Professional Readings Chatboard

judy5ca But...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems li...See MoreBut...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems like there are a million more possible forks in the road with an inquiry lesson, so it takes me forever to plan. If someone were to hand me an excellent prepared inquiry lesson that went with my standards, I'd jump on the bandwagon. But don't you think it's really time-consuming to come up with these lessons? Judy

On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: > In my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there > that did this: (1) > you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what > you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery > was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured > the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this > in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing > out a bunch of stuff and asking the kids to discover > something. Inquiry is carefully planning a lesson that > has an objective and structuring that lesson, > regardless of the model, to assure the kids are > successful. > > The problem with inquiry is time. Time for the kid's > lesson itself (discovering is SLOW) and for the teacher > to gather the data. Every piece has to be a clear and > unambiguous example of what you want the kids to > discover. If it isn't, they cannot discover the > critical attributes...those attributes that all your > data share. And, if they can't find the common > attributes, they aren't going to learn what you want to > teach. If you're teaching directly, you are still very > careful about your examples, but if one isn't quite as > solid as you'd like...or a flaw in it emerges when the > kids see something you didn't.....you can explain it to > them as an exception or whatever. But, when they're > discovering the common attributes a bad example will > throw them off forever. It can mean the difference > between success and failure. In inquiry learning, the > plan and data you collect for them to inquire into, has > to be perfect because you can't say anything to explain > it. The data has to stand on its own. > > Not an easy task. While we all love inductive teaching > here and see the incredible value of it...kids learn > things deeper and remember them longer....there just > isn't enough time to have them discover very often. So > you save it for those concepts that are very important > and that kids need to learn at that very deep level. > They don't need to discover math facts or plurals....we > can teach them much faster ourselves and these are not > things we need to process at high levels on the > taxonomy. They don't need to analyze of synthesize > plurals...they just need to apply them. But for many > social studies concepts and for writing,which is what > we did here, nothing does it like inductive. Maybe > someday we will actually have time to teach something > well so kids will remember it forever, rather than > teaching it in 15 minutes so they can pass the test. > > > On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: >> Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to >> me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to >> explain something similar on an earlier thread >> because I just couldn't come up with the right words >> to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to >> trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to >> discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down >> by me) as my endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use >> "structured." Yes, thank you. >> >> I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open >> social studies (I know, I know, you're all sick of >> hearing me talk about social studies). I collected a >> whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I >> hoped most kids didn't know. The inquiry was to >> examine the items (eg, a telegraph key, an egg >> separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they >> were used. The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to >> come up with a class definition, compare it to the >> textbook definition, to consider how historians use >> artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture >> who used them (and eventually to smile smugly when we >> see artifacts in our textbook). I knew where we were >> going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way >> of knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you >> think I'm on the right track with this lesson? >> >> Judy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >>> Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that >>> low achieving kids should not be taught by inquiry >>> because they will pick up the wrong idea and that >>> causes real problems. He said kids must be taught >>> directly first to make absolutely sure that they >>> have the concepts clearly and that there are no >>> misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of things can >>> be done with them as follow up, but not as original >>> instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I >>> believe it >>> >>> However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with >>> my very own eyes how well low achieving students >>> did with inductive thinking. In fact, in my >>> daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP >>> kids for the 5th grade...the RSP kids did better >>> with inductive than the GATE kids! Why? because >>> everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids >>> and they could not cope with the 'no right answer' >>> idea. They were frustrated and upset. And, they'd >>> never had to use alternative strategies because >>> they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the >>> other hand, had learned alternate strategies and >>> had been taught to try first one and then another. >>> They were the stars in inductive learning. This >>> also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. >>> >>> Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is >>> better for the low achievers because they need to >>> have the opportunity to manipulate data, to >>> experiment with it, to spend time processing it and >>> inductive provides that for them. I also believe >>> this. >>> >>> So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own >>> mind by selecting the model of teaching that I >>> think best matches the content...and then try to be >>> aware of the kids who might have trouble with >>> either kind of model. I do absolutely think though >>> that in inductive, the set of data the kids work >>> with must be very carefully selected. It is not >>> just throw out a bunch of stuff and have them >>> classify. Bruce took enormous amounts of time >>> gathering data examples that were absolute matches >>> to the concept he was teaching...data that had all >>> the same critical attributes so the match was >>> clear. Then getting more complex examples and >>> arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, >>> his inductive was actually very structured and I >>> think this eliminated pretty much the concern of >>> Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with >>> misconceptions. >>> >>> >>> On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >>>> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our >>>> school for professional development last summer. >>>> He floated two soda cans in a tank of water. One >>>> was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >>>> said something like, "wow." >>>> >>>> Now, here we are... a group of teachers >>>> interested in asking the right questions. We are >>>> interested in that "hook," that >>>> "aha!" that will get kids to lean in >>>> their seats and begin... inquiry. We also know a >>>> bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. >>>> Can our students? Do they have that background >>>> knowledge? >>>> >>>> He never responded to our "inquiries" >>>> with a right or wrong answer. My directors >>>> apparently thought this was fabulous. Something >>>> wasn't right but I could only suppose (quietly, >>>> lest I not be a "team player") that we, >>>> as teachers, must guide those student-generated >>>> questions carefully. >>>> >>>> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science >>>> workshop. I love his stuff, his attitude, his >>>> excitement. But.. one thing he said bothers me. >>>> "Wow them and the science will follow." >>>> Will it? >>>> >>>> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is >>>> powerful. But, like Whole Language, it isn't >>>> suitable for the education of all children. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post

