Jessy L. Ring
RRE #12 – Literature circles
EDUC 333 / 433
18 November 2018
“Traditionally, stories are used in literature circles, but teachers have found that students also enjoy reading nonfiction books (Heller, 2006/2007; Stien & Beed, 2004). Students read and discuss nonfiction much the same way they do stories, talking about what they liked about the book and examining the big ideas. In fact, teachers report that literature circles are an effective way to increase students’ interest in nonfiction” (as cited by Tompkins, 2016, p. 366).
“During literature circle meetings my classroom vibrated with learning, passion, and joy” (Aguilar, 2010). What better feeling is there for a teacher then observing their classroom buzzing with excitement for learning. Literature circles is one of many ways to create this enthusiasm in the classroom. Tompkins (2016) described literature circles as small groups of students who read and respond to self-selected books (p. 364). The vague description of the activities and discourse the students engage in is an essential part of the open-ended design of literature circle projects. Stien and Beed (2004) elaborated on the role literature circle activities had in the classroom, stating “Over the years, I have watched my students become more critical consumers of literature through conversations that exhibit their passion, empathy, beliefs, personal connects, and opinions of texts” (p. 511). In short, literature circles have the power to transform classrooms into places where students are excited and motivated to learn.
Effective literature circles do not magically appear when students are placed in groups to read. They require thoughtful planning on behalf of the teacher. Tompkins (2016) provided seven steps to follow when first implementing literature circles in the classroom, including: choosing books, aligning standards, organizing the circles, deciding on roles, setting the schedule, organizing group meetings, and planning for assessment (pp. 364-367). Stien and Beed (2004) additionally found group size was an important consideration, with the optimal group size consisting of four or five students (p. 513). They also specified roles they found useful for use in nonfiction and fiction literature circles (pp. 512-513). Roller and Beed (1994) discovered reflection was an important component of the literature circles planning process. They elucidated, “Reflection taught us that rather than judge children’s talk according to our adult standards, we must listen carefully to the ways that children interpret texts in order to understand how they are using literature talk to build meaning” (p. 513). To efficaciously implement literature circles teachers must consciously plan, carefully observe, and creatively assess.
Literature circles are open-ended, with the capacity to incorporate a vast assortment of students’ experiences and cultures. When teachers provide opportunities for student choice, they are communicating the trust and respect they have for their students. Winfield (2007) defined respect as “a derivative of love, initiated in actions motivated by compassion, grace and mercy towards self and others regardless of perceived position” (p. 1). When teachers respect their students’ choices, they are showing grace even though they are in a perceived position of power over the student. Furthermore, the open-ended nature of literature circles makes them culturally relevant, as students may incorporate their home culture into their literature circle projects. Ladson-Billings (1995) utilized the term culturally relevant to refer to “a more dynamic or synergistic relationship between home/ community culture and school culture” (p. 467). Literature circles have been shown to increase student interest and motivation. While literature circles require teachers to plan, observe, and assess, the rewards are worth the work.
Questions for Thought
How do you feel about the literature circles we participated in this semester? Were you motivated to participate in the group? How did you incorporate elements of your home culture into your project?
The article by Roller and Beed (1994) discusses teachers thoughts and reflections on the conversations they observed students having during literature circles. While they recognized the value of the discussions the students were having, they were not hearing the type of discussion they were hoping for. How can you support students to engage in meaningful, content related conversations during literature circles?
References
Aguilar, E. (2010, November 30). The power of literature circles in the classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/literature-circles-how-to-and-reasons-why-elena-aguilar
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
Roller, C. M., & Beed, P. L. (1994). Sometimes the conversations were grand, and sometimes…Discussion in the language arts classroom. Language Arts, 71(7). Retrieved from http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&gathStatTab=true& ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCRN613373549&indx=1&recIds=ETOCEN021748304
Stien, D., & Beed, P. L. (2004). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting. The Reading Teacher, 57(6). Retrieved from http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&gathStatTab=true& ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCRN613373549&indx=1&recIds=ETOCRN146174059
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Winfield, M. I. (2007-05). “Transformative theory” in Language observing visual explorations (Doctoral dissertation). Athenaeum@UGA (2014-03-04T02:42:35Z)
Jessy L Ring
RRE #11 – Spelling a Synonym
EDUC 333 / 433
8 November 2018
“The goal of spelling instruction is for students to develop a spelling conscience – a desire to spell words conventionally (Turbill, 2000). Students who have a spelling conscience understand that conventional spelling is a courtesy to readers, and they regularly proofread their writing to identify misspellings and correct them” (as cited by Tompkins, pp. 336-337).
Spanish writer Baltasar Gracian once said, “A synonym is a word you use when you can’t spell the other one” (Goodreads, 2018). This tactic is frequently exploited by students who cannot spell a word they want to use. Tompkins (2016) discussed the components of a high-quality spelling program, summarized research about outdated instructional practices, and introduced methods for developing spelling competence in English language learners or ELLs (pp. 336-344). When outdated spelling instructional practices are replaced with authentic activities and the components of quality spelling instruction, students transfer what they have learned to their writings, which is the goal of spelling instruction.
