurate assessment of what they are understanding than simply asking them questions.  I also believe that the questions they ask can help us, as teachers, to see more clearly their identities and where they are at and what their needs are as learners. 

The many questions in the Buehl text, specific to the different disciplines are really helpful and practical.  It also seems to me that with the students asking the questions, it opened up the classroom environment for students to help each other and to really unite the classroom - if done the right way!!  I can't remember which of the articles it was, but one of the students in it had felt unsure about somethings, and by asking a question that seemed obvious, it opened  up the door for the other students to step in and help, and to then explore deeper as one question ended up inspiring another question! 

As I was reflecting on my experiences with QAR's in my classroom - I remembered that as I was first getting students to use them, they were actually very resistant because it made them really work!!  They had to converse with the text and engage in a reading relationship. I think it goes back to students needing to struggle to really learn sometimes.

My question this week is:  Our educational system is focused on Standardized Tests, where students are asked questions and simply have to answer.  If a teacher invests a lot of time in teaching students to question, will it help or harm them for the test?  Would it be beneficial to look at changing our testing system to one that incorporated having students ask questions?

Frontloading as a Foundation

What role does a foundation play in regards to a house?  A good foundation is critical to keep a house standing, to keep it from sinking, to make it a strong house.  It is put into place and then the rest of the house is built upon it, it is the proper order.  As I was reading the materials this week, I began to think about how frontloading is like a foundation in regards to our students learning and understanding what they are reading.  Buehl states that this approach, prepping the students before they read a text, is to 'build academic knowledge for reading' rather than 'through it,' and I think this is a foundational point!  Students so often are given a material without proper knowledge to build a house of understanding of the material.  Using the various strategies that Buehl presents, and keeping in mind the different points addressed in the other readings regarding cultural identity and students abilities to respond appropriately to a task, frontloading can be used to build a foundation with students to have the knowledge for reading.  This then sets them up to, in a way, build a strong house with the information they then read, but the foundation must come first.  When we don't frontload, its almost like we are asking our students to build a foundation or to just make sense of the material we've given them to read without setting them up for success - and without the foundation, it makes for some pretty wobbly structures. 

I think as teachers, we often do frontloading to an extent, but this material helped me to realize the importance of doing so with more purpose, more precisely, and with more structure!!  The difference in students knowledge levels does affect the way we lay a foundation for them.  Its important that we, as teachers realize that the frontloading activities are more than just quick warm-ups.  I know on many occasions, I've brainstormed with my students, but even a task as that can be done with more success if we do it with a purpose - for example, brainstorming frontloading - it isn't just asking students to come up with ideas, it is a method in which 'strategies should engage students in a side-by-side analysis of prior knowledge as it compares with their reading and learning disciplinary' (p 136).  If we frontload with purpose and precision, we will help our students have a much stronger and solid foundation with which to go forward and read.  I found Buehl's suggestions for the different ways to frontload to be exciting and very helpful - very doable, and it even made me want to do it with the kids! 

Frontloading seems like that small amount of time that could be really beneficial to student learning and literacy.  Just as a foundation in a house is actually the first, small piece, its also critical.  I think of times when, in my own time as a student, a teacher says after we read a book we'd get to watch a movie....I've done that myself, too as a teacher.  However, reading this chapter in Buehl made me realize that showing a movie before asking students to read something could be really effective.  It reminded me a little about the readings from a few weeks ago about getting students engaged by role-playing and other methods....while watching a movie isn't role-playing, it does make a piece of work more real and alive in a sense....and I can see by knowing the story, how a student might be more interested in then reading it, and how having already seen it, a teacher could then use that to go more deeply into the meaning of a story and other aspects because the students would already have a foundation from the frontloading!

A few other things that stood out to me from the other readings were in Anderssen - how college students were given a different role to look at a piece of work from, and how that affected what they got from the reading....I think that would be a great way to get students into a reading - by having them read from different perspectives and then compare or share....I think that would be an exciting approach to reading a text!!

As it keeps coming up, one thing I think really relates to all things we read is the importance of knowing your students....as teachers, that seems like a foundation we need to build our learning environment upon, so that we can help our students build the strongest foundation in all of their learning!

