Judith Baker
BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW
Lunsford, Susan H. "And they wrote happily ever after; literature-based minilessons in writing." Language Arts, Vol.74 #1, January 1997, pp. 42-48.
Lunsford describes literature-based writer's workshop mini-lessons. She promotes and encourages writing more than one-sentence descriptions of the picture drawn by the student. The application to my research is to help me define different strategies than the ones I think have not yet been successful with my informant. Lunsford suggests:
- Exposure to a variety of beginnings from favorite stories - applies to story endings also.
- Encourage ORAL telling of the story by the student as an aid to building confidence and taking risks writing it down.
- Create stories from their own experiences and imaginations.
A list of "Children’s Books Cited" is a welcome reference source.
I still am wondering about creating a level of interest in writing to this extent. My perception is that there has been limited interest in written/oral response to my dialogue journal entries.
FOX, Barbara J., WRIGHT, Maripat. "Connecting school and home literacy experiences through cross-age reading." The Reading Teacher, Vol. 50, No.5, February 1997, pp.396-403.
Fox and Wright introduce a cross-age reading program: Storymates. Participants experiences "helped them WRITE better renditions of the stories they read" (p.401) WRITTEN and oral retelling of stories improved.
To utilize this approach with my research informant, I will incorporate one visit for Steven with his older sibling, LeeAnn, in paired reading . The interaction between children in writing events at home can be considered.
I may still have the opportunity to collect data relative to cross-age reading/writing. However, it may be more applicable to my research to encourage my informant to write for a younger relative i.e. postcard, birthday card, with the goal of promoting his level of confidence in this area of the language arts.
NEWMAN, Susan B., and ROSKOS, Kathleen. "Literacy knowledge in practice:
Contexts of participation for young writers and readers," Research Quarterly; A Journal of the International Reading Association. Vol. 32 No 1, Jan/Feb/March 1997, pp.10-30.
Newman and Roskos portray the learner as a part of a dynamic system of resources, both social and physical used to augment knowledge and skills. They reiterate Vygotsky's theory of interacting with peers and more knowledgeable people in society as they construct knowledge. My intent, also, is to include "a range of activities that vary in different cultural contexts and for a variety of functional purposes" (p.13 ). My practitioner research has been a kaleidoscope of opportunities for written involvement. Like the authors, I am providing authentic dilemmas in familiar (home) and his own supportive environment. I am observing the "rich contexts of home" among the "real life opportunities". I expect that "collaboration between peers suggest that joint work stimulates initiative, attention to details of performance and commitment to activity." (p.17) What is evolving , however, is my observation of some fear of censure.
Karen Degerstrom
The Discourse Community of Cooperative Learning Groups 6th-12th Grade
Robert E. Slavin is the person in my discourse community of cooperative learning groups 6th-12th grade. His work deals with the inclusion of all students in the integration of subject matter with students in pairs, small groups, and in large groups cooperatively learning in heterogeneous groups where students collaborate with peers and learned others. Slavin has published articles and books about theory, research, evaluation and practice in cooperative learning of heterogeneous students. I recall that his many publications focus upon the LD child, synthesis instead of critical analysis, inner city literacy, specific case studies, for example. Reading of his articles published in approximately the last ten years would be, in my opinion, an in depth study of the history of cooperative learning and educational reform, an empowering experience for candidates in the Literacy Instruction Master's Program who wish to be rhetorically sound about this movement in education--real movers and shakers.
Others in this discourse community in the United States are the following: Robert J. Stahl, author of a handbook, Cooperative Learning in Language Arts; Nancy Johnson, Bernice Cullinan, literature circles; Reggie Routman, literature discussion groups; Nancy Whistler and Judy Williams, cooperative learning activities with literature; and Geoff Fox, literature response group/pair/whole class activities. In addition, Heather Fehring, an Australian, published a "set of guides for fostering cooperative learning in language arts".
Interestingly enough, it is apparent that the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain is ahead of our educational efforts to include all students in the collaboration of learning in cooperative groups, which has a broader base in these countries. Much computer tech educational methodology is transposed into cooperative groupwork. I found the review of literature to be rich in the integration of cooperative learning activities across the curriculum. There were many publications about peer cooperative learning focusing upon English as a second language for Native Canadians, immigrants from foreign countries, etc., genuinely as a model and method to include these students.