The weekly spelling test is a long-standing, traditional component of spelling instruction. The goal of spelling tests is to teach students the conventional spelling of chosen words, so that those words can be used in the students writing. However, research has shown that this transfer does not occur. Rymer and Williams (2000) cited research conducted by Gentry (1987), Gill and Scharer (1996), and Laminack and Wood (1996), finding students did not transfer words learned for spelling tests to their writing (p. 241). In their own study, Rymer and Williams (2000) examined the spelling development of first-grade students. They found students memorized spelling words for their tests but did not actually learn how to spell the words. This was evident in the misspelled spelling words found in the writing journals of the students (pp. 244-245). If conventional spellings are not transferred from spelling tests to the students’ writing, then these tests serve as “busy work,” and have no instructional value for students.
There are a variety of other authentic activities students can engage in to further their spelling development. The most authentic activity students can engage in to learn spelling is writing. Hughes and Searle (2000) explained, “Essentially, writing challenges children to use their knowledge of print to express their thoughts on paper. Writers may spell correctly or incorrectly, but they cannot avoid spelling” (p. 203). Engaging students in writing activities they find interesting increases the motivation to write well. When students are motivated to write, they begin to consider who will read what they have written (Hughes & Searle, 2000, p. 204). This leads students to another authentic spelling development activity, proofreading. Proofreading is “the scanning of a written text for surface errors, focusing on grammar, punctuation and spelling in order to detect deviations from the standard” (Bean & Bouffler, 1987, p. 66, as cited in Turbill, 2000, p. 212). Turbill (2000) believed the proofreading process required students to slow down their reading in an effort to pay attention to each word individually, with an emphasis on the letter clusters in each word (p. 212). Furthermore, proofreading encourages students to find their own errors and correct them. This requires students to recognize a word is not correct then find the conventional spelling of the word.
Spelling instruction is an important component of elementary education. However, spelling tests are an unethical waste of student and teacher time, as the words memorized for these tests are rarely transferred to student writing. Engaging students in writing activities that interest them, then encouraging them to proofread what they have written is far more effective spelling instruction.
Questions for thought
I have found that I frequently use the Gracian strategy of using a synonym to stand for a word that I do not know how to spell. Describe a time when you have used this strategy? Did you ever learn how to spell the word you wanted to use?
What resources do you utilize when trying to find the conventional spelling of a word? Which resources do you teach your students to use?
References
Goodreads. (2018). Spelling quotes. Retrieved from https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/spelling
Hughes, M., & Searle, D. (2000). Spelling and ‘the second ‘R”. Language Arts, 77(3). Retrieved from http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&gathStatTab=true&ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCRN613373549&indx=1&recIds=ETOCRN072258769
Rymer, R., & Williams, C. (2000). ‘Wasn’t that a spelling word?’ Spelling instruction and young children’s writing. Language Arts, 77(3). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41483059?read-now=1&loggedin=true&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Turbill, J. (2000). Developing a spelling conscience. Language Arts, 77(3). Retrieved from http://explore.bl.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&gathStatTab=true&ct=display&fn=search&doc=ETOCRN613373549&indx=1&recIds=ETOCRN072258770
Jessy L. Ring
RRE #10 – Watching Emotions
EDUC 333 / 433
3 November 2018
“These poems tell stories, create images and moods, make readers laugh or cry, develop a sense of wonder, and show the world in a new way” (Glover, 1999 as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 289).
Written language is a powerful instrument for describing the world around us. It is delivered in many arrangements, the most beautiful of which, is poetry. Tompkins (2016) described numerous types of poetry students in elementary school write; including: formula poems, free verse, syllable-count poems, and rhymed verse (pp. 292-299). Tompkins also introduced the poetic devices utilized in poetry; including: comparison in the form of simile and metaphor, alliteration, onomatopoeia, and repetition (pp. 300-301). It is imperative that teachers comprehend the many forms and devices utilized by poetry, however, writing poetry requires more than just basic knowledge.
Poetry involves more than writing silly sentences that rhyme. Poetry is a method of expressing one’s deepest fears and darkest desires, one’s happiest moments and most exciting memories; poetry is using words to watch emotions come to life. As Glover (1999) eloquently stated, “We can’t remove the troubles in our students’ lives, but we can help them find their voices so that they can begin to express what is in their hearts and eventually make sense of it all” (p. 87). Exposing students to poetry and encouraging them to write their own, establishes a medium for students to express what is occurring in their day to day lives, the good and the bad.
While basic knowledge of poetry is essential for teachers, quality instruction requires more than a basic knowledge and a book of poems. Glover (1999) made several suggestions for supporting students’ poetry development. She stressed, “A safe environment in which to write, a vigilant teacher, a wealth of examples, and practice all help writers become more proficient at their craft” (p. 79). Students need to feel their classroom is a safe place for self-expression, just as they need to know it is a safe place for other content area discourse. Students need the support of a teacher who is aware of where they are in their development and prepared to scaffold them to the next stage. Students need a plethora of quality examples to inspire them to write their own great works of poetry. Finally, students need adequate time to think, draft, revise, and otherwise fine tune their writing. Including these elements in the classroom is the best way to get a class started on their journey into poetry.