Educational Iceberg: A Hidden Disability

When the Titanic crashed into an iceberg  back in 1912, it was probably not the damage to the part of the ship above water that caused it to sink, but rather, the parts damaged below the surface that caused the ship to take on water and led to the death of many and the sinking of this unsinkable ship.  Just as in that tragic case, it is often the unseen things in life that really do the most damage.  The same is true in education.  It is often that which we do not see or remember to think about that can lead to students not reaching their potential and hinder their learning.  Knowing the nature of icebergs, how could the Titanic's history be different if they'd seen the iceberg sooner?  How can we apply the lesson learned from the Titanic to education?  We need to be looking for icebergs above the surface to prevent the educational ship from hitting them, but even more, we need to look at what is below the surface. 

  What and where are the hidden parts of the iceberg in education, the elements that prevent our students from successfully comprehending and truly learning? Peter Smagorinsky's article "What Does Vygotsky Provide for the 21st Century Language Arts Teacher" brings some to light, things that if we are aware of them, we can help us steer our classrooms and educational system in the right direction so we can sink and not swim!!  While all of the materials this week were excellent, this article spoke to me the most and I think it brings up and addresses the underlying issue that prevents a lot of students from reaching their highest potential - specifically what Smagorisky draws from Vygotsky when he talks about the importance of emotions in relationship to cognition and how they cannot be separated.  While I found the entire article to be golden, that is what really stood out to me - Vygotsky's theory that we need to look at how emotion is an important part of learning, and how when we use things like art in learning, when we appeal to the emotional aspect of the student, it 'enable's a person to consider more profoundly the depths of human experience....how we think and how we feel cannot be separated" (p 195).  I think this is an often overlooked and underlying aspect of education, the part of the iceberg under the suface - the emotional learning, and when the learning emotions of a student are injured, it affects their their engagement and comprehension, not just in language arts, but in all aspects.  We are emotional beings.  When we detach from that, things begin to lack meaning.  Meaning often comes from emotional connections and is what provides the connection students need to make  a context for learning that is so important.  Emotions are really what make the difference in treating our students as machines or as individuals. Both of the other readings seem to support this in that they both show how meaning seems to make the difference between students just going through the motions and students comprehending.  The Simon reading regarding guided role-playing and the Kucer reading both show students succeed most when they can connect to a material.  The Kucer article highlights that the most comprehended part of the material in a study was the part of the material that was composed of a story structure where students could make text to self connections.  Both of those articles provide evidence of the importance of students connecting to materials in order to learn.

Even more importantly is addressing the 'secondary disability' - the emotions that develop that prevent students from participating in class and thus affect their thinking - which is what I see as truly being the part of the iceberg below the surface in education.  As I read this article, it really spoke to me, how when a student has a bad experience - for instance as it spoke at the beginning of the article, how students are often corrected in their rough draft of thinking and speaking - it changes how they act, as in they may then not speak, which leads others to characterize students as unintelligent, which then turns into the cycle of emotions affecting thinking - and creates 'dysphoria' or feelings of inferiority based on how one is treated by others (p 195).  This is crippling!

I was such a shy student.  I didn't even like to be seen by others - I was painfully shy.  I wanted to be a wallflower.  I think there was about 23 kids in my 8th grade class, so when I went to high school, and I was put in a World History class with sophmores, I was so scared to speak up and get something wrong.  That became my focus instead of my work.  I love history, I just was so afraid in that class that I remember not even realizing what I was learning.  I know how to read and I can do it well enough.  I never had a problem getting all A's with only a few B's, but when my parents went to my conference that fall, the teacher told them that he thought I had a reading comprehension problem.  The problem actually was that I felt like if I said anything, I would be made fun of.  The sophmores in that class all knew each other and were often loud.  It was debilitating, just as the article says.  That is just one example - that happened a lot to me, just because I felt like I was not as smart.  Just today, one of my former students Mom talked to me about how the teacher made some remark to her son in art class telling him sarcastically that 'some people do this for a living you know.'  I know that student is so very sweet and such a hard worker.  His Mom was upset because she knows this about her son, and said he told her he just didn't know what he was doing.  I thought how that lined perfectly up with the reading - just looking at how now this sweet child probably is going to be scared to try for fear of doing something wrong in the future.  This student is smart, but now he may not be able to demonstrate that because the emotion is connected to his thinking, and will show in his work.  I think about the teacher who didn't even know how to read (link to article is in previous post).  He developed behavior issues to divert from the fact that he had feelings that affected his thinking!