Jan Oh, good grief, yes! I thought I mentioned the time we took but maybe not. For us it was creating the reading data sets....you know 50 first lines from picture books that clearly represented the 5 kinds of openers we hoped they'd find and categorize. They were brutal! My daughter had one out the other day when I was in her classroom that I had made...See MoreOh, good grief, yes! I thought I mentioned the time we took but maybe not. For us it was creating the reading data sets....you know 50 first lines from picture books that clearly represented the 5 kinds of openers we hoped they'd find and categorize. They were brutal! My daughter had one out the other day when I was in her classroom that I had made for the teachers....I remember spending days on it. I did one where I taught the theme of "The Tenth Good Thing about Barney," from a data set. I had worked with Bev Showers a few times and she could teach theme magnificently inductively. I tried it...the data set took about 2 weeks to make, and the lesson took about 7 hours....no kidding.I did it over a week's time as a model lesson in 3 or 4 classrooms. It was so much fun...and the teachers and I discussed it for months! The kids loved it and every single one understood theme. I can't exactly remember how I did it, but the statements in the data set represented 3 different parts of the story that would lead them to the theme. It took them about 3 hours to categorize because we gave them no hint at all about what to look for...it was just,"categorize these statements in groups. Classify them by putting those with the same critical attributes together. They were good at that by this time but it was still hard. When they got the three groups listed with the critical attributes, they had to write a sentence about each group. then they put the sentences together into a summary paragraph which was the theme. It was so exciting. I remember one kid saying when he finished his summary...he was a 4th grader and very smart..."OMG, so THIS is how the authors write that little thing on the back of the book that you can read to know what the book is about!" He was racing over to the library shelves to find a book that had the summary so he could show us.From that moment on, the teacher said they could identify theme in an instant. But after 7 days, they should be able to! But, what an important learning...I'm sure they're still out there identifying theme in their books. It was a magnificent lesson to write and give, so complex. Not practical unfortunately under the ordinary time constraints of a school day.

My former intern and I did a lesson in synectics(a model of teaching using oxymorons that took 2 hours a day for 9 days. Actually, she did it...she just wanted me to watch. It was wonderful and the kids loved it....they could write all different kinds of analogies,etc...but it was LONG.Ifinally told her to finish it up that day because I was not returning. this model is so complex I can't even describe it....it is to get kids thinking way out of the box. Great fun!