Poetry as a form of self-expression, enables students to incorporate the many facets of their lives into their writing. Ladson-Billings (1995) used the term culturally responsive to describe the practice of including students’ home communication patterns in the school environment (p. 467). By this definition, poetry is a culturally responsive practice in the classroom. When students are expressing themselves poetically, there are no rules about using academic language. As Glover (1999) expressed, “Every poet’s voice develops differently and in its own time. A big part of our job as teachers of young poets is to allow for those differences in our classroom” (p. 83). I believe it is not our job to allow for the differences, it is our job to encourage them.
Questions for thought
Has there been a time in your life when you felt the need to write poetry to help you make sense of what was happening? Did you find this writing to be helpful?
How do you encourage the students in your class to express themselves? Do you also participate in the self-expression activities that you encourage your students to participate in?
References
Glover, M. K. (1999). A garden of poets: Poetry writing in the elementary classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED427341.pdf
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jessy L. Ring
RRE #9 – Self-Regulated Learning
EDUC 333/ 433
26 October 2018
“They scaffold students’ first research experiences to help them understand the process and develop the knowledge, strategies, and tools to be successful. Perry and Drummond (2002) describe this process as moving from teacher regulated to student self-regulated learning” (as cited by Tompkins, 2016, pp. 275-276).
“If students are to be motivated readers and writers, we must give them the tools and the reasons to read and write and allow them to discover the many paths to literacy” (Turner & Paris, 1995, p. 672). Unfortunately, this is not typically how language arts are taught in the classroom. Despite the plethora of research detailing best practices for creating independent lifelong learners, students are still asked to read a section of text and then fill out a worksheet, which does not meet the goals of literacy instruction. Tompkins (2016) stated, “The goal of language arts instruction is to develop students’ communicative competence in all six language arts” (p. 23). She further stressed the value of “meaningful, functional, and genuine activities” (p. 23). While worksheets could be considered functional, they are neither meaningful or genuine.
Reading a section of text and filling out a worksheet is boring, for students and teachers. Turner and Paris (1995) studied the influence of literacy tasks on student motivation. They found student motivation was most influenced by the type of tasks students were required to perform, with open-ended tasks motivating students more than rote tasks (p. 664). Open-ended tasks are those which have multiple avenues of completion. Turner and Paris (1995) specified six critical features of open-ended tasks: choices about how to participate, challenge for all students at their level, control over learning, collaboration with others, constructive comprehension through reading and writing, and promoting feelings of competence and efficacy (p. 664). These critical features are similar to the elements Perry and Drummond (2002) described as necessary in developing self-regulated learners; which include: building a community of learners, involving students in complex meaningful tasks, offering students choices, providing students opportunities to control challenge, and involving students in evaluating their work (pp. 301-310). The critical features of open-ended tasks combined with the elements required to create self-regulated learners create classroom environments that enhance student motivation and learning.
There is one type of project that truly exemplifies the critical features of open-ended tasks and the elements required to create self-regulated learners, the research project. Tompkins (2016) discussed the research process, she states “Students use the research process to identify topics they’re interested in studying; locate information using books, online materials, and other resources; and they use what they learn to create a project to share with classmates and wider audiences” (p.262). The open-ended nature of research projects enables students to make culturally relevant choices about those projects. Ladson-Billings (1995) used the term culturally responsive to refer to the dynamic relationship between the home culture and school culture (p. 467). Research projects enable students to incorporate their home culture into the school environment, making them culturally responsive in nature.
In sum, students need open-ended, meaningful activities to become self-motivated, self-regulated learners. These types of projects are comprised of similar features designed to facilitate the development of self-regulated learners. One exemplary activity that incorporates these features is research projects, which enable students to make culturally relevant choices.
Questions for thought:
Why is developing self-motivated, self-regulating learners important?
How does a student’s ability to self-motivate and self-regulate influence their future learning and development?
How can you incorporate open-ended literacy tasks into classroom instruction?
References
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
Perry, N., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56(3). Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=a82c5bd6-8675-49c6-ba80-39b4b5f25c62%40sessionmgr102
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8). Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=563d89c8-eb97-407e-a5bc-af05b1cc009c%40sessionmgr4010
Jessy L. Ring
RRE #8 – Intertextuality and Plagiarism
EDUC 333 / 433
19 October 2018
“Cairney (1990) found that students weave bits of the stories they’ve read into the stories they write; they share their compositions, and then bits of these compositions make their way into classmates’ compositions” (as cited by Tompkins, 2016, p. 243).
“The reading and writing processes are related, with similarities and elements unique to both” (Ring, 2018, #5). The connection amongst the reading and writing processes renders it effortless to observe why aspects of reading material are incorporated into what is written. Tompkins (2016) illuminated seven ways students make intertextual links in their written work, ranging from story retellings to combining several stories to make a new one (p. 243). Cairney (1990) interviewed students and found that “All children poach from stories they’ve read. Almost all the students interviewed were aware that the things they read had influence on their writing” (p. 483). He believed teachers need to provide a rich literary environment, including varying genres of materials, so students would have a vast repertoire of resources to pull inspiration from (p. 484). Hade (1988) concurred with Cairney, finding the richness of student writing to be directly related to the richness of the literary materials they were exposed to (as cited in Dressel, 1990, p. 398). The connection between what is read, and student writing provides evidence for the emphasis on including rich literary material in the classroom.
