Ellin Keene argues for a "National Conversation" and so I would like us to be a part of that conversation. What is essential for our students? Keene would argue for a the learning theory that asks this of us...
Learning Theory:
- To focus on a few key concepts;
- of great import
- taught in great depth;
- over a long period of time;
- and applied in a variety of texts and contexts.
Seems simple almost...doesn't it? Please take the time to think about and respond to this in terms of you and your students. Let's begin this conversation with your thoughts and ideas in response to this theory. Think about an area that you have done this, or would like to do this....and ultimately what IS essential for our students?
14 comments:
It's funny...as I read Ellin Keene's comments, I think about the education system and its test early and test often mentality. I feel like I am always struggling with the amount of "stuff" that I have to cover in such a limited amount of time. I feel like I'm doing my students a disservice if I spend too much time in one area because I won't get to something else. At the same time, I also feel like I'm doing a disservice because the depth of knowledge they will have suffers. In a time where we are not only educating our students in the academic areas, but also teaching them to be better citizens, friends, etc. what is truly most important?
As elementary teachers, I really feel that we are planting the seeds of understanding. By teaching skills that students can carry over into all areas (comprehension strategies), we should be doing "enough". Practicing the application of these strategies across the curriculum should be enough. Why is it that I always feel like I'm not doing enough?
I have often had the same thoughts concerning the six trait writing strategies, the comprehension strategies and the skills presented in the EDM series. Would students be better off learning fewer concepts/goals in depth rather than having exposure to so many but not acheiving deep learning in any particular area? How do we determine what paricular focus areas would be best for our students long term? I believe our primary focus is teaching our students how to learn, how to think and creating classroom climates where students are encouraged to take risks in order to soar.
After reading Ellin Keene's comments, I can't help to think about what teaching was like "before my time". It seems as though some of these ideas/theories and practices that we are told to now focus are similar to or are what used to be done. I have heard from some that these things used to be done before the reading series was planted and everything became so structured. I do agree with Ellin Keene's comments, but one question I have is where does the "time" come from. We are expected to cover so much in so little time and it seems like each year something new is added on.
The reading comprehension strategies are what I have spent a lot of time, effort and energy on and I do think it has made a difference. I can see that some of my students are extending their thinking beyond the stories we read in class and applying it in other content areas. This is very reassuring to me.
My first thought to this statment is that in order for effective, thought-provoking teaching to take place then state standards, mandates, and testing need to reflect best practices.
I have always believed in "depth not breath" when teaching. This has always been supported by my administrators that were "educational leaders." Yet, if you subscribe to a program, most likely you have a scope and sequence to adhere to instead of explicit, instruction that is responsive to student need, interest, motivation, and developmental appropriateness. If we were truly to employ a theory based on this premise think about the level of knowledge you need to hold about curriculum, the assessments that would help drive your instructional choices, and the explicit instruction that releases to authentic activities. (Hmm...sound like some of the charter and private schools I have seen...isn't that funny? Schools that do not have to take state tests actually teach in a responsive manner and those kids actually learn...will wonders never cease!) :)
After reading this post I immediately thought of our beloved curriculum maps! This is an area that I struggle with on a daily basis. For example, our math lesson today was on ordering and comparing decimals. After teaching the lesson the students in my class did not have a solid understanding of the concept, yet tomorrow I am supposed to go on to adding and subtracting decimals. Is it more important to fit in as much as possible or to make sure that the students have a solid understanding of a few important concepts? The answer to me is crystal clear. The learning theory that Ellin Keene supports is the way to go. So, the question is, when you teach in a district that is not yet on that page, what do you do?
I totally agree with Ellin Keene's idea. I think if we could spend more time teaching the basic skills and allow more time to teach our students how to become better learners/thinkers we would be in a better spot then we are right now.
A perfect example of this is yesterday I started my rock and mineral unit by asking my students what they knew about the topic. We had a great discussion for almost 30 minutes about their prior knowledge. I found this time to be very benificial to both my students and myself. So often though I feel like I don't have the time to go into as much depth as I would like on the subject areas that my students truly find interesting.
One of the 4th grade Social Studies topics our students are suppose to learn is where all of the 50 states are and what the capitals are. Although I do believe everyone should have a basic understanding of where they live this takes a lot of time for students to learn (memorize). I think it would be more beneficial to teach my student where they could find this information when they need it.