On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: > But...it's not just the time it takes to allow the kids' > discovery and (just as important) discussion, but it's also > the planning time, isn't it? I mean, I love lessons like > this, but gosh, they take me forever to plan. With every > lesson I try to think through where I want to go and what > could lead us astray (I'm really big into steps). It seems > like there are a million more possible forks in the road > with an inquiry lesson, so it takes me forever to plan. If > someone were to hand me an excellent prepared inquiry lesson > that went with my standards, I'd jump on the bandwagon. But > don't you think it's really time-consuming to come up with > these lessons? > Judy > > > > On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >> In my opinion, you are RIGHT ON! Two things are there >> that did this: (1) >> you had the objective clearly in mind. You knew what >> you wanted them to learn and you knew that discovery >> was the best way to learn this. (2) then you structured >> the data you gave them (this is key...I mentioned this >> in regard to Bruce Joyce). Inquiry is not just throwing >> out a bunch of stuff and asking the kids to discover >> something. Inquiry is carefully planning a lesson that >> has an objective and structuring that lesson, >> regardless of the model, to assure the kids are >> successful. >> >> The problem with inquiry is time. Time for the kid's >> lesson itself (discovering is SLOW) and for the teacher >> to gather the data. Every piece has to be a clear and >> unambiguous example of what you want the kids to >> discover. If it isn't, they cannot discover the >> critical attributes...those attributes that all your >> data share. And, if they can't find the common >> attributes, they aren't going to learn what you want to >> teach. If you're teaching directly, you are still very >> careful about your examples, but if one isn't quite as >> solid as you'd like...or a flaw in it emerges when the >> kids see something you didn't.....you can explain it to >> them as an exception or whatever. But, when they're >> discovering the common attributes a bad example will >> throw them off forever. It can mean the difference >> between success and failure. In inquiry learning, the >> plan and data you collect for them to inquire into, has >> to be perfect because you can't say anything to explain >> it. The data has to stand on its own. >> >> Not an easy task. While we all love inductive teaching >> here and see the incredible value of it...kids learn >> things deeper and remember them longer....there just >> isn't enough time to have them discover very often. So >> you save it for those concepts that are very important >> and that kids need to learn at that very deep level. >> They don't need to discover math facts or plurals....we >> can teach them much faster ourselves and these are not >> things we need to process at high levels on the >> taxonomy. They don't need to analyze of synthesize >> plurals...they just need to apply them. But for many >> social studies concepts and for writing,which is what >> we did here, nothing does it like inductive. Maybe >> someday we will actually have time to teach something >> well so kids will remember it forever, rather than >> teaching it in 15 minutes so they can pass the test. >> >> >> On 1/17/11, judy5ca wrote: >>> Thanks for this post, Jan, it makes a TON of sense to >>> me--both arguments. I got myself in trouble trying to >>> explain something similar on an earlier thread >>> because I just couldn't come up with the right words >>> to describe my thinking. It's not that I'm trying to >>> trick kids, but I am trying to lead them to >>> discovery...I have to have the standard (broken down >>> by me) as my endpoint. I lovelovelove the way you use >>> "structured." Yes, thank you. >>> >>> I did a lesson at the beginning of the year to open >>> social studies (I know, I know, you're all sick of >>> hearing me talk about social studies). I collected a >>> whole bunch of 'stuff' that had a purpose that I >>> hoped most kids didn't know. The inquiry was to >>> examine the items (eg, a telegraph key, an egg >>> separator, a paint can opener) to determine how they >>> were used. The endpoint was the word ARTIFACT: to >>> come up with a class definition, compare it to the >>> textbook definition, to consider how historians use >>> artifacts