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!