Surprisingly enough, the Michigan Department of Education Model Content Standards for Curriculum in English Language Arts K-12 states that "a locally developed English Language arts curriculum…will ensure that all students are literate and can engage successfully in reading, discovering, creating, and analyzing spoken, written, electronic, and visual tests which reflect multiple perspectives and diverse communities and make connections within English language arts and between English language arts and other fields". These Standards have 12 points describing detailed skills and literate thinking acquisitions all students must achieve. Students must work collaboratively in cooperative groups just to be able to reach the goals of Michigan Department of Education Content Standards for English Language Arts.
Therefore, as this discourse community expands in definition to include tech literacy K-12, my review of LIT discovered from Teachers College Columbia University the WWW Constructivist Project Design Guide, "designing constructivist, cooperative learning projects around the Word Wide Web" applicable to all subject matters. In the WWW Constructivist Project students make inquiry, search the web, and construct a live text on a web page. There are many other computer tech publications to support this need in teaching today.
The discourse community in cooperative learning and group activities is new and hot. Recent publications are supportive of state and national guides and content standards which are supportive of cooperative learning, student collaboration, and inclusion. Teachers are for the most part with out a tool. They need to get into this discourse community, and it is my hope a data base about cooperative learning and peer groups will help.
Bibliography of Cooperative Learning or Group Activities or Group Work and Language Arts K-12
Clifton, Linda J, "What If the Kids Did It?", NCTE, 1980. Speech/Meeting Paper at NW Regional Conference of NCTE, Portland, OR, April 10-12, 1980.
Group activities, writing,
peer evaluation. Secondary education, low ability
students.
Cullinan, Bernice E., ed. 1993.
Childrens Voices: Talk in the Classroom; Fact and Fiction: Literature Across the Curriculum and Pen in Hand: Children Become Writers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 3 vols.
Connecting literature with reading-writing-speaking. Literature Circles, story telling, creative drama.
Farkas, Ervin I., Expressive Writing: An Affective Approach to Writing. 1981. Summer. Reading Improvement v 18 n2 p152-56.
Group activities, special education, language-expressive, writing.
Fehring, Heather, Cooperative Learning Strategies Applied in the Language Classroom, Reading Around Series No.1, Australian Reading Association, Adelaide, 1987.
Set of guides for fostering cooperative learning in LA. Cooperative learning: reasons behind, environment, individual and small group skills, interdependency interaction, accountability. 11 year and 9 year students. Lesson units and methodology.
Fox, Geoff, Twenty-Four Things to do with a Book. Children's Literature in Education v8 n3 p135-38. Fall 1977.
Elementary-Secondary. Group activities. Writing. Language arts: literature response, 24 activities described; pair, small groups, whole class.
Hill B., Johnson, N. & Noe, K. (Eds.), Literature Circles and Response. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publ., 1995.
Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative Competitive Individual, 199-.
Owens, S., Literature Circles and Response, Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., 1995.
Rottier, Jerry, Cooperative Learning in Middle School Levels, 1991 Michigan State University owns a copy.
Routman, Reggie, Invitations, Heineman, NH, 1994.
Literature Discussion Groups-"occurs as the book is being read", p.122+; "critical analysis", "focus on inquiry", p123; schedule for 9th grade, p.436 Fig. 15-7.
Simpson, Anne, "Not the Class Novel: A Different Reading Program", Journal of Reading v38 n4 p290-94, Dec.-Jan. 94-95.
Literature Circle Program from Australia; secondary school community of readers; reading strategies; the love of reading.
Slavin, Robert F., "A Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning", John Hopkins Team Learning Project, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1994.
Slavin, Robert F., Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., "Accommodating Student Diversity in Reading and Writing Instruction-A Cooperative Learning Approach, Publish during 1986-1990.
Slavin, Robert F., Madden, N. A., "Cooperative Learning-Models for the 3R5", Educational Leadership, 1990, vol.47, Iss. 4, pp 22-28.
Slavin, Robert F., Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Slavin, Robert F., "Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning", Educational Leadership, 1991, vol.48, Iss 5, p71.
