Click here to go to my website. I wrote personal responses to ten questions regarding 2016.
I am taking a technology sabbatical in between the holidays.
See you in 2017!
Click here to go to my website. I wrote personal responses to ten questions regarding 2016.
I am taking a technology sabbatical in between the holidays.
See you in 2017!
I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.
This article summarizes author Lauren Rosenberg’s work developing writing skills with adult learners. Rosenberg questions the label “illiterate” for those who cannot read or write yet.
‘Illiteracy’ suggests illness, and not just individual illness but some kind of social illness. Our culture frames the nonliterate as being lesser. It’s important to get away from the idea that a person who doesn’t have the benefits of reading and writing has something wrong with them.
Her approach for working with adults is to use their personal narratives as a way to develop their reading and writing skills. These students saw themselves not only as victims of circumstance, but also as agents for change. Through their writing, they were able to “re-story” their lives.
It takes us back to an idea that originates in narrative psychology. You can use writing to reexamine and even correct an impression. You can change how you see yourself, and how others see you. You can correct the narrative that’s been used against you and that’s portrayed you in a way you don’t want to be portrayed.
Through this very personal literacy experience, students were also able to build their reading and writing skills.
Jamie Jordan Hogan is an instructional coach and former middle school English teacher. To engage her students, she guided them to conduct action research on a topic they were passionate about during their research writing unit. No topic seemed to be off the table; students elected to research race, class, sexuality, and immigration policy, as examples. Hogan questions why teachers do not embrace this approach in English classrooms.
The burning question for us as educators: What are we so afraid of? Is it a fear of a personal conflict? A fear of judgment? A fear that we may be obligated to confront our own individual prejudices and biases?
The teacher applies the steps of action research, including developing a driving question, creating an action plan, facilitating data collection, and presenting their findings. Students used a variety of digital and traditional tools to conduct their research. Face to face communication, such as peer dialogue and interviews, were critical for success. The outcomes, beyond their final products, was a feeling of empowerment as learners.
Students do not want to be mere passersby in their own education. They want to make their mark and have an active voice in the communities in which they live.
A literacy professor offers three steps for moving students from consumers to creators of digital content. O’Byrne sees many educational activities today positioning students in the former role. However, to be able to truly understand the web, he feels it is critical that students understand how content is created as well as the active role they might take.
For students…their ability to best use these literacies is central to our collective future. Educators should continue to show that they can work with students to understand and prepare them for these digital spaces and beyond.
The pathway of consumption to curation to creation is one way teachers can provide the necessary support for students to build with and use digital literacy applications. Voicethread, Pinterest, and Hypothes.is are three tools referenced in the article.
Similar to the first article in this review, the author points out the negative connotations of referring to students with labels couched in deficit-based foundations, such as “English as Second Language (ESL) learners”.
All of these labels—LEP, ESL, ESOL, ENL, and ELL—have one thing in common: They position children as being inferior or having deficits.
Souto-Manning prefers the term “emergent bilingual” to describe students who are already fluent in one language and learning English – an additional language – in school. Through this mindset, these students can now be seen as having an advantage. A powerful strategy for incorporating students’ different backgrounds within instruction is ensuring literature that is read aloud and available in classrooms represents a diversity of cultures.
So much of our literacy curriculum in schools today is focused on skill development and strategy acquisition. Do students have the ability to decode unfamiliar text? Can they use context clues to understand a new word? Are students able to organize their ideas from what they have read and what they know into a cogent article or essay? All are important to know and be able to do. Yet they are not the function of reading and writing. They are the tools that open the door to literacy. But an open door is only the beginning.
The purpose of reading and writing can be broken down into one of two main purposes: to entertain and to acquire and transmit knowledge. Often (at least for me anyway), I read and write for a mix of both purposes. For example, when I read a work of excellent fiction, I usually end the book with a better understanding of myself and others. Likewise, when I write pieces such as this, I am frequently considering my audience and how I can keep them engaged in reading to the end (you are still with me, right?).