These are just a few examples of this secondary disability that lies silently under the surface in the vast ocean of learning.  We cannot separate the two.  I think the article spells it out so clearly when it speaks to the theory that its important for students to use their own experiences in learning, and that what school does is strengthen the lessons we learn by our own experiences.  It is emotion that creates personal experiences  in our lives - it meaning to our experiences, which then in turn gives us something to use to learn from.  Without using what we know - our identities and experiences, academics are hollow (p 199).  Again, the other two articles help demonstrate this!

As I read this week, it just seemed to make so much sense!  To get our students to learn and to really comprehend and be engaged, we must acknowledge that emotions play a part in cognition.  If we don't acknowledge and address that, it will remain a big issue under the surface and many ships will sink!

A question I am thinking of as I read relates to this.  Does the current education system take student emotion into account?  If so how and if not, how can we start addressing this silent destroyer as teachers?  What are some ways to build a culture of honor in our classrooms where students feel safe to learn and to address dysphoria?

The Victory in Failure!

 

 

 

 

How many people have enjoyed a Hershey product?  Chances are, most people have experienced some delicious form of product from this well known company, but few probably know this company came about only after many failures!  Its an inspiring story of perseverance!

 

Milton Hershey
Milton Hershey had a long path to the top of the chocolate industry. Hershey dropped out of school in the 4th grade and took an apprenticeship with a printer, only to be fired. He then became an apprentice to a candy-maker in Lancaster, PA. After studying the business for 4 years, Hershey started three unsuccessful candy companies in Philadelphia, Chicago and New York.

Hershey was not about to give up, so he moved back to Lancaster and began the Lancaster Caramel Company. His unique caramel recipe, which he had come across during his earlier travels, was a huge success. Hershey, who was always looking ahead, believed that chocolate products had a much greater future than caramel. He sold the Lancaster Caramel Company for $1 million in 1900 (nearly $25 million in 2008 dollars) and started the Hershey Company, which brought milk chocolate -- previously a Swiss delicacy -- to the masses.

Not only did Hershey overcome failure and accomplish his goals, but he also managed to do it close to home. Hershey created hundreds of jobs for Pennsylvanians. He also used some of his money to build houses, churches, and schools, cementing his status as a legend in the Keystone State.

Persistence is key.

 

http://www.growthink.com/content/7-entrepreneurs-whose-perseverance-will-inspire-you

 

 

In the last few years, I've really started to see the benefit of failure!  I believe we learn best by experience, whether our own or from hearing of others.  When we experience things, we often think about what or how we would do that thing differently, and that's called learning.  If Milton Hershey hadn't experienced failure, learned from it, and persevered, our world would be much less delicious!!  Thankfully, Hershey experienced 'productive failure'

