Martens, P., Martens, R., Doyle, M.H., Loomis, J., Fuhrman, L., Stout, R., Soper, E. (2017). Painting writing, writing painting: Thinking, seeing, and problem solving through story. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 669-679.
Martens et al clearly show how reading and composing texts can be multimodal. Here, a study of picture books is done with first graders in several schools. Written text and the art in these books are studied seamlessly; the idea behind this approach is that in picture books for children, the words and the art function as a seamless whole to create meaning.
The authors of this study do a particularly good job of showing us how composing written language and composing art are parallel modes of making meaning. I especially found helpful their discussion of how each of the cueing systems of written language has a counterpart in the graphic cues artists employ. For example, in written language, graphophonic cues are used when information about sounds and the letters they represent is processed. In art, the parallel to graphophonic cues is the various elements of art, including color, dot, line, shape, space, and texture. In written language, syntactic cues are used when information about grammatical structure is processed. In art, the parallel to syntactic cues is the principles of design, including balance, contrast, harmony, movement, pattern, rhythm, unity, and variety (see p. 671 for this discussion, including a helpful table).
We are treated to detailed discussions of how five different first grade classes and their teachers engaged in the study of multimodal texts in picture books using a structure called “Storying Studio” (p. 672). First, the children heard a read-aloud of a picture book. The book was then discussed with the children. First, the topic or theme of the story was discussed, but discussion moved to a focus on craft, both writer’s craft and artist’s craft (note that the word “artist” was used instead of “illustrator” in these craft discussions). Craft lessons typically focused on an aspect of craft that was used in composing the text. For example, one minilesson looked at the different kinds of lines an artist might use to convey different feelings. In another, the ways that an artist and a writer might show contrast in both written text and art are explored. The texts then became mentor texts for the children as they composed their own picture books using the craft elements they had studied.
One thing that deeply struck me was the depth and rigor of these book discussions as well as the children’s responses. Clearly, the language of art was used with these first graders, and they showed they understood that language in the responses they gave in discussions and in the texts they composed that applied what they had learned. This makes a strong case for not shying away from academic vocabulary with young children. Many of the concepts within these lessons might be classified as specialized content vocabulary, but the children were clearly able to work with that within the supportive, age-appropriate learning structures described here.
This article focuses mainly on how the art mode was approached with the children, “because it tends to be less familiar” (p. 672) to teachers than the cueing systems of written language. That thought also occurred to me as I read about these multimodal minilessons. We do a pretty good job helping teachers learn to address the cueing systems of written language, but in the typical teacher education program, we do much less with helping them learn about art, beyond some discussions of art styles and media in children’s literature courses.
As a teacher educator, I felt some conflicting feelings as I read about these minilessons. On the one hand, the potential of this approach excited me, and I resolved to do more with art elements and principles of design in my professional education courses. On the other hand, I realized that I will need to do a good amount of learning about these elements and principles myself before I can share that learning with the elementary teacher candidates I work with. Martens et al recognize that these kinds of feelings may indeed be felt by teachers and teacher educators: “We realize that classroom teachers (including us!) may not have an art background and may feel intimidated by talking about art in picturebooks” (p. 677). A table and two sidebars on the article’s concluding pages provide a handful; of resources, but I was left wanting more. How can I learn more about elements of art and principles of design? How could we provide more background on this content in the typical overstuffed professional curriculum?
I also wanted to know more about what other potential roadblocks might challenge the implementation of this sort of approach. For example, the five different teaching-learning environments described here were clearly supportive of this kind of multimodal approach. It was clear that strong partnerships existed between the two first authors (Martens and Martens) and the five first grade teachers described here (Doyle, Loomis, Fuhrman, Stout and Soper). How was this supportive environment achieved? What kinds of partnerships need to be constructed to make sure an approach like this can be successfully implemented? What if a teacher is working in a district like many of the districts in my area, that is still very much focused on test scores and quantifiable outcomes? How would one make a strong case for an approach like this in that kind of environment?
Showing posts with label reading_teacher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading_teacher. Show all posts
Rethinking sight words
Miles, K.P., Rubin, G.B., & Gonzalez-Frey, S. (2017). Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71(6), 715-726.
This article will help teachers rethink the ways they have taught elementary school students about sight words (aka “high-frequency” words). That rethinking is long overdue.
The most common current practice has been around for many years and continues to be seen in many elementary schools. Young readers in the early grades, as well as struggling older readers, are typically provided with one of the popular high-frequency word lists, such as the venerable “Dolch lists” which have been used for many years and are still out there (try an Internet search to see just how popular that list still is) or the Fry lists (almost as venerable and popular), or some other more recent list (there are several out there).