Developing student writing is the goal of elementary teachers everywhere. However, it is essential that teachers consider where the line between intertextuality and plagiarism is drawn. Tompkins (2016) defined plagiarism as “…a form of cheating; it happens when students copy sentences and paragraphs from a print of digital text without giving credit to that text” (p. 280). Ranamukalage, Celia, and Pennycook (2004) argued, “that the use of the concept “plagiarism,” although possibly useful to identify certain base acts of presenting the work of others as one’s own, by and large obfuscates more than it clarifies” (p. 172). Students do not see the difference between intertextuality and plagiarism, unless the plagiarism is direct and intentional. Angelil-Cater (2000) recommended viewing intertextuality and plagiarism from a developing skills standpoint, stating, “Research that has focused more closely on student writing, motivation, and development has shown that textual borrowing is more an issue of academic literacy than academic dishonesty, and is therefore best viewed primarily as a developmental problem” (as cited by Ranamukalage et al, 2004, p. 174). As students develop their writing skills and are exposed to explicit instruction on citing sources, they will use intertextuality more appropriately and decrease their incidences of unintentional plagiarism.
Teachers must provide explicit instruction on citing sources if students are to walk the line between intertextuality and plagiarism. Tompkins (2016) recommends eight teacher practices to avoid problems with plagiarism (P. 280). There are videos available online that teachers can utilize to help teach students about citing sources, including Citations for Beginners available on EasyBib for younger students and Plagiarism: Lesson one available on YouTube for later elementary grades. While intertextuality is common, it is important that students can distinguish between intertextuality and the unethical act of plagiarism.
Questions for thought:
How would you address incidences of plagiarism in your classroom?
When should instruction begin on citing sources, and what should this early instruction look like?
Have you found elements of your readings make their way into your writing? If so, how do you walk the line between intertextuality and plagiarism?
References
Cairney, T. (1990). Intertextuality: Infectious echoes from the past. The Reading Teacher, 43(7). Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.unm.edu/stable/20200444
Dressel, J. H. (1990). The effects of listening to and discussing different qualities of children’s literature on the narrative writing of fifth graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(4). Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.unm.edu/stable/40171174
EasyBib. (2017, September 6). Citations for beginners [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.easybib.com/guides/video-lesson-citations-for-beginners/
Ranamukalage, C., Celia, T., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(3). Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=c03841c2- f638-4ff7-b208-de9edb6a58b0%40sessionmgr4006
Ring, J. L. (2018). RRE #5: The reading writing relationship. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/view/jessyring/course-work/educ-333-oral-and-written-language/reader- response-essays
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Young, A. (2016, May 1). Plagiarism: Lesson one [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly_AeHl4t5M
Jessy Ring
Reader Response Essay #7
EDUC 333 / 433
11 October 2018
“Teaching derivational prefixes and suffixes and non-English root words in fourth through eighth grades improves students’ ability to unlock the meaning of unfamiliar words” (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012 as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 204).
The English language, comprised of words and ideas from numerous other languages, exhibits a beauty and life all its own. Tompkins (2016) described the development of the English language, from the highly inflected Old English utilized after the Normans invaded England, to the much less inflected Modern English in use today (pp. 187-189). While Modern English does not contain as many inflections as was found in Old English, English continues to be an inflected language.
An inflected language utilizes affixes to alter the meaning of words or to create new words. Tompkins (2016) defined affixes as “bound morphemes that are added to words. They’re either prefixes or suffixes” (p. 192). There are two types of affixes. Inflectional affixes, such as -s and -ed, are used to change the tense of the word or mark the plural of the world. Derivational affixes, such as -tion and -ly, are used to change the word’s part of speech (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2010, p. 49). For example, create is a verb, creation is a noun. Understanding affixes and the role they play in the English language is important to understanding long, multisyllable words.
As Tompkins (2016) pointed out, understanding derivational affixes improves students’ comprehension of unfamiliar words (p. 204). Kieffer and Lesaux (2010) expanded on Tompkins analysis, stating “To meet the needs of their students, teachers must not only teach academic language and vocabulary but also give them the thinking tools they need to be active language learners” (p. 47). Moats (2004) linked morphological instruction to improved student outcomes in vocabulary development, word recognition, and spelling (p. 278) Kieffer and Lesaux (2010) provided four guiding principles to be utilized for effective morphology instruction: “Morphology should be taught in the context of rich vocabulary instruction” (p. 50), “Using morphology should be taught as a cognitive strategy” (p. 50), “Instruction should introduce important word parts systematically and with opportunities for reteaching and practice” (p. 51), and “Instruction should be explicit but situated in meaningful contexts” (p. 54). While Kieffer and Lesaux (2010) stressed the value of morphological instruction when working with English language learners, O’Connor (2007) believed it is essential when working with poor readers because it eases the burden of decoding multisyllabic words (pp. 92-93). The value of morphological instruction was considered in teaching English language learners and struggling readers, however, it extends to all students in the classroom.