to tell them more about the people/culture >>> who used them (and eventually to smile smugly when we >>> see artifacts in our textbook). I knew where we were >>> going because I'd picked the items, but I had no way >>> of knowing what the kids would guess/glean. Do you >>> think I'm on the right track with this lesson? >>> >>> Judy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/17/11, Jan wrote: >>>> Rosenshine wrote me a whole email on the idea that >>>> low achieving kids should not be taught by inquiry >>>> because they will pick up the wrong idea and that >>>> causes real problems. He said kids must be taught >>>> directly first to make absolutely sure that they >>>> have the concepts clearly and that there are no >>>> misconceptions. He said inquiry kinds of things can >>>> be done with them as follow up, but not as original >>>> instruction. This makes perfect sense to me and I >>>> believe it >>>> >>>> However, Bruce does NOT believe this and I saw with >>>> my very own eyes how well low achieving students >>>> did with inductive thinking. In fact, in my >>>> daughter's class at the time...and she had the RSP >>>> kids for the 5th grade...the RSP kids did better >>>> with inductive than the GATE kids! Why? because >>>> everything had always come so easy to the GATE kids >>>> and they could not cope with the 'no right answer' >>>> idea. They were frustrated and upset. And, they'd >>>> never had to use alternative strategies because >>>> they got it the first time. The RSP kids, on the >>>> other hand, had learned alternate strategies and >>>> had been taught to try first one and then another. >>>> They were the stars in inductive learning. This >>>> also makes sense to me and I believe it. I SAW it. >>>> >>>> Bruce also thinks inductive learning (inquiry) is >>>> better for the low achievers because they need to >>>> have the opportunity to manipulate data, to >>>> experiment with it, to spend time processing it and >>>> inductive provides that for them. I also believe >>>> this. >>>> >>>> So, I don't know. I have resolved this in my own >>>> mind by selecting the model of teaching that I >>>> think best matches the content...and then try to be >>>> aware of the kids who might have trouble with >>>> either kind of model. I do absolutely think though >>>> that in inductive, the set of data the kids work >>>> with must be very carefully selected. It is not >>>> just throw out a bunch of stuff and have them >>>> classify. Bruce took enormous amounts of time >>>> gathering data examples that were absolute matches >>>> to the concept he was teaching...data that had all >>>> the same critical attributes so the match was >>>> clear. Then getting more complex examples and >>>> arranging them systematically in the lesson. So, >>>> his inductive was actually very structured and I >>>> think this eliminated pretty much the concern of >>>> Barak's that low achieving kids might come up with >>>> misconceptions. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/16/11, KimK1ca wrote: >>>>> We had a marvelous science teacher come to our >>>>> school for professional development last summer. >>>>> He floated two soda cans in a tank of water. One >>>>> was Diet Coke and one was regular Coke. Then he >>>>> said something like, "wow." >>>>> >>>>> Now, here we are... a group of teachers >>>>> interested in asking the right questions. We are >>>>> interested in that "hook," that >>>>> "aha!" that will get kids to lean in >>>>> their seats and begin... inquiry. We also know a >>>>> bit about science and can do a bit of thinking. >>>>> Can our students? Do they have that background >>>>> knowledge? >>>>> >>>>> He never responded to our "inquiries" >>>>> with a right or wrong answer. My directors >>>>> apparently thought this was fabulous. Something >>>>> wasn't right but I could only suppose (quietly, >>>>> lest I not be a "team player") that we, >>>>> as teachers, must guide those student-generated >>>>> questions carefully. >>>>> >>>>> I've also seen Steve Spangler at a science >>>>> workshop. I love his stuff, his attitude, his >>>>> excitement. But.. one thing he said bothers me. >>>>> "Wow them and the science will follow." >>>>> Will it? >>>>> >>>>> I know from experience that Discovery Learning is >>>>> powerful. But, like Whole Language, it isn't >>>>> suitable for the education of all children. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> :-)K