The typical instructional approach tends to be the same, no matter which list is used. Students practice the words on the list, often on flash cards, and are told that these words cannot be sounded out using the graphophonemic relationships they know, so the words must be memorized. The words are then presented in all sorts of contexts, including on the ubiquitous word walls.
Miles et al ask whether this “all or nothing” (or “decodable vs. non-decodable”) approach to high-frequency words is either realistic or valuable. They propose that there may be a middle ground between words that are regularly spelled (and thus easy to decode) and irregularly spelled (and thus difficult or even impossible to decode). They suggest that there may be three categories: 1) words that are regularly spelled, like “cat”, and so have an easy phoneme to grapheme correspondence, 2) words that are “temporarily” irregularly spelled, like “gate” or “then” that can become regular once children are taught the frequently occurring patterns in those words, and 3) words that are “permanently” irregularly spelled, and may indeed need to be memorized, like “have” or “great”.
Miles et al state that there are fewer permanently irregularly spelled words than teachers think, and even those words do have some letters that can be sounded out and that fit expected patterns. They conclude that direct instruction in phoneme-grapheme relationships is beneficial for all kinds of words.
Two helpful tables are provided on pages 719 and 720, showing examples of all three kinds of words. As a teacher educator, I can envision a teaching activity where teacher candidates research the lists currently being used at their field experience schools and do some classification to see where the words on the lists they are using fit.
Miles et al conclude with a detailed description of an instructional intervention where children are taught to segment words into phonemes and then to spell those words. Several kinds of sensory input are used; children are asked to say each phoneme in a word, tap it out on their arms, and watch as the teacher spells the word on a whiteboard. They then practice using plastic “counters” and a grid of boxes (reminiscent of an Elkonin box), and then write the words using markers. I can envision having teacher candidates design a lesson focusing on a word or a set of words. I could see teaching words with similar patterns in a lesson, similarly to the way that onsets and rimes are taught. As students advance, more difficult (but common) patterns could be used (for example, words like “light” and “night”, which could even be compared to words that sound like them (for example, “kite”). Even a difficult word like “thought” could be taught with words like “brought”.
The intervention suggested here is really nothing that will seem unfamiliar to experienced elementary teachers, but the reconsideration of how we teach sight words/high-frequency words is refreshing and needed. Instruction in sound-symbol correspondences can empower readers. English spelling does have its irregularities, but maybe it’s not as impossible to cope with as we have thought, and effective instruction can make it less troublesome. The authors present some limited research (small sample size and no control group) in support of the proposed intervention. It will be interesting to see if deeper research will support their conclusions, and if teachers will rethink the old ways of teaching and try the intervention with their own students.
This article will help teachers rethink the ways they have taught elementary school students about sight words (aka “high-frequency” words). That rethinking is long overdue.
The most common current practice has been around for many years and continues to be seen in many elementary schools. Young readers in the early grades, as well as struggling older readers, are typically provided with one of the popular high-frequency word lists, such as the venerable “Dolch lists” which have been used for many years and are still out there (try an Internet search to see just how popular that list still is) or the Fry lists (almost as venerable and popular), or some other more recent list (there are several out there).
The typical instructional approach tends to be the same, no matter which list is used. Students practice the words on the list, often on flash cards, and are told that these words cannot be sounded out using the graphophonemic relationships they know, so the words must be memorized. The words are then presented in all sorts of contexts, including on the ubiquitous word walls.
Miles et al ask whether this “all or nothing” (or “decodable vs. non-decodable”) approach to high-frequency words is either realistic or valuable. They propose that there may be a middle ground between words that are regularly spelled (and thus easy to decode) and irregularly spelled (and thus difficult or even impossible to decode). They suggest that there may be three categories: 1) words that are regularly spelled, like “cat”, and so have an easy phoneme to grapheme correspondence, 2) words that are “temporarily” irregularly spelled, like “gate” or “then” that can become regular once children are taught the frequently occurring patterns in those words, and 3) words that are “permanently” irregularly spelled, and may indeed need to be memorized, like “have” or “great”.
Miles et al state that there are fewer permanently irregularly spelled words than teachers think, and even those words do have some letters that can be sounded out and that fit expected patterns. They conclude that direct instruction in phoneme-grapheme relationships is beneficial for all kinds of words.
