This past week, in class, I presented a journal article to the rest of the students. I honestly can say that this was THE most beneficial article I have ever read. I am still new to teaching, only in my second year, and I am constantly learning new things to use in my classroom. One of my biggest challenges is helping my ESL (English as a second language) students to be on the same level as others in our class. The article I read, and presented to my reading class, hit on some very important facts that may help my students be more successful.
My article was about an elementary school in San Diego, that implemented a school wide literacy framework to help them be more successful. This school had some of the lowest scores in the state, it was in the poorest area of the city, 100% of the students qualified for free lunch, and over 70% of the students were ESL. The administrators, teachers, and parents worked for many years to collaborate on a framework that would work for their students. After a few years, the results were incredible, and the school was much more successful in testing. The basis of their framework is that learning is social. Even though they have a high ESL population, this was always part of instruction. Being social helped their students be more successful. The belief in the framework was that if oral language is not present, how is a child supposed to read and write successfully? Students increased their oral language through both whole group and small group instruction. During centers/stations, the students were expected to work collaboratively 100% of the time. Another positive result to this literacy framework, was that the school's math scores also improved. The school has since produced frameworks for other areas of study.
I loved reading and presenting this article. It gave me a new understanding in how ESL students might learn more successfully. It seems like common sense that an ESL student needs to increase their oral language, but I have never thought about that as far as instruction is concerned. Because of the success this school found with their literacy framework, I am going to increase collaboration time during activities and centers.
What do you think? Do you already have students collaborate often in your class? What are the positive/negative outcomes of implementing this in your classroom?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Cinco
This week's class, and text reading, focused on numerous aspects of reading, including the five stages of the reading process (through shared reading). These stages, in order, consist of pre-reading, reading, responding, exploring, and applying. These strategies are something I try to use when I teach, on a daily basis, because they are a vital process for children when learning to read.
Pre-reading is important because it gets the students thinking about what they already know about the text, by looking at the title and taking picture walks. When students can activate prior knowledge, I think it is extremely important to their reading, because their comprehension will most likely be greater. As a teacher of several ESL (english as a second language) students, and others with IEPs (individualized education plan), during reading I make sure to go slowly and I am very articulate. I point out important information to make sure those words/ideas really stick in their heads. Afterward, I make sure to have a discussion about the text and answer questions that students have (start of responding stage). This leads into their follow up. On most days, the students will complete a writing and/or drawing piece that is a response to the text we went over. The stage of exploring is something I need to work on more as a teacher. I often follow plans from the curriculum, and sometimes it does not have this stage as an integral part (if at all). The exploring stage includes adding new words to the word wall from the text, teaching mini lessons in small group, talking more about the author/illustrator, etc. I believe that the stage of applying can be almost combined with the stage of responding; at least in my classroom. When my students are responding to the text, they are also applying what they learned in the follow up. If they do not complete it correctly, I know that they did not understand, and need to be re-taught the lesson of that day (or perhaps need to re-read the text).
The five stages of reading are essential to a student's education. Even though I need to improve on the fourth stage of exploring, I try my best to use these stages correctly and constantly! One way I think I can improve on this stage is by adding things to centers where my students can further explore the text we just looked at. Do you have any ideas of how I can improve on this stage? Please let me know . . . your feedback is much appreciated!!!
Pre-reading is important because it gets the students thinking about what they already know about the text, by looking at the title and taking picture walks. When students can activate prior knowledge, I think it is extremely important to their reading, because their comprehension will most likely be greater. As a teacher of several ESL (english as a second language) students, and others with IEPs (individualized education plan), during reading I make sure to go slowly and I am very articulate. I point out important information to make sure those words/ideas really stick in their heads. Afterward, I make sure to have a discussion about the text and answer questions that students have (start of responding stage). This leads into their follow up. On most days, the students will complete a writing and/or drawing piece that is a response to the text we went over. The stage of exploring is something I need to work on more as a teacher. I often follow plans from the curriculum, and sometimes it does not have this stage as an integral part (if at all). The exploring stage includes adding new words to the word wall from the text, teaching mini lessons in small group, talking more about the author/illustrator, etc. I believe that the stage of applying can be almost combined with the stage of responding; at least in my classroom. When my students are responding to the text, they are also applying what they learned in the follow up. If they do not complete it correctly, I know that they did not understand, and need to be re-taught the lesson of that day (or perhaps need to re-read the text).