(Fisher, 11).  This concept is what struck me most out of this weeks materials regarding text complexity.  The article, Text Complexity: Raising Rigor in Reading, brings up what I think is often an overlooked, but critical concept, that in order to really learn, students often times need to experience hardship.  Regarding the topic of text complexity, the authors make a good point that "perhaps one of the mistakes in the past efforts to improve reading achievement has been the removal of struggle.  As a profession, we may have made reading tasks too easy" (Fisher, 11).  Often times, its easier to not challenge kids, both on them and the teacher.  But if a student only reads books at a second grade level, how will they ever move past it?  The article continues by saying "we do not suggest that we should plan students' failure but rather that students should be provided with opportunities to struggle and to learn about themselves as readers when they struggle, persevere, and eventually succeed" (Fisher, 11).  Earlier in the article, the authors say that students learn more when they have challenging texts (6).  Last year, I taught a 6/7/8 grade combo class.  We had one sixth grader, who'd been in a 4/5 combo the year before.  She'd never done 6th grade math, but due to the fact she was the only sixth grader, the principal put her in the Pre-Algebra class with some seventh and eighth graders.  She struggled at first, in fact, she was terrified, but after awhile, she was at the top of the class!!  With the proper help, with the proper tools and guidance, she worked through her failures and found victory!!  I think in the educational world, students are often unchallenged, and that is one reason we see reading skills so low by the end of high school.  How do we do it?  In that same article, the authors speak of the importance of instructing students so that they can succeed in reading more complex texts.  It is our job as teachers to provide the texts and give them the instruction so that they can build their skills.  We give students the strategies to read more complex texts, and give them the opportunities to build skills from them (11).  Its not learning if they already know how to do something, I think one of the best things we can do for our students is - with that proper instruction - allow them to struggle!  Understanding text complexities as teachers is the first place to start, and we will probably all go through the same process of struggling and failing before we achieve victory in helping our students grow in their skills to comprehend more complex texts, but it will be worth it!  The Fisher article was what I was draw to this week, but I felt the other two articles supported the points made by providing example of how to find the right level of texts (Hiebert) - particularly the need to use multiple sources to establish a texts complexity, and with the great idea to adapt primary sources for students to benefit and understand (Wineberg).  One think I thought about in regards to adapting primary sources is how maybe it would be helpful to have students at a higher level translate the primary source documents to more modern terms and ways of writing.  The examples they provided and steps they gave are helpful ways to apply what we are learning about text complexity, in a real way!  If we know how to determine the complexity of a book, we can know what books will challenge our students.

 

One question that comes to mind this week is how do you know when a student needs to struggle more or if its time to intervene?  How do you balance challenging students to persevere without them becoming disinterested or giving up?

 

 

 

Its Complicated!

Trimming my Mom's short and straight hair when I was younger should have been a fairly uncomplicated and to the point job.  She would ask me every once in awhile to do it so she didn't have to take the time to go get it cut.  I'd grab the scissors and eyeball it....it was usually shorter than shoulder length, and not too thick.  Easy?  Not for me!  I would always cut one side a little shorter, then I'd try to even it up, so all of it would be a little shorter, then a little shorter, then still a little shorter.  Good thing hair grows back!  All I knew was to grab the scissors and cut.  The scissors were actually pretty dull, so not only did I not have the right tools in my hands, I also lacked the knowledge of how to cut hair. Good think we also don't really see the back of our hair often, well, my Mom at least!!!!  It seemed  like it should have been a simple thing to do, but to me, it was complicated!

The same idea can be applied to texts and literacy!  We so often give our children texts to read, thinking it is simple and they will get it.  But in the hands of someone who hasn't had the right training or developed the right skills, the text can become about as useless as that dull pair of scissors!!  A hair stylist goes to school and must have a license to cut hair, because there are skills that are helpful to giving a good haircut.  That's not to say that some people can't figure out how to cut hair on their own, but generally speaking, I wouldn't trust my hair to a young kid who wants to play with scissors!!  Just as cutting my Mom's hair was too complex of task for me as a kid, in a way, its the same with asking children to read texts they are not ready for.  I was told to spray the hair and cut in a straight line with dull scissors.  Often times, students are given a text book that contains text that is too complex with them, and told to read it without the proper tools! We must take text complexity into consideration to improve disciplinary literacy for our students. 

Exploring the materials this week, two topics really stood out to me as priorities in disciplinary literacy in regards to text complexity, and they are expectations and purpose.