All of these articles summarized here promote literacy as more than just learning how to read or write. These practices can be life-changing. Illiterate adults learn to reframe their identities through writing. Adolescents discover the power of language to explore wonderings relevant to their lives. Students start to see themselves as producers of knowledge instead of merely consumers. Immigrants are positioned as experts within the context of school, seeing their bilingualism as an advantage instead of a deficit.
These topics are often explored in the current literacy journals and published research. I subscribe to many of these resources because the standards do not adequately address them. By becoming more knowledgeable, we can serve our students even better.
Many studies have shown that when students are engaged in learning, there is little need to bribe students to complete their work. Using external motivators in the name of learning has many critics. There has been no more outspoken critic of grades and test scores than Alfie Kohn. His specific concerns around the use of praise to coax work out of students in the name of outcomes have been substantiated by a body of research, of which he often cites to support his arguments on his blog, www.alfiekohn.org.
For example, in his blog post “Criticizing (Common Criticisms of) Praise”, which was also published in his book Schooling Beyond Measure: Unorthodox Essays About Education (Heinemann, 2015), Kohn reinforces the notion that telling students they did a good job when they complete a task sets up an imbalance of power between student and teacher.
Praise is a verbal reward, often doled out in an effort to change someone’s behavior, typically someone with less power. Like other forms of reward (or punishment), it is a way of ‘doing to’, rather than ‘working with’ people (96).
In addition, when we deliver praise, we are actually taking autonomy of a student’s actions away from them and attributing their efforts to us. The result can be that students become conditioned to want the “attaboys” as a reward for their work, instead of focusing on why the work was successful in the first place.
The effect of a ‘Good job!’ is to devalue the activity itself – reading, drawing, helping – which comes to be seen as a mere means to an end, the end being to receive that expression of approval. If approval isn’t forthcoming next time, the desire to read, draw, or help is likely to diminish (97).
As educators, we too often default back to how we were taught in our classrooms and schools. I catch myself at times with words of praise instead of acknowledgement of their efforts with our students and my own children. It is a hard habit to break. However, this habit is worth changing. Our choices in language create the conditions in which students can or cannot become owners of their personal learning journeys.
Peter Johnston, literacy education professor and author of Opening Minds: Using Language to Change Lives (Stenhouse, 2012), offers similar concerns regarding the use of praise in order to motivate learners. When students are rewarded for getting the right answer and completing the task just as the teacher asked, they start to associate success with what the adult deems worthy. They fail to internalize an understanding of good work within themselves.
In fact, if teachers repeatedly offer praise to students, they can reduce the impact of their instruction.
When children are fully engaged in an activity, if we praise them we can simply distract them from what they were doing and turn their attention to pleasing us (42).
So what is the counter to this culture? Johnston suggests agency, or the belief that things such as our intelligence and our life’s outcomes are changeable (27). Agency can be developed in students when teachers offer an environment for students which directs their attention to their own processes and thinking and how their efforts contributed to their success. This concept has been a focus of educational research for some time. Agency is closely related to more readily-known concepts such as “growth mindset”, a term coined by Carol Dweck. However we describe it, the idea is that the language we employ in classrooms has a direct impact on how well students take responsibility for their learning.
The assessment habits we develop as teachers can contribute to or detract from our students’ sense of success and independence. On a positive note, formative assessment strategies offer teachers specific approaches to address includes the clarity of goals and the offer of support through feedback and scaffolding that allows the teacher to eventually release the responsibility of the work to the student. These strategies are best employed in classroom environments that utilize responsive language, structures for collaboration, higher order questioning, and honest celebrations of student accomplishments. These actions can make student agency a reality.
This is an excerpt from my new eBook The Secrets of Self-Directed Learning. It is a free resource that offers readers four steps for helping students become more independent learners. You can download this resource by clicking here.
This seems to be a constant in just about every school: You have that favorite read aloud you have been waiting to share with your students. When you announce the read aloud, students say, “We already read that book.” or “Our teacher read it to us last year.”