I would like to know how we can get our district to move more in the directions Ellin Keene feels works best.
When I set up my classroom each August in preparation for the opening of another school year, I am excited about the prospect of seeing how far I can take my new first graders on their educational journey... but this excitement is almost always followed by anxiety and a feeling of being overwhelmed. This happens when the revised curriculum maps are handed out and we meet by grade level to find more skills/concepts/themes/strategies that will need to be covered throughout the school year. How I wish we had fewer concepts so we can teach in greater depth! I wish we had more time for questioning and discovery. I wish I didn't feel the pressure to keep up with my grade level colleagues in math (we are asked to be within 3 lessons of each other). All the standardized testing & results also give cause for more meetings and then we are asked to give a "plan" on how we are going to raise the test scores....and where will I fit this extra instruction in? There seems to be something "new" for us to take on every school year (initiatives). When I started teaching in Salem, they had just adopted McGraw-Hill (almost 9 years ago) so that the curriculum could be more "guaranteed & viable" and I have also heard that the district seems to want us to go back to what teachers used to do before the reading series...perhaps they just didn't call it 'Reader's Workshop'. I wonder where we'll be in 10 more years?
"National Council for Teachers of English" sounds like it might be teachers of secondary or higher education. Perhaps that learning theory would apply to curriculum at that level, but I don't think it applies to primary education. The process of learning to read is so complex and involves so many skills that to focus on a few of these in great depth and disregard the others (time is limited) or to focus on a few pieces of literature rather than many would be a disservice to the students. I really do not see how this applies to the primary level. Did Ellin relate this to all levels? I would be interested to hear her thoughts on this.
I often find myself wondering if I've covered 'enough of' or the 'right amount' of material in a topic. I look at the curriculum maps and while some parts are specific, some are quite vague for first grade. I try to remind myself concepts are what's important. I need to give them a good base (in everything? I'm not sure) so they can carry it on in their learning. I've already seen a difference in their thinking just from my work with comprehension strategies. I think this will help them in many areas of their learning, not just "reading".
There have been a few times this year when I felt like my entire class truly 'got it' (whatever strategy I was working on). That is a good feeling. But then afterwards I wonder, should I have spent that much time on that lesson? I think we have to remind ourselves of what's important and it's the students. If I teach a lesson and have input from every student about their thinking, then I think it's worth the time. I always feel like there isn't enough time in the day though. There's way too much to cover, especially if we want them to be really 'getting it.'
I find this an interesting statement and in some ways it makes me feel better about my own instruction. We have so many skills and topics to cover in just 180 days and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find enough time to study a topic and have quality instruction and learning taking place. (Since we found out in Aug., I have been 'worrying' about how I am going to fit in a new handwriting program next year.) There is just so little time left for long term, meaningful projects, performances, activities, etc. I used to cook with my class (corn muffins, latkes, irish soda bread, etc.) but haven't in the last few years because it would take too much time away from other things. That being said, I have gotten over my guilt of spending so much time teaching 'ideas' with our Six Traits model. I used to worry about it but now I feel it is so important at my grade level (second)and so I am now, in December, just finishing this first trait. Many of you reading this are probably stunned by this because you have finished this trait many weeks ago and are probably getting ready to finish with the second trait. But my feeling is, second graders are just beginning to learn how to write more than one word or sentence. A good piece of writing for a second grader would consist of writing several sentences that stick to the topic, are spelled correctly and are grammatically sound. It just makes sense to me to spend as much time as possible practicing how to choose an idea and then write about it using quality details before moving on to the next trait.
Math is another subject that I would like to slow down with as some students need more time practicing a skill, but the way the program works is to move day to day to the next lesson. Many of my students are fine with this but how do I reach my laggers without boring or holding back the others?
So, I do agree with Ellin's comment, but in 180 days there is a ton of instruction that is expected. I think the real question is, 'How do we meet the needs of all of our students while balancing the demands of the administration and school board?'
This has long been a pet peeve of mine! We are required to teach a broad curriculum that is "1 inch thick" in depth of content. It is very frustrating to teach this way and it makes it very difficult to integrate subject areas fully.