Don't lower your expectations to meet your performance. Raise your level of performance to meet your expectations. Expect the best of yourself, and then do what is necessary to make it a reality.
~ Ralph Marston ~

 

We must set higher expectations in our schools, for both student and teacher alike, and give the support needed to achieve them! Rand and the Common Core material both speak to the fact that by college, or in the work force, there is a demand for high literacy skills (Rand, 26).  However, literacy skills in students before college have been declining.  Particularly in regards to their ability to read and comprehend complex texts.  My Mom is an instructional assistant in a resource room.  Several years ago, she worked with an autistic child.  His parents had been told that he would never even write a paragraph.  But she set a goal for him, and told him he could do it, even though it seemed impossible, and then she worked every day with him.  Within a matter of months, he was writing paragraphs!!  If we limit out expectations, we limit ourselves.We must set higher expectations for our students in regards to reading complex texts, which seems to be happening with the Common Core.  But what good are high expectations going to do if we don't teach our children the skills to achieve them?  The Common Core is calling teachers and students to reach further than they have been, and I think that is the first step, now it is getting there that we must do!  Rand points out that 'research has shown that well-designed teacher preparation programs have a positive effect on reading outcomes' (Rand, 16).  In order to raises expectations for students, and to help them prepare students to understand complex texts and be at the level they need to be to find success in college, we must first give teachers the skills they need to help students in disciplinary literacy.  When we set high expectations for ourselves, and work to achieve them, I believe it will transfer to our students. 

 

Another area I think deserves a lot of attention is a common area, purpose.  According to Rand, reading comprehension is 'the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language' (Rand, 11).  One of the elements he speaks to is purpose.  As I was looking at what is common throughout the materials, I felt like each of the three readings this week was a piece of a puzzle that made a complete picture to help understand text complexity and how to help our students grow in their understanding of complex texts.  I felt like the Rand material was able to specify and look at purpose, that the Common Core provides goals or purposes to aim for, and the Buehl material spoke to ways to reach the expectations through reading strategies, even specific to each content area! 

 

While expectations and purpose are certainly not the only aspects to helping our students understand and grow in their abilities to be literate in regards to complex texts, they are two very important pieces of the puzzle!!  It would be great to get to the point when our students are faced with a text, they don't feel that same terror I felt when my Mom got those scissors out!

 

This week, the readings spoke to text as primarily written, and as I was reading, I remembered years ago, hearing of a teacher who actually couldn't read.  The link below takes you to an article about him!  It is very interesting to see how he was able to be a teacher without being literate in written texts!!!  There are a lot of connections to what we have been discussing and it makes me wonder how many of our students are getting by the same way!!

 

http://www.10news.com/news/retired-teacher-reveals-he-was-illiterate-until-age-48

 

The question that comes to my mind is, especially in light of the article about the teacher who didn't know how to read, how can we better catch those students who are slipping through the cracks?  Also, what are some practical things that we can do to motivate students to set higher expectations for themselves, to be internally motivated, especially to reach for the Common Core standards?

 

 

Purpose is one of the three elements that Rand lists, the Common Core provide a purpose 

Crossing the Bridge!

It was about a year ago that I really got oldies stations, and I liked it! I was 29 and I heard a song on the radio from when I was in high school.  I was around students and I enthusiastically said 'oh my gosh, I love this song, this came out when I was in high school!!' They all looked at me as if I was was being super goofy, and then shrugged it off as I enjoyed listening to the rest of the song! 

To me, this song brought back the memories and feelings of when I was in high school!  It brought back the spirit of the whole experience and it was great!!  It was like I felt young again!!  All of a sudden, it hit me - this is why my parents like the oldies station so much!!  It is based on my experiences in life, and where I was when it came out, that that song had a totally different impact and effect on me, a totally different meaning than on my students who are so much younger.  Can I get them to understand and catch the same spirit and get into the song?  How can they enjoy it as much as me?  Their experience with the song is much different than mine, which creates a gap between their enjoyment of the song and mine. The same is true in education.  We are all coming into every experience with our own identities, and as teachers, it is our duty to take this into consideration and do the best we can to make our students literate in every content, so that they can enjoy and get as much as possible out of their experience!  Disciplinary literacy is one key to bridge the gaps that steal from students succeeding!  How do we build that bridge and help our students cross it?