What do you do? Here are a few suggestions:
Readers reread books if they were a favorite and/or had something profound to learn. Explaining this to students should help with any disgruntled listeners. A main point of the read aloud is for students to hear the written word spoken. If it is an excellent title, there should hopefully be few complaints. It might be wise to ask first before forging ahead, such as offering a choice between the book they know and other acceptable titles.
Selecting some passages to share with students who have already heard the book offers multiple benefits. First, it is a nice compromise with the kids. We can show that we are listening to them and value their opinion. Second, reading aloud selected passages is an opportunity to notice author’s craft. Teachers can point out what made the author’s writing so good and worth reading again. Finally, it is an opportunity to…
Excellent titles that would make for great read alouds are published every year. By being open minded about what books to share with students, we discover new books together.
If you would like a book that is similar to the title you had planned but the kids already heard, check out Amazon. Put in the title into the search bar, and Amazon will share other books readers have purchased in addition to the one you listed. For example, when I looked up Charlotte’s Web, Amazon suggested Stuart Little (also by E.B. White), Pippi Longstockings, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Mr. Popper’s Penguins. These are all classics for a reason.
(Note: Whenever possible, avoid Amazon and buy local. Click here for reasons why.)
You can also connect with your school’s library media specialist (and what a crime if you do not have one). Going with the Charlotte’s Web example, he or she would likely steer you to titles of the same genre and topic, such as Babe: The Gallant Pig and Owls in the Family. Your library media specialist may also suggest newer titles such as Flora and Ulysses and The Cheshire Cat: A Dickens of a Tale.
If you do not have library media specialist (again, a crime), check out the E.B. White award winners for best read alouds from each year. You can also purchase a copy of The Read Aloud Handbook by Jim Trelease. It was my go-to guide when I taught 5th and 6th grade. I have the last four editions, as Trelease would update the treasury of book lists. He also offers suggestions on his website.
An essential element in reading aloud is what you choose to read.
Whatever approach you take when kids have already heard the story, the more important point is reading aloud to your students every day.
A learning management system, or “LMS” is defined as “a digital learning system” that “manages all of the aspects of the learning process” (Amit K, 2015). A teacher can use an LMS for a variety of classroom functions, including communicating the learning objectives, organizing the learning timelines, telling the learners exactly what they need to learn and when, delivering the content straight to the learners, streamlining communications between instructor(s) and learners, and providing ongoing resources.
An LMS can also help the learner track their own progress, identifying what they have learned already and what they need to learn (Amit K). There are many options for learners to share their representations of their understandings within an LMS, including video, audio, images and text. In addition, discussion boards and assessment tools are available for teachers and students in most systems.
This definition and description of your typical LMS leads to an important question: Who is the learning management system for?
If an LMS is for the teacher, then I think they will find the previously listed features to be of great benefit to their practice. As an example, no longer do they have to collect papers, lug them home and grade them by hand. Now, students can submit their work electronically through the LMS. The teacher can assess learning online. The excuse “My dog ate my homework” ceases to exist. Google Classroom, Schoology and Edmodo fall into this category.
Also, teachers can use the LMS tools to create quizzes that could serve as a formative assessment of the lesson presented that day. Data is immediately available regarding who understands the content and who needs further support. This quick turnaround can help a teacher be more responsive to student’s academic needs. There are obvious benefits for a teacher who elects to use an LMS for these reasons.
If, on the other hand, an LMS is for the students, then we have a bit more work to do. With a teacher-centric LMS, not much really changes regarding how a classroom operates. The teacher assigns content and activities, the students complete it, and the teacher assesses. The adage “old wine in new bottles” might apply here.
With students in mind when integrating an LMS in school, the whole idea of instruction has to shift. We are now exploring concepts such as personalized learning, which “puts students in charge of selecting their projects and setting their pace” (Singer, 2016), and connected learning, which ties together students’ interests, peer networks and school accomplishments (Ito et al, 2013). In this scenario, it is not the students who need to make a shift but the teachers. Examples of more student-centered LMSs include Epiphany Learning and Project Foundry.