Even though ample research has demonstrated the value of morphological instruction, Moats (2004) discovered teachers did not use morphological instruction due to their own lack of morphological knowledge (p. 277). She believed gaps in teacher knowledge associated with morphological instruction could be alleviated with professional development; she stated, “The goal of professional development is to enable teachers to explain language concepts accurately and completely” (p. 278). Ladson-Billings (1995) would approve of this call for teacher education, as morphological instruction would support English language learners and other language minorities in the classroom.
Questions for thought
What do you know about and how do you use morphology to comprehend words?
What experiences have you had in the classroom, as a student or teacher, with morphological instruction?
References
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Morphing into adolescents: Active word learning for English-language learners and their classmates in middle school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1). Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20749075
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
Moats, L. C. (2004). Science, language, and imagination in the professional development of reading teachers. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (269- 287). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
O’Connor, R. E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning difficulties. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jessy Ring
RRE # 6
EDUC 333 / 433
1 October 2018
“McTigue and Flowers (2011) point out that it’s essential to teach students how to interpret graphic representation so they can use them effectively and because high-stakes achievement tests often include a number of questions about information that’s provided visually” (as cited by Tompkins, 2016, p. 177).
Visual literacy is considerably more imperative today than it has ever been in the past. Smart phones and computers provide a constant bombardment of images and graphics. The invasion of visual stimulus extends beyond the screen to include textbooks and standardized tests. Bowen and Roth (2002) found high school science textbooks averaged 1.4 graphics per page (p. 304). Yeh and McTigue (2009) analyzed state science tests, discovering graphical representations in over half of the questions, with 80% of graphics containing information essential to answering the question (as cited in McTigue & Flowers, 2011). Students’ capacity to comprehend graphical information is critical to their educational success and survival in a world of bombarding visual stimulation.
Tompkins (2016) specified, “Graphic representations involve charts, graphs, and diagrams, and they’re different from pictures” (p. 177). Common sources of graphic representations include: science textbooks, newspaper articles, journal articles, and math problems. Despite the importance of comprehending graphical representations, Coleman, McTigue, and Smolkin (2010) found most teachers simply pointed to graphical representations (p. 624). Peeck (1993) explained the practice of pointing to graphical representations provided minimal support to student comprehension of the graphic (as cited in Coleman et al., 2010, p. 629). It is essential that teachers provide explicit instruction on comprehending graphical representations, which goes beyond merely pointing at them.
Coleman et al. (2010) highlight the limited research on student comprehension of graphical representation, stating, “what is known suggests that the effective use of graphics must be taught” (p. 615). Metros (2008) recommended teachers include visual literacy opportunities in their lesson plans, stating, “They should teach students how to analyze and interpret and compose and create images and visual communications” (p. 106). The recent push to include additional informational literature in elementary classrooms provides teachers with material to utilize for this instruction. McTigue and Flowers (2011) warn, “Although increased experience will help students navigate such texts, simply having more exposure to informational texts does not ensure an understanding of science graphics” (p. 581). The Common Core State Standards Initiative (2018) requires students to commence instruction in visual literacy in Kindergarten, by connecting pictures to text. By second grade, students are expected to explain how images contribute to and clarify text. Students’ knowledge of visual literacy should be sufficiently developed by the fourth-grade, as students are expected to, “Interpret information presented visually, orally, or quantitatively (e.g., in charts, graphs, diagrams, timelines, animations or interactive elements on Web pages)” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2018).
Teaches must explicitly teach students how to comprehend graphical representations if they are to be successful. Ladson-Billings (1995) wrote, “Teachers must scaffold, or build bridges, to facilitate learning” (p. 481). Pointing at graphical representations is not building bridges between the text and the graphic. State assessments were designed to assure students were meeting the Common Core State Standards. If teachers expect students to be successful, they must strive to make all students visually literate.
Questions for thought
How can / do you support students understanding of graphical representations?
The Common Core State Standards includes comprehending graphical representations in the language arts standards. Do you think understanding graphical representations is a language arts skill, or could / should it be included in other content area standards? Why?
References
Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32(3). Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=a41032f2-9537-4737-b038- feaf069cb66d%40sessionmgr4010
Coleman, J. M., McTigue, E. M. & Smolkin, L. B. (15 July 2010). Elementary teachers’ use of graphical representations in science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7). Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=9ec79d7c-e70f-4de3-b684-ae8cfb9bdc58%40sessionmgr4006
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
McTigue, E. M., & Flowers, A. C. (2011). Science visual literacy: Learners’ perceptions and knowledge of diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 64(8). Retrieved from
https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.unm.edu/stable/41203457
Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into Practice, 47(2). Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost- com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=63e672f1-da62-4917-a7bd-102f0705d933%40sessionmgr120
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jessy L. Ring
RRE #5 - The Reading Writing Relationship
EDUC 333 / 433
27 September 2018
“For example, notice the similarities between the activities in the third stage of reading and writing – responding and revising, respectively. Fitzgerald (1989) analyzed these activities and concluded that they draw on similar processes of author-reader-text interactions” (as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 146).