Stahl, Robert J., Cooperative Learning in Language Arts: A Handbook for Teachers, Menlo Park, Calif Innovative Learning Publications, 1995.
Stevens, R.J., Slavin, Robert F., "The Effects of Cooperative Learning and Direct Instruction in Reading-Comprehension Strategies on Main Idea Identification".
Whisler, Nancy and Judy Williams, Literature and Cooperative Learning: Pathway to Literacy, Sacramento, CA" Literature Co-op, 1990.
Structured activities with literature K-8. Sample lessons: strategies for cooperative learning and for moving through literature and reading-before, during, and after reading.
Jill Darrow
Brief Literature Review
Kohn, Aflie. 1993. "Choices for Children: Why and How to Let Students Decide." Phi Delta Kappan (September).
Of all the information I have read, this article in particular stands out as the most important in regards to my project. Although my research has to do with literature circles, the more important question in relation to them is that of student choice. This article points out so clearly how we do almost everything, but give students a say in their schooling.
Research has found that whether it is in the work place or the classroom, the number one reason adults and children suffer from burnout is because they feel powerless. When individuals are unmotivated and treated as if they are incapable, they react in a manner that reflects their treatment.
It is very ironic that in a democratic society, where we want the people of this country involved, we do nothing in the classroom to encourage it. So many times we hear ourselves or our colleagues say we tried giving students a choice, but they chose wrong. And yet, isn't that the point? Students can't learn how to make good choices if they are never given the opportunities to experience making good and bad ones and learning from the consequences of each. We can't forget that experience is an excellent teacher, but the opportunities for them must be given. How many of us tell our students that it is "our classroom", but make almost every decision that goes on within those very walls? There are five benefits to allowing students to have a sense of self-determination.
1. Effects on general well-being. By giving students choices, they are more motivated to work because it is what they feel is important and interested in learning about.
2. Effects on behavior and values Students who experience a sense of control over their learning are less likely to act out, and their own attitude towards others is reflected in the way they are treated.
3. Effects on academic achievement. I have to quote the article here, simply because I could not say it better than a child once did to Alfie Kohn about being able to make choices, "leads to learning rather than just remembering.
4. Effects on teachers. Two benefits are part of giving student choices. First, is that it keeps the curriculum and the school day interesting and creative by letting students share in the decisions. Also, it can allow the teacher to concentrate on kids and their learning more because there is less monitoring of students not doing "what they were told to". This also connects to the motivational factor that comes from giving choices.
5. Intrinsic value. Individuals are far more motivated by allowing them to have a say in what they must do, rather than just telling them. We shouldn't just train children how to live in a democratic society, but we must give them the opportunity to experience it now.
In conclusion of this article and all of its valuable and insightful information regarding student choice, I want to say that not only as a teacher, but as a parent, I believe very strongly in providing students with opportunities to develop a sense of self-determination. I believe that by allowing students choice in their selection of what they read is doing just that. After all, who knows better what they would like to read and learn about then the students themselves.
Raphael, T.E., S. I. Goatley, V. J. Bentely, F. L., Boyd, F. B., Pardo, L. S. & Woodman, D. A. (1992). Research Directions: Literature and Discussion in the Reading Program. Language Arts, 69(1), 5w-6l.
This article, which was mainly focused on literature circles, was an excellent source of information to help me out within my own classroom and the research I am conducting. The first thing this article points out is that in order to have enthusiasm for literacy in any classroom two things must be present. First. students need to have a wealth of high quality literature to choose from. Secondly, they need to be provided with occasions to talk with their peers about the quality literature they read. It is through these two provisions that teachers allow their students to bring their own voice to the literature they read.
This is different from the traditional methods of teaching students to look for the one "correct" meaning that the author has intended. Instead, it is looking at what the reader brings to the meaning of the text and the exchange that takes place between them based on the experiences the reader brings to it. It is also through the student discussions that children begin to develop their sense of voice, can share feelings, debate issues, clarify ideas, and respond to literature in an authentic context. The large group discussions (community share) helps to prepare students for what they are about to read. raises questions students have, allows small groups to share their conversations, as well as allow the teacher to see where students may be having challenges. Finally, discussion allowed the teachers to see the students actively engaged in all levels of literacy, such as: comprehension, mutual respect for ideas, relating to characters. feelings, and situations.