Jan 17, 2011

report post

Chapter 5 by Sunday? OK with everyone? nfm

by dc

Jan 5, 2011

nfm

Comment

(2)

report post

judy5ca I'm sorry, dc, I got busy and dropped the ball. I can try to have it finished (I did start) by next Sunday. Okay? Judy

Jan 10, 2011

report post

dc Whew! Sigh of relief because I had progress reports due this week AND we had a BRAND NEW online grading system to enter all of our grades into AND it took me awhile to get used to it, SOOOOOO I'm behind too! Next Sunday is great for me!

Jan 10, 2011

report post

My next school discussion group article

by judy5ca

Jan 6, 2011

This one was suggested by my K friend. Wow, it sounds like Jan, exactly like Jan. Some parts are too hard for me, but I love the main idea. Judy

Comment

(5)

report post

view previous comments

K.Miller On 1/07/11, Jan wrote: > I just downloaded it and sent it to Amazon to put on my > kindle. I LOVE articles like this...thanks, Judy for posting > it. > > > On 1/06/11, judy5ca wrote: >> This one was suggested by my K friend. Wow, it sounds like >> Jan, exactly like Jan. Some parts are too hard for me, but >> I lo...See More

Jan 20, 2011

report post

Jan It IS a great site. We hope you'll join in: our discussions are great They are informative, lively, and ALWAYS respectful.

On 1/20/11, K.Miller wrote: > On 1/07/11, Jan wrote: >> I just downloaded it and sent it to Amazon to put on my >> kindle. I LOVE articles like this...thanks, Judy for posting >> it. >> >...See More

Jan 20, 2011

report post

Mid-year status report for Room 42

by judy5ca

Jan 15, 2011

Well, you've listened to me whine about this class. They're still a challenge BUT we seem to have crossed a bridge last week. Huge improvement. They still jump right into chatter if my attention is diverted (shameless they are: the principal came in week before last with some announcements and while she was giving me instructions they all start yac...See MoreWell, you've listened to me whine about this class. They're still a challenge BUT we seem to have crossed a bridge last week. Huge improvement. They still jump right into chatter if my attention is diverted (shameless they are: the principal came in week before last with some announcements and while she was giving me instructions they all start yacking loudly). I know this is hard to believe for January in 5th grade, but I'm still working on making them understand why this isn't acceptable.

Other than that, we're almost cruisin'. They help each other. They're honest. We're getting a long way on honesty and humor. They're (almost) fully engaged during lessons (seeing this one still surprises me after our rocky start). Most of them want to learn. My biggest, giganto behavior problem is one of my favorite kids. My 5 super-struggling (years below grade level) RS kids are learning their own responsibilities.

There are moments. One Muslim girl's dad is extremely protective and wouldn't sign the permission slip to visit the Superior Courthouse because he thought it was in an unsafe area. I asked her if she wanted to come (she did) and began to tell her what to say to her dad (there are cops all over the place), my autistic kid was chanting, "My mom did jury duty in Martinez, my mom did jury duty in Martinez, etc." Stereo in Room 42.

As we study early colonial days in America (and I struggle to tell stories of conflict a la Willingham) the class as a whole was clearly fascinated by stocks and butter churns. So I brought in cream and jars and baguettes (did you know Safeway will slice bread to your specification for free?). In these days of NCLB, this was a much bigger treat than I'd imagined. They were darling. And when I had to go flying out of the room because I'd forgotten yard duty, several kids said, "Don't worry, Mrs. M., we'll clean up." They did (and saved me a piece of nicely buttered bread).

Of course my favorite is how they're growing as learners. This clearly was the missing link. I have to be extremely organized for them, but they are now responding beautifully. I wish you could be a fly on the wall to hear our literature and writing discussions. They found meaning in Fly Away Home that I'd never considered (I've always thought the bird is a symbol of freedom for the boy, but they think the boy and bird are alike and give evidence). I read them a short lead I'd written to model realistic fiction and they politely told me several (big!) ways I could improve my piece (using lots of writerly language). So I spent another hour and a half and entirely rewrote the first few pages. They liked it much better, but noticed word choice I'd changed (from 'glossy' to 'heavy') that they did not like. What a crew!