Stephen King (2000) wrote, “Constant reading will pull you into a place (a mind-set, if you like the phrase) where you can write eagerly and without self-consciousness” (p. 145). Reading and writing are intricately related communication processes. Tompkins (2016) discussed the reciprocal nature of reading and writing (p. 146). Fitzgerald (1989) examined the relationship between critical reading and revision of written work; he specified, “Certain kinds of revision while writing would appear to necessitate critical reading, and critical reading may often lead to revision of ideas and / or printed text” (p. 48). Tompkins (2016) compared the reading and writing processes, noting several commonalities between the two processes. For instance, the word identification strategies exercised during the reading stage of the reading process are comparable to the spelling strategies used during the drafting stage of the writing process (pp. 145-146). The relationship between reading and writing can assist students in developing proficiencies in both.
The reading and writing processes contain several commonalities, but it would be unethical to teach just one or the other. Shanahan (1988) explained that reading and writing are not as similar as some claim, citing empirical studies which “reported them to be at least as different as they are similar” (p. 637). This implies less of an equal sign between the two processes and more of a Venn diagram, with some elements unique to each process. A student’s capacity to utilize the commonalities between the processes is contingent on their ability to transfer skills from one process to the other. Shanahan (1988) explained, “When information is stored in memory, it often cannot be generalized beyond the purposes for which it was originally obtained” (p. 641). Explicitly teaching the commonalities connects the two processes in a manner that facilitates transfer.
There has been far less research on the effects of explicitly teaching the commonalities between the reading and writing processes to English language learners (ELLs). SchifferDanoff (2018) suggested strategies for literacy development of ELLs, including integrating reading and writing activities, providing students meaningful experience in both, and providing opportunities for students to explore vocabulary terms which can transfer from reading to writing (n.p.). Tompkins (2016) also stressed the importance of vocabulary when helping ELLs develop the writing process (p. 144). Shanahan (1988) expressed the importance of integrating reading and writing activities in his seventh principle, which asserts, “Reading and writing should be taught in meaningful contexts” (p. 636). The reading and writing processes are related, with similarities and elements unique to both. When the connection between them is explicitly taught, students are more likely to transfer knowledge from one process to the other, benefiting both processes. ELL students are also likely to benefit from the relationship between reading and writing, with adequate support.
Questions for thought
Research has covered a variety of ways in which the reading and writing processes are similar, how are they different?
How are your thought processes when you read similar to your thought processes as you write?
References
King, S. (2000). On writing: A Memoir of the craft. New York, NY: Pocket books.
Fitzgerald, J. (1989). Enhancing two related thought processes: Revision in writing and critical reading. The Reading Teacher, 43(1), 42-48. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20140203
SchifferDanoff, V., (2018). Teaching ELL: Reading and writing strategies. Retrieved from https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/teaching-ell-reading-and- writing-strategies/
Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles. The Reading Teacher, 41(7), 636-647. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20199888
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Jessy Ring
RRE #4
EDUC 333 / 433
20 September 2018
“Similarly, Pressley (1992) reported that students’ learning was promoted when they had opportunities to elaborate ideas through talk” (Pressley, 1992 as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 102).
Talk is a vital component of education as it facilitates the transfer of ideas from one person to another. Humans are social creatures by nature; it is through our ability to talk that we have learned to share ideas and collaborate for the betterment of our species. Tompkins (2016) discussed the importance of talk in relation to the learning of students (pp. 98-106). One-way talk facilitates learning in the classroom is by providing opportunities for students to elaborate on their ideas (Pressley, 1992; Tompkins 2016). Talk also enables students to connect new learning to prior knowledge (Pressley, 1992; Wittrock & Alesandrini, 1990 as cited in Tompkins, 2016). Wilkinson (1968) used the term oracy to discuss listening and speaking skills, he stated, “Oracy is not, of course, a subject but a condition of learning in all subjects” (p. 743). Over 50 years of research has shown that talk is vital for learning in the classroom. The importance of talk is recognized by teacher preparation programs and textbook authors, as shown by the inclusion of discourse practices in most college level education courses.
Educational theorists explored the importance of talk in the classroom as well. Ladson-Billings (1995) found culturally appropriate talk in the classroom had a positive correlation to student achievement scores (p. 466). Winfield (2007) discussed the importance of love in learning and collaboration. She stated, “True learning flourishes in an environment of love. And only the loving can transform society in a way that is beneficial to all members of society” (p. 1). While love is the driving force, talk is the tool used by love to accomplish the transformation. Vygotsky stressed the importance of talk in his theories on learning as well. He believed learning occurs in a social environment with the help of a more knowledgeable other (McLeod, 2018). Talk is the principle component of the social environment.
While talk is vital to the learning of students in the classroom, consideration must be given to English language learners (EEL). Tompkins (2016) stated, “Talk facilitates learning for all students, but it’s especially important for English learners who are struggling to learn English at the same time they’re grappling with grade-level content-area learning” (Gibbons, 2002 as cited in Tompkins 2016, p. 111). However, Mohr and Mohr (2007) found ELL students were largely unengaged in the classroom and appeared to be neglected. The teachers in Mohr’s 2004 study explained they were giving the student’s an extended silent period to allow them to adjust to the classroom (Mohr & Mohr, 2007). For talk to be effective in the classroom, all students must be engaged. Students should be encouraged to talk with their peers and teachers as they work to master content in the classroom.