Instruction by the teacher is critical and must be carefully planned. Teachers that use open ended questions will get more open ended responses, whereas structured questions that focus more on strategies lead students to looking for the one "correct" answer.
Lastly, this article described how students even in middle and junior high school were able to adapt to these "nontraditional" practices of literacy instruction. However, at the high school level students resisted the freedom to discuss their books openly and desired worksheets instead of open ended responses. At this level the students did not have a knowledge of cooperative groups and freedom to discuss their own ideas. They felt that their ideas were meaningless and therefore there was no point in voicing them.
I believe this article is very important to my research. The first point the author made about enthusiasm for literacy has to do with offering an abundance of high quality literature for students to choose from. This is critical to my research question, which again looks at whether or not choice will influence students outlook toward reading. I believe at any level students want choice. However, fifth grade is a critical time for a great deal of students to begin maturing physically and mentally and want very much to have some control over their lives and their learning. In a sneaky way it is giving students control! choice and at the same time encourages them to read more. The discussions also help the students to not only share ideas! develop their own voice, but gives them practice with speaking publicly in an informal way with a smaller group. As they grow more confident! they speak more freely in the larger group during community share.
I have also learned that to encourage more open thinking I must convey that in the ways in which I teach. It is important to know that you can't try to approach a new, and I think better, way of learning by continuing to ask for the same work. This is critical to the success of literature circles because it will take moving away from looking for "correct" answers and allowing readers to bring their own interpretations and prior knowledge to the text. It is important also because students develop their own sense of thinking and looking at the world instead of being told what to look for.
Raphael, T.E., & McMahon, S. I. (199w). Book Club: An Alternative Framework for Reading Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48 (2), 102-116.
This article begins with a familiar theme, social constructivist theory, and uses it to support the teaching of literacy through literature circles by arguing that it is through a social process of interacting with adults and peers that students learn. This learning comes in oral and written language and should be used to assist students as they build meaning from the text they read.
It also points out the importance of discussions among students about their reading and the connections they can make to other texts, genres! authors. and the real world.
Students were also the teachers in this article. When students came up with a creative approach to responses in their logs, they added them to a class list and taught them to their peers. Within their log entries teachers could see the level of engagement their students had undergone. Not only from student responses, but also in webbings, questions, etc., that students used to prepare for discussions.
Community share was also present in this article, but was presented in a very matter of fact way. The teacher began community share by asking students to help others who had been absent by filling them in on what was happening with the literature circles and the book. Students were again used as the teachers and given a voice when selected discussions were played back and analyzed. Students pointed out the good things the group did as well as areas they could improve. Some discussions were transcribed and role played by the students.
Although some of the information in this article was reinforcement for ways of teaching and learning that I already believed in (social constructivist theory and student ideas for responding) the community share and discussion methods were new and exciting. I know that approaching community share in this way will greatly relieve the pressure students feel to talk in front of the whole class. The way in which the teacher delivers the instruction is critical and I believe this could really set the tone for a positive, nonthreatening approach to a large group discussion. Having students evaluate their own discussions is also a great idea. This goes back to again giving them more control over their learning and allowing them an opportunity to decide what they did well and need work on.
Additional Bibliography
McMahon, S. I., Raphael, T. E., & Goatley, Y. J. (in press March, 1995). Changing the Context for Classroom Reading Instruction: The Book Club Project. In J. Brophy (Eds.) Advances in Research on Teaching. JAI Press.
Raphael, T. E., Goatley, Y. J., Woodman, D. A., McMahon, S. I. (1994). Collaboration on the Book Club Project: The Multiple Roles of Researchers, Teachers, and Students. Reading Horizons, 314(5), 381-1405.
Raphael, T. E., Goatley, Y. F., McMahon, S. I., & Woodman, D. A. (in press March 1995). Promoting meaningful conversations in student bock clubs. In N. Roser & M. Martinez (Eds.), Book Talk and Beyond (pp.71-83). Newark, OE: International Reading Association.
Routman, Regie. (1994). Invitations. NH: Heinemann.