While all the materials we read this week were all helpful in finding answers to this question,  I felt I connected most with Buehl's insights.  Context is a big part of the bridge that we must keep in mind as we teach.  Without it, it is a challenge for students to find meaning.  Just as the song meant so much more to me because I had a context to enjoy it, when students can connect to a content, when it is given in a context, they can not only enjoy it much more, but take more from it!  It is not uncommon in education to hear of the need to give students a context in which to learn.  However, as I read the materials, I find the meaning of 'context' seems to have more clarity and become more defined.  Buehl speaks about the need to connect what we teach with students' everyday realities.  How do we do it?  We think about it often, but how do we do it?!  "Disciplinary literacy needs to be predicated on sharing, connecting, and expanding knowledge rather than on exposing ignorance" (Buehl, 91).  I believe the concept of not looking at students deficits, but rather, at what they do know and have, is the key to building the bridge we must build to help them grow.  If we look at what they don't know, we can't find a context to bring them into the material.  If we start looking at what students do know, we have found an important step to that bridge, but how do we get to that point?  Buehl points out that even to do this, we must first know our students.  Relationship, therefore, takes a center stage in education.  If we don't know our students, how can we help them find a context in which to learn?  One thing common in all the materials is the need to consider student identities, so we can give them a context in which to learn.  Our schools so often seem like big machines, where the individual is overlooked. If we put more emphasis on relationship, and less on standards, I believe we would start to see better results and the gap for teachers in balancing what they need to do to teach their content, and considering disciplinary literacy, would lessen. 

As someone who started out as mainly a social studies teacher and ended up teaching all the content areas, I identify very much with another point that Buehl brings up in bridging the gap for students - relevance.  The 'So what' question comes up so often as we try to teach and put things into context for students, but as Buehl points out, it can be especially problematic in history.  I was thinking about why I wanted to be a history teacher.  I'd always had a love of it, and thinking about it now, I look at how my Grandparents are very patriotic and my Grandpa has always had a lot of history books around.  I see how that passed on to his children, and then to me and my sister.  I love history because I grew up with it, so my love of it tends to make it interesting.  Where as, one of my students has grown up with a Dad who is crazy about sports.  He has the same passion for sports as I do for history.  But how do I make history relevant to him?  I can try to connect it through bringing in sports history.  But how do you bring relevance to all students?  Buehl points to one means to do so, at least in a history context, and that is 'to identify essential questions that target transcendent themes and ideas of human experience and interactions' (Buehl, 96).  That is one strategy I have tried to use, and with some success.  I think it brings history into a current context by asking a question that is also relevant to the students current identities.  Looking more specifically this week at the specific contents has helped me, as a student and a teacher apply the idea of disciplinary context to my own life, because the example of teaching this topic in social studies gives me a context and connection, it makes this topic even more relevant to me!  In a way, I'm noticing disciplinary literacy in action in our own class!  I am drawn to Buehl's text based on my own experience and a shared love of history, so when he shares his stories about teaching history and his perspective, I very much relate to it in this shared identity. 

As I was reading the materials, I also starting making a connection to another class I am in right now.  In looking at disciplinary literacy, we are taking into account identities, mine being primarily as a teacher and history lover.  This week, as I was connecting to the historical sections of the text, I started thinking about a video I watched in my other class about the historical context of education.  Wilson refers to technology, and its affect on education.  The video I watched took a look at our educational system, and how its identity is related to history.  The current way we educate is rooted in the Industrial Revolution identity, where production is what mattered.  The system is about producing results and we educate our students in batches - by age, not so much by interest.  When we do this, we fail to take into account the context of modern society - technology and all.  We are stuck in an out-dated system, which doesn't allow us to address the individual students and their identities.

The video is about so much more, but it seemed especially relevant :) to me looking at the historical context!!

Changing Education Paradigms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U


As we start looking even more into what disciplinary literacy is, I start seeing the importance of educating students as individuals.  In fact, all of the classes I have taken in my Masters' program seem to point towards respecting and taking into account students individual identities.  However, it seems like our educational system is moving towards a machine mentality with such a focus on standards and teaching to the test.  We are learning all these great things, but how are we going to apply them in the current system?  How do we change the system, not just in talk, but in action?

The Discipline Lens: Discipline Isn't Such a Bad Thing!

What do you see when you look at this image? 




Just as different people will see different things in this picture, we all have a different lens through which we look at the world, a different perspective.  The prescription through which we each view our present and future experiences and encounters is formed by our past experiences and encounters.  As we seen in the image above, we can all be looking at the same thing but seeing something very different! 