Two helpful tables are provided on pages 719 and 720, showing examples of all three kinds of words. As a teacher educator, I can envision a teaching activity where teacher candidates research the lists currently being used at their field experience schools and do some classification to see where the words on the lists they are using fit.
Miles et al conclude with a detailed description of an instructional intervention where children are taught to segment words into phonemes and then to spell those words. Several kinds of sensory input are used; children are asked to say each phoneme in a word, tap it out on their arms, and watch as the teacher spells the word on a whiteboard. They then practice using plastic “counters” and a grid of boxes (reminiscent of an Elkonin box), and then write the words using markers. I can envision having teacher candidates design a lesson focusing on a word or a set of words. I could see teaching words with similar patterns in a lesson, similarly to the way that onsets and rimes are taught. As students advance, more difficult (but common) patterns could be used (for example, words like “light” and “night”, which could even be compared to words that sound like them (for example, “kite”). Even a difficult word like “thought” could be taught with words like “brought”.
The intervention suggested here is really nothing that will seem unfamiliar to experienced elementary teachers, but the reconsideration of how we teach sight words/high-frequency words is refreshing and needed. Instruction in sound-symbol correspondences can empower readers. English spelling does have its irregularities, but maybe it’s not as impossible to cope with as we have thought, and effective instruction can make it less troublesome. The authors present some limited research (small sample size and no control group) in support of the proposed intervention. It will be interesting to see if deeper research will support their conclusions, and if teachers will rethink the old ways of teaching and try the intervention with their own students.
Do text-dependent questions need to be teacher-dependent? Close reading from another angle
Santori, D., & Belfatti, M. (2017). Do text-dependent questions need to be teacher-dependent? Close reading from another angle. The Reading Teacher, 20(6), 649-657.
Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation
Jones, J.S., Conradi, K., & Amendum, S.J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. The Reading Teacher, 70, 307-316.
Using print in the environment to promote early writing
Gerde, H.K., Goetsch, M.E., & Bingham, G.E. (2016). Using print in the environment to promote early writing. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 283-293.
When readers ask questions: Inquiry-based reading instruction
Ness, M. (2016). When readers ask questions: Inquiry-based reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 189-196.
Teaching first graders to comprehend complex texts through read-alouds
Witte, P.G. (2016). Teaching first graders to comprehend complex texts through read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 29-38.
Summers: Some are reading, some are not! It matters
McGill-Franzen, A., Ward, N., & Cahill, M. (2016). Summers: Some are reading, some are not! It matters.
The Reading Teacher, 69 (6), 585-596.
The Reading Teacher, 69 (6), 585-596.
Designing quality content area instruction
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Designing quality content area instruction. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 525-529.
Teacher modeling using complex informational texts
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Teacher modeling using complex informational texts. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 63-69.
What teachers should know about Common Core: a guide for the perplexed
Shanahan, T. (2015). What teachers should know about Common Core: a guide for the perplexed. The Reading Teacher 68(8), 583-588.
How and how not to prepare students for the new tests
Shanahan, T. (2014). How and how not to prepare students for the new tests. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 184-188.
Content area vocabulary learning
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Content area vocabulary learning. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 594-599.
Words, words, everywhere, but which ones do we teach?
Graves, M.F., Baumann, J.F., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., Manyak, P., Bates, A., Cieply, C., Davis, J.R., & Von Gunten, H. (2014). Words, words, everywhere, but which ones do we teach? The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 333-346.
The tough part: Getting first graders engaged in reading
Mahiri, Jabari, & Maniates, Helen. (2013/2014). The tough part: Getting first graders engaged in reading. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 256-263.
How do I write . . . ? Scaffolding preschoolers’ early writing skills
Cabell, Sonia Q., Tortorelli, Laura S., & Gerde, Hope K. (2013). How do I write . . . ? Scaffolding preschoolers’ early writing skills. The Reading Teacher,66(8), 650-659.
Using basal readers: From dutiful fidelity to intelligent decision making
Dewitz, Peter, & Jones, Jennifer. (2012). Using basal readers: From dutiful fidelity to intelligent decision making. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 391-400.
Guided reading: The romance and the reality
Fountas, Irene C., & Pinnell, Gay Su (2012). Guided reading: The romance and the reality. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 268-284.
Formative assessment: Simply, no additives
Roskos, Kathleen, & Neuman, Susan B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simply, no additives. The Reading Teacher, 65 (8), 634-638.
Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading
Peterson, Debra S., & Taylor, Barbara M. (2012). Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 295-304.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)