Finally, I knew something was right when the Superintendent and Principal came around for their monthly walk-through (about 20 minutes?). That afternoon I received an email from the Superintendent's secretary saying she'd like to sub for me. All district admin are subbing 3 days a year to cut costs. I was dumbfounded and wondered (because she's VERY bright), "Didn't she see how difficult they are?" I went to the principal, who knows how tough this group is, and asked if the superintendent had a clue. I'm still thinking this through: do I let her sub and have a day that she'll always remember or do I just do my usual and come every day?

Thanks for listening to my tale of a REMARKABLY improved group. We still have many frustrating moments, but I now enjoy them most of the time. Judy

Comment

(1)

report post

Super Sub-Parker I'm so glad to hear that your students have turned a corner. I find this frequently happens with kids in our grade level after Christmas. Does anyone else notice this? I was explaing this to our 3rd grade teacher who was disparing over her students behavior right before Christmas. (Actually, I was encouraging her to bump up her expectations, too. S...See MoreI'm so glad to hear that your students have turned a corner. I find this frequently happens with kids in our grade level after Christmas. Does anyone else notice this? I was explaing this to our 3rd grade teacher who was disparing over her students behavior right before Christmas. (Actually, I was encouraging her to bump up her expectations, too. She was babying them too much and needed to gradually increase her expectations.) As far as the Super subbing, that is a dilemna. If I thought the Super still had the ability to be a great sub and follow lesson plans that were left, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I thought the Super has been out of the classroom for too long and just wanted to have a "fun" day of their own design with the students, I would forgo the "honor". If the Super has never taught, I'd do it in a heartbeat, too, although I'd stick around to watch and provide "a helping hand". Frankly, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in all 3 scenarios. And then there is the side of me that says subbing for a day still isn't the same as teaching the day. There's no lesson planning or prep involved, all that hard work has already been done. I wonder why she wants to sub? What does she want from her day other than to save some money?

On 1/15/11, judy5ca wrote: > Well, you've listened to me whine about this class. They're > still a challenge BUT we seem to have crossed a bridge last > week. Huge improvement. They still jump right into chatter > if my attention is diverted (shameless they are: the > principal came in week before last with some announcements > and while she was giving me instructions they all start > yacking loudly). I know this is hard to believe for January > in 5th grade, but I'm still working on making them > understand why this isn't acceptable. > > Other than that, we're almost cruisin'. They help each > other. They're honest. We're getting a long way on honesty > and humor. They're (almost) fully engaged during lessons > (seeing this one still surprises me after our rocky start). > Most of them want to learn. My biggest, giganto behavior > problem is one of my favorite kids. My 5 super-struggling > (years below grade level) RS kids are learning their own > responsibilities. > > There are moments. One Muslim girl's dad is extremely > protective and wouldn't sign the permission slip to visit > the Superior Courthouse because he thought it was in an > unsafe area. I asked her if she wanted to come (she did) > and began to tell her what to say to her dad (there are cops > all over the place), my autistic kid was chanting, > "My mom did jury duty in Martinez, my mom did jury duty in > Martinez, etc." Stereo in Room 42. > > As we study early colonial days in America (and I struggle > to tell stories of conflict a la Willingham) the class as a > whole was clearly fascinated by stocks and butter churns. > So I brought in cream and jars and baguettes (did you know > Safeway will slice bread to your specification for free?). > In these days of NCLB, this was a much bigger treat than I'd > imagined. They were darling. And when I had to go flying > out of the room because I'd forgotten yard duty, several > kids said, "Don't worry, Mrs. M., we'll clean up." They did > (and saved me a piece of nicely buttered bread). > > Of course my favorite is how they're growing as learners. > This clearly was the missing link. I have to be extremely > organized for them, but they are now responding beautifully. > I wish you could be a fly on the wall to hear our > literature and writing discussions. They found meaning in > Fly Away Home that I'd never considered (I've always thought > the bird is a symbol of freedom for the boy, but they think > the boy and bird are alike and give evidence). I read them > a short lead I'd written to model realistic fiction and they > politely told me several (big!) ways I could improve my > piece (using lots of writerly language). So I spent another > hour and a half and entirely rewrote the first few pages. > They liked it much better, but noticed word choice I'd > changed (from 'glossy' to 'heavy') that they did not like. > What a crew! > > Finally, I knew something was right when the Superintendent > and Principal came around for their monthly walk-through > (about 20 minutes?). That afternoon I received an email > from the Superintendent's secretary saying she'd like to sub > for me. All district admin are subbing 3 days a year to cut > costs. I was dumbfounded and wondered (because she's VERY > bright), "Didn't she see how difficult they are?" > I went to the principal, who knows how tough this group is, > and asked if the superintendent had a clue. I'm still > thinking this through: do I let her sub and have a day that > she'll always remember or do I just do my usual and come > every day? > > Thanks for listening to my tale of a REMARKABLY improved > group. We still have many frustrating moments, but I now > enjoy them most of the time. > Judy