Questions for thought:
How can you support and engage ELL students in classroom discussion?
How does talk relate to the six language arts?
References
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
McLeod, S. A. (2018, Aug 05). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Mohr, K. A.J., & Mohr, E. S. (2007). Extending English language learners’ classroom interactions using the response protocol. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/extending-english-language-learners-classroom- interactions-using-response-protocol
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1). Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=3397363e- f763-42b3-adbf-a445462d7bc0%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wilkinson, A. (1968). Oracy in English teaching. Elementary English, 45(6), 743-747. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41386406
Winfield, M. I. (2007-05). “Transformative theory” in Language observing visual explorations (Doctoral dissertation). Athenaeum@UGA (2014-03-04T02:42:35Z)
Jessy Ring
Reader Response Essay #3
EDUC 333 / 433
14 September 2018
“Teachers also teach lessons to help children understand that their speech is composed of sounds” (Bell & Blachman, 1991 as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 67).
Phonemic awareness, as defined by Tompkins (2016) is, “children’s understanding that speech is composed of a series of individual sounds,” (p. 66). Teachers develop phonemic awareness in students with activities that require students to isolate and recognize a sound in a word, blend individual sounds to form a word, group words by sound, segment words by sound, or delete individual sounds from words (Ehri, 2004; Tompkins 2016). Phonics instruction is based on phonemic awareness; however, phonics instruction involves the relationship between phonemes (the sounds of speech) and graphemes (the written representation of those sounds), whereas phonemic awareness is only concerned with the sounds present in the English language (Tompkins, 2016).
Research has shown a strong correlation between phonemic awareness in students and success in reading and spelling (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Ehri, 2004; Tompkins, 2016). Ball and Blachman (1991) evaluated the effects of training kindergarten students in phonemic segmentation and letter recognition on their developing reading and spelling skills. They found that the group that participated in phonemic segmentation training outperformed the control groups in not only phoneme segmentation but also in letter sound knowledge, word identification, and spelling. A meta-analysis performed by Ehri (2004) compared 52 studies concerned with the effects of phonemic awareness on reading and spelling development, with the clear majority showing a positive correlation. This demonstrates that phonemic awareness training increases the reading and writing achievement of students.
With the abundance of research showing that phonemic awareness has a positive effect on students’ reading and spelling development, it is hard to understand why this skill is not being developed in students. Phonemic awareness is only mentioned once in the Common Core State Standards. The first grade standard 2E states that students should be able to “Spell untaught words phonetically, drawing on phonemic awareness and spelling conventions” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2018, n.p.). The standards do not call for the development of phonemic awareness, only that it is used by students.
Mrs. Hammond, a second-grade teacher at McKinley Elementary, performs phonemic awareness exercises with her students frequently. She began to develop the phonemic awareness skills of her students last year as their first-grade teacher. This year, she moved to the second grade and continues to develop the skills of her students. Mrs. Hammond engages her students in the common phonemic awareness exercise of sound manipulation, where the students are given a word or sound and then asked to change it. For example, she states, “the word is at add /m/”, student responds “mat.” This training develops her students’ ability to sound out words when reading and writing. Based on research and observation, phonemic awareness training should be included in the Common Core State Standards and provided to all students.
Questions for thought:
How does a thorough understanding of the sounds in spoken language assist in reading and spelling?
What are your thoughts on including phonemic awareness exercises in your classroom?
References
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-86. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/747731
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/
Ehri, L.C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics, An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analyses. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The Voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153-186). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Jessy Ring
Reader Response Essay #2
EDUC 333 / 433
7 September 2018
“Response to Intervention (RTI) is a schoolwide initiative to identify struggling students quickly, promote effective classroom instruction, provide interventions, and increase students’ success” (Mellard & Johnson, 2008 as cited in Tompkins, 2016, p. 42).
In the above passage, Tompkins (2016) introduces Response to Intervention (RTI), which educators use to identify students who are failing to succeed in the classroom. RTI utilizes a tiered approach comprised of three tiers: screening and prevention, early intervention, and intensive intervention. The classroom teacher performs the first tier, consisting of high-quality, research-based instruction, as well as universal screening of all students for learning disabilities. The second tier, early intervention, entails small group research-based interventions addressing specific areas of need. Educators only utilize the third tier for students who are not making significant progress in the first two tiers and is comprised of intensive intervention, often in the form of special education (Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Tompkins, 2016). The RTI tiers scaffold the assistance students require, with each level only providing the assistance necessary to reach the next level, similar to the learning model theorist Lev Vygotsky proposes (McLeod, 2018). The purpose of RTI is to provide the resources needed to allow all students to be successful.
Response to Intervention should be viewed from the lens of Dr. Winfield’s Transformative Theory, which states, “A person who uses love to transform a mountain of evil into possibility is exercising a praxis of possibility” (Winfield, 2007, p. 2). RTI is the love used to assist a student in going from struggling to success or possibility. When a teacher observes a student failing to make academic progress, it is with love that the teacher recommends the student for tier two help. It is also with love that a teacher utilizes RTI to identify learning disabilities. Ladson-Billings (1995) suggests an element of culturally relevant instruction is the ability to develop students academically, which RTI provides to all students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). In short, RTI is a scaffolded system designed to give all students the assistance required to be successful in the classroom.