Lets examine discipline!  What lens do most people view this topic through?   What are your experiences with discipline?  I would think that most people who hear the word view it as something negative: maybe a trip to the principal's office, a time-out, a fine, a loss of a privilege, or, as I remember when I'd fight with my sister as a little girl, sitting on separate couches and not being aloud to talk until we could say something nice!!  Why is that the common association with this topic?  I believe it is because we learn by experience.  However, when we reach a certain level, if we look at things through a different lens, 'discipline' actually turns into an opportunity to explore and grow! 

One of the definitions listed in the dictionary for 'discipline' is "a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education."  When discipline is viewed through this lens, it opens up a whole new world!  As I venture into graduate school, I find my vision focused on this version of discipline, and it is a welcome change!!  In the world of education, I believe the more we focus on disciplinary literacy, specifically on giving our students the right perspective or lens for each discipline, the more engaged they will be, and the less we will have to live in the world of the negative discipline!!

As we begin to explore disciplinary literacy, I am starting to see the importance of this focus as an educator and its critical role in accomplishing what we all strive for - to help our students reach their full potential and really be engaged in meaningful learning!! 

"I just don't know how primary teachers teach students to read.  They go from not reading, to reading, its amazing."  As a middle school teacher, that is a thought that has gone through my mind so very often! When I get students, they generally have at least the very basic skills.  So this week, as I was exploring materials, it struck me how as students get older, we do tend to just assume they already know how to read, we don't often look at the bigger picture - that just as we all have a different lens we view each situation from, students come into each discipline with their own views and to expect them to get the most out of the content, we cannot assume that the literacy lens with which they are looking is the right prescription.  We need to address the fact that there are many factors that contribute to adjusting each persons view to see most clearly with-in each discipline! 

A professor I once had said "elementary teachers get into teaching because they love the students and secondary teachers get into teaching because they love the topic."  I think most teachers are in in because they love the students, but I do see how passionate about a specific topic that secondary teachers can be.  I wonder if it could be a temptation to get so caught up on the content that we lose the student along the way because we fail to prepare them to be literate in the topic.  The past few years, I have been working on getting my students to view each topic as an expert.  So in math, I try to address them as mathematicians, in Science, as scientists, in history, as historians.  However, I'm starting to realize that while I speak to them as such, I don't always set them up to successfully learn.  This goes back to disciplinary literacy and the need to prepare students to receive the content.  One common thing I found this week in the exploration into disciplinary literacy is the need for the teacher to take into account the many factors that contribute to how students view the content they are about to read and to set them up for success in this.

Yes, students generally know how to read by the time they get to middle school, but we need to continue to build on that foundation by teaching them the skills they need to read the content.  As Buehl says, "Few teachers have been asked to teach the reading skills students need in each subject"(21). 

 While "A number of teachers feel that the strategies place an unfair burden of teaching reading
on them when they should be teaching content" (Moje, 98), I'd argue what is the point in teaching content if students are simply going to be caught up in the 'pedagody of telling' which is simply knowledge being transferred from the head of the teacher into the student (Moje, 98).  We need to help our students to be literate in the disciplines by modeling - showing them how to think as historians, scientists, etc! 

Kucer mentions that proficient readers are readers that are flexible and guided by a purpose (37).  He also points out that people's prior experiences create a powerful influence on how a reader gets what they are reading (41).  If readers don't have experience that has given them knowledge of a content, they will lack the knowledge to make sense of what they are reading (43).  This makes a lot of sense.  Once students reach the different disciplines, they are usually coming in with their foundational reading skills.  They don't usually have the experiences needed to put the contents in perspective or to understand the purpose in what they are reading.  That is when we, as educators need to start looking at how we can help model and teach disciplinary literacy!!

Each student comes into class with their own perspective and lens.  I believe as a teacher, if I can start looking through the lens of teaching disciplinary literacy, my students will truly start gaining the skills to think with the lens of a historian, scientist, etc!

Question:  Under a time crunch, how do you balance teaching disciplinary literacy and taking the time to make sure students are ready to learn in the different content areas with getting all the content you are required to get in?