The five stages of reading are essential to a student's education. Even though I need to improve on the fourth stage of exploring, I try my best to use these stages correctly and constantly! One way I think I can improve on this stage is by adding things to centers where my students can further explore the text we just looked at. Do you have any ideas of how I can improve on this stage? Please let me know . . . your feedback is much appreciated!!!
Sunday, September 11, 2011
What I think about learning theories is . . .
This week in class we discussed different learning theories. Throughout the past year at Hopkins I have learned about a lot of different theorists, and have been asked to think of which one I agree with the most. I find it hard to really zero in on one in particular. There are so many theories that have certain aspects I agree with, but then others that I do not. In class, after discussing the differences between these theories, we worked with a partner to figure out what our commonalities and differences were, and why.
The four theories we discussed were behaviorism, constructivism, sociolinguistics, and cognitive/information processing. The cognitive/information processing theory really focuses on comprehension during reading. Although this would be nice for everyone to be successful in, and many are, there are plenty of students that have problems with comprehension. I have noticed many students that can read higher level texts, but have no idea what they just read. This is an area that some children really need help in. The sociolinguistics theory states that oral language is the basis to reading and writing. Although I agree this is important, I have seen many ESL children that are successful without much English background, and students in my highest reading group that are the least social in the class. Oral language does not have to do with only speaking, but also with listening and processing language. Something I definitely agree with in this theory is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). I agree that students learn best in the area of when something is not too hard or too easy.
The last two theories are very important to me, because these are the two that I believe in the most, and use the most when I teach. They are also very different theories, and many believe to be "opposites." While behaviorism is teacher-centered, constructivism is student-centered. When behaviorism believes behavior/learning is "learned," constructivism believes that students create knowledge "naturally." I believe that both of these are essential in a first grade classroom. Students are young enough that they still need to be guided in many ways, and behaviorism is a necessity, especially the earlier in the school year we find ourselves. I also believe that as a teacher, I shouldn't be feeding all the information to my students, and that they need to use critical thinking to come up with the answers on their own.
Looking at different theorists is definitely interesting. It is important for me, especially, because I am only in my second year of full-time teaching at this grade level. Just as a student, I am constantly learning. Students (and classes) are different. I need to remember that what works for one student (or class) doesn't necessarily work for another!
The four theories we discussed were behaviorism, constructivism, sociolinguistics, and cognitive/information processing. The cognitive/information processing theory really focuses on comprehension during reading. Although this would be nice for everyone to be successful in, and many are, there are plenty of students that have problems with comprehension. I have noticed many students that can read higher level texts, but have no idea what they just read. This is an area that some children really need help in. The sociolinguistics theory states that oral language is the basis to reading and writing. Although I agree this is important, I have seen many ESL children that are successful without much English background, and students in my highest reading group that are the least social in the class. Oral language does not have to do with only speaking, but also with listening and processing language. Something I definitely agree with in this theory is the zone of proximal development (ZPD). I agree that students learn best in the area of when something is not too hard or too easy.
The last two theories are very important to me, because these are the two that I believe in the most, and use the most when I teach. They are also very different theories, and many believe to be "opposites." While behaviorism is teacher-centered, constructivism is student-centered. When behaviorism believes behavior/learning is "learned," constructivism believes that students create knowledge "naturally." I believe that both of these are essential in a first grade classroom. Students are young enough that they still need to be guided in many ways, and behaviorism is a necessity, especially the earlier in the school year we find ourselves. I also believe that as a teacher, I shouldn't be feeding all the information to my students, and that they need to use critical thinking to come up with the answers on their own.
Looking at different theorists is definitely interesting. It is important for me, especially, because I am only in my second year of full-time teaching at this grade level. Just as a student, I am constantly learning. Students (and classes) are different. I need to remember that what works for one student (or class) doesn't necessarily work for another!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)