Students in New Mexico need the assistance that comes with RTI. Nott (2018) cites the Quality Counts report results, which show that New Mexico is ranked 50th out of 50 states. The ranking considers three factors: funding distribution, student achievement, and chance-for-success index. The lowest score in New Mexico is in student achievement, where only 28.6 percent of students are proficient in language arts, according to the PARCC exam. The use of RTI is state mandated in New Mexico, which requires schools to use a three-tier system to support students (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2018). However, student achievement scores show that educators do not implement RTI properly in some schools. New Mexico students deserve the support that will help them succeed.
Questions for thought:
How can Response to Intervention have a positive impact on student achievement scores?
You have observed that a student in your class is struggling to meet grade level expectations, what supports are in place to help? What are your next steps?
References
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
McLeod, S. A. (2018, Aug 05). Lev Vygotsky. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementing Response to Intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and the National Association of Elementary School Principals.
New Mexico Public Education Department. (2018). Response to intervention. Retrieved from https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/safe-healthy-schools/response-to-intervention-rti/
Nott, R. (2018, January 17). Report: N.M. ranked next to last for public education. Santa Fe New Mexican. Retrieved from http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/education/report-n- m-ranked-next-to-last-for-public-education/article_19cf834f-9c1b-55dd-b863-762805fbc4b9.html
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Winfield, M. I. (2007-05). “Transformative theory” in Language observing visual explorations (Doctoral dissertation). Athenaeum@UGA (2014-03-04T02:42:35Z)
Jessy Ring
Reader Response Essay #1
EDUC 333 / 433
4 September 2018
“The goal is for students to add Standard English to their repertoire of language registers, not to replace their home dialect with Standard English. Interestingly, researchers have also found regional differences in how people spell words on Twitter” (Tompkins, 2016, p. 9; Eisenstein, O’Connor, Smith, & Xing, 2011).
In this passage Tompkins (2016) refers to the variety of language dialects that are present in the United States. Dialects are naturally occurring variations of Standard English that originate from living in different regions. As stated, the goal of education is to add Standard, or Academic English to the repertoire of dialects that students acquire. In the classroom, teachers must be aware of the variety of English dialects that exist in their students; which include language variations in spoken and written form. Research conducted by Eisenstein, O’Connor, Smith, and Xing (2011), found regional variations in spoken and written English. For example, students originating from northern California may say “iono,” whereas students from New Mexico would say “idk;” in Academic English the same phrase would be “I don’t know” (Eisenstein et al, 2011). This variation can create misunderstandings for teachers, who must be able to communicate with all students.
The Ladson-Billings Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (1995) cites research that has documented increased achievement levels in students when their teachers use language interaction patterns found in the home dialect of students (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers’ knowledge of student’s dialects is vital to utilize the connection between those dialects and academic achievement. Brayboy’s Critical Race Theory (2005) addresses racism that is endemic in society; stating “racism has become so deeply engrained in society’s and schooling’s consciousness that if is often invisible” (Brayboy, 2005, p. 428). When teachers fail to acknowledge the dialects of their students, they are perpetuating the engrained racism of society. Dr. Winfield’s (2007) Transformative Theory states that learning is enhanced in an environment of love (Winfield, 2007). When teachers love their students they celebrate their difference, including their various dialects. The three theories together illustrate the importance of tolerance, acceptance, and love in the educational environment; which includes mindful consideration of the variety of English dialects that are present in the classrooms.
The current political and racial tensions in the United States are affected by regional dialects as well. An article written by Stanford professor Marguerite Rigoglioso (2014), states court verdicts have been swayed due to prejudice towards non-standard English dialects. The article specifically mentions the trial of Trayvon Martin in Florida, and the impact of his friend’s testimony at the trial. Rigoglioso believes the non-standard English used by the witness diminished her impact on the jury because they found her testimony less credible when viewed from their dialectic biases.
Non-standard English dialects have existed in the United States since the English language was transported by settlers. These dialects impact our schools and society; and while they are in no way inferior to Standard or Academic English, they are often treated as such. As educators, it is vital that the dialects used by students are valued while working to develop students’ use of Academic English.
Questions for thought:
How can students’ home languages or dialects be incorporated into the classroom in meaningful ways?
If you were unable to understand the dialect used by a student, where would you go to seek clarification?
References
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review, 37(5), 425-446. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.491.1868&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Eisenstein, J., O’Connor, B., Smith, N.A., & Xing, E. P. (2011). A latent variable model for geographic lexical variation. Retrieved from https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~nasmith/papers/eisenstein+oconnor+smith+xing.emnlp 10.pdf
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from http://lmcreadinglist.pbworks.com/f/Ladson-Billings%20%281995%29.pdf
Rigoglioso, M. (2014). Prejudice toward African American dialect can result in unfair rulings. Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-prejudice-african-american-dialect- result.html
Tompkins, G.E. (2016). Language arts, Patterns of practice (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Winfield, M. I. (2007-05). “Transformative theory” in Language observing visual explorations (Doctoral dissertation). Athenaeum@UGA (2014-03-04T02:42:35Z)