As an example: In the past we taught about plants, including photosynthesis. I had a difficult time getting through this in the allotted time because we integrated the concepts into other areas. We taught the process of photosynthesis and then had students create a book with the key ideas and concepts explained in a manner simple enough for their first grade buddies. These books were shared with them and graded for language. To gather information, students used books and also did a webquest with on-line sources. The webquest included real life applications. When we were through they had an excellent understanding of the process, which they had demonstrated through writing, speaking, drawing, and test taking. I was told we were doing too much and taking too long, so now we have to teach about plants without photosynthesis. This is only one example.
Currently, I find that if I want to integrate science and social studies concepts into the language arts area, I must replace the literature I might otherwise do with the content readings. I believe that the students need lots of exposure to both content reading and literature. I don't want to sacrifice one for the other. That includes writing.
I have long thought that our mistake is in making science and social studies content about covering topics, of which there are so many. Instead, I would propose that we be required to cover a few major themes throughout the year, leaving the decision of specific topics for covering that theme up to the teacher or school. An example in Social studies: theme of migration of peoples and the reasons for it. Topics for this migt include The Great Potato Famine, Chinese immigration to US in the 1800's, how the native Americans mover throughout the Americas, etc.
Science: theme of adaptation for survival. Topics for this might include plant and animal adaptations in a variety of climates, how humans have adapted to climate, overpopulation, etc, extinct species and how they didn't adapt.
These major themes could be assigned to grade levels according to the levels of abstraction. This method of instruction is actually used at the Beverly School for the Deaf, or it used to be, before NCLB.
This is exactly the conversation that I have been having with other teachers. We have been discussing whether it would be more beneficial to teach several comprehension strategies each year and do it in depth, than to teach them all every year. I feel that all of the stategies should be introduced in first grade (and discussed every year in every grade) to lay (and solidify) the foundation for a common language. I think it would be very beneficial to teach just several of them each year in depth, though. I say this because in early elementary grades children need much exposure, modeling, and practice to really begin to use strategies independently. Teachers and children would have the time they need to make real progress. I was taught that children are supposed to be given time for exploration when new materials are being used. Our curriculum is so full that this step often has to be forfeited. At whose expense? Maybe that's why we don't see the results that we are expecting?
This comment reminds me of articles I have read regarding the educational systems in China and Japan. They teach a concept for a long time (probably expecting complete mastery) and then they move on to a new concept or skill. I like this and agree with it, in theory. I think we could do so much more with our students if we didn't have so much information to give them in one year. We have quite a bit to introduce, reinforce, and master in a year. Sometimes I think we get caught up in it all.
There is that Catch 22 called testing. We have so much information that we want the students to know because of the dreaded TEST. Maybe if the instructors who teach us things like Content LIteracy and Comprehension Connections got together they could probably figure out a really great testing system for our students. Imagine a test that tested what the students knew, not what they didn't know.
Anyway, I digress. I certainly agree with Ellin Keene's comment. I enjoy when I have time to teach a subject in depth and I know that my students get so much more out of it. But, can we only focus on a few key concepts? I am not sure all would agree.
When I became I teacher it was because I wanted to teach children HOW to learn. The opportunity to teach reading is one of the major reasons I love first grade! I want to give them the skills to be able to go out into the great big world, chase down the things that interested them and pursue those things to their hearts' content. At times I realize that we may need to teach them about things that may not interest them as much in order to show them how to utilize and develop skills, but all too often I feel we become so content driven that we are not able to stop and allow student to do (and be responsible for some of) their OWN learning! One of the obvious strengths of the comprehension strategies is that it can be taught across the curriculum and students can be more open to hone skills by using materials that interest them. I know that with subjects like Science and Social Studies it might not be as easy to allow students to freely explore their interests, but why not give them that opportunity more? All to often we see students forced to learn concepts that they are not even developmentally ready to understand simply because they will see it on a standardized test. I do not believe that many expectations placed on students account for their developmental stages or common interests of that age group. Can you imagine if STUDENTS helped to design our curriculum? I think even the smallest students can help us to understand what interests them and what they can understand. Personally, I know that I feed off my students' desire to learn and their excitement about a subject. I believe the enthusiasm of students surrounding school would be greatly increased if they could also be a part of this "national conversation!"
Post a Comment