The role that teachers have traditionally filled looks very different than what a more student-centered, digitally-enhanced learning environment might resemble. I don’t believe either focus – the teacher or the student – is an ineffective approach for using a learning management system. The benefits in each scenario are promising. Yet we know that the more students can have ownership over the learning experience, there is an increased likelihood of greater achievement gains and higher engagement in school.
Amit K, S. (2016). Choosing the Right Learning Management System: Factors and Elements. eLearning Industry. Available: https://elearningindustry.com/choosing-right- learning-management- system-factors-elements
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., Watkins, S.C. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. Media and Learning Research Hub. Whitepaper, available: http://dmlhub.net/publications/connected-learning- agenda-for- research-and-design/
Singer, N., Isaac, M. (2016). Facebook Helps Develop Software That Puts Students in Charge of Their Lesson Plans. The New York Times. Available: http://nyti.ms/2b3LNzv
In 2011, a faculty member wanted to bring in a summer school program for some of our gifted and talented students. Called “Camp Invention”, students spent a week taking apart computers and creating new worlds with peers. I had never seen students more engaged in learning than during this experience.
Afterward, something nagged at me: the program was not intentional about incorporating reading and writing into the curriculum. I could understand the rationale. Educators are always trying to stuff literacy into anything students are doing. Yet are these two areas – innovation and literacy – mutually exclusive?
Halverson and Sheridan tease out the complex nature of the maker movement in education (2014). They define it through three lenses: “making as a set of activities, makerspaces as communities of practice, and makers as identities of participation” (501). In literacy, students are (or at least should be) constantly making. For example, consider the verbs we use to describe writing. We craft an essay, develop a narrative, and build an argument. These actions cross the line between the tinkering, creating and iterating that happens in makerspaces and the drafting, revising and publishing that is synonymous with language arts. Halverson and Sheridan also see the possibilities.
“Learning through making reaches across the divide between formal and informal learning, pushing us to think more expansively about where and how learning happens. In this way we can talk about the who, what, and how of learning without getting hung up on the rules and constraints that govern different settings” (498).
A question that frequently comes up in education circles is, “How do we get started with makerspaces?” Teachers usually follow this up with concerns about time, resources and administrative support. Now in my second district, and having visited several more, I can say that makerspaces are unique from school to school. Some buildings house makerspaces in their libraries, while others have a separate, dedicated space. When it is not a building initiative, makerspaces find space in teacher’s classrooms under the guise of “Genius Hour”.
What they all have in common is they are personalized to the needs of the students. The kids direct the learning. In response, the adults often adjust their roles to that of a coach and guide on the side. The observed result is higher levels of student engagement in school, which tends to spill over into the core academic areas. Gershenfeld has found increased engagement to be true, noting how personalization is “a market of one person”. In makerspaces, students might start creating something of their own interest, but a lack of purpose and audience might propel them to start thinking about how they can make an impact in the broader world.
For instance, 6th grade teacher Chris Craft has led his students in South Carolina to print more than 150 prosthetic human hands for people in need using a 3-D printer (Herold, 2016). This work includes video production and online sharing, all critical literacy skills for the 21st century. This example and others similar show how schools can “decentralize enthusiasm” (Gershenfeld, 57) in the goal of creating engagement in learning through doing real work while applying core competencies. Literacy appears to lend itself way to many of these opportunities.
Gershenfeld, N. (2012). How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Aff., 91, 43.
Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-504.
Herold, B. (2016). What It Takes to Move From ‘Passive’ to ‘Active’ Tech Use in K-12 Schools. Education Week: Technology Counts, 82(2), 33.
Today is the release of The Secrets of Self-Directed Learning: Strategies for nurturing and stimulating independent learners. What started as a whitepaper for FreshGrade is now an eBook. Click here to download this resource today.
In The Secrets of Self-Directed Learning, I make the case that we need to start releasing more responsibility of the learning to the student. The challenge is: How do we do this? The false promises of praise and administering measures of compliance in the name of accountability have made this task that much harder. To help, I offer four clear steps that any teacher can use to better develop self-determining learners:
I’ll be honest: there are no secrets described in this resource. Most of the suggestions shared here are based on sound research, as well as practice from my…
View original post 42 more words