Jan 16, 2011

report post

Chapter 5

by judy5ca

Jan 15, 2011

Finished. Anyone else?

Comment

(10)

report post

view previous comments

Jan I actually have now read the chapter and enjoyed it. He's not easy to follow, and, like you, Kim, I had to reread it in order for it to hook itself on to my memory tinker toy! I think the problem I'm having with the book..and that's not Willingham's problem, but mine...is that he doesn't clearly translate the principles of psychology to educational...See MoreI actually have now read the chapter and enjoyed it. He's not easy to follow, and, like you, Kim, I had to reread it in order for it to hook itself on to my memory tinker toy! I think the problem I'm having with the book..and that's not Willingham's problem, but mine...is that he doesn't clearly translate the principles of psychology to educational practice. He gives us good information, but doesn't help us to incorporate them in our own practice. For example, his information on learning to automaticity....very interesting about why kids must learn the words before they can begin to understand...but not a lot of information about how teachers should deal with it.

I can see now why Madeline Hunter who was a psychologist, not a teacher, saw the need for translating the principles of psychology to teacher practice. She said teachers were not able to make that transfer as well as they should and she felt they shouldn't have to! Transfer is hard...teachers only had one or two courses in psychology so were unable to make the transfer. Madeline saw the connection between the two and did the translation for us. And I can certainly see the need. Veteran teachers can transfer ok, but the beginning teacher cannot.And, I don;t think veteran teachers can do it as well as we should. With Willingham, I'm able to do it because I already have the teaching practice side so I make the connection that way. But, I sure wouldn't be making it on my own if I hadn't already learned it from the other end.

So really, my stuff about short term memory wasn't that applicable to the chapter because he took it from a different perspective. The chapter on examples which Willingham related to transfer really confused me...totally different from Perkins, the Harvard guy who has done both the research and the translation for education. For ME, it was very confusing as far as transfer is concerned,but,more than that, he did not go into the valuable way that examples can be used. After that chapter, I kind of closed by Kindle and gave up on Willingham. But, this chapter I did find interesting....although not enlightening in terms of application to the classroom.

On 1/17/11, KimK1ca wrote: > I found the chapter interesting but I had to keep re-reading in > order to solidify my understanding. > > Jan writes: > > > I'm sure Willingham covers this, but 2 things about working > memory that people need to know. (1) you reduce the number of > things in working memory by chunking. It can be 7 pieces or 7 > chunks. So by chunking things together there is more room. > (2) there are 4 major strategies for getting things in > working memory. There are a lot of distractions around a > classroom, and the teacher needs to get his/her things in > working memory so needs some strategies. > > I was able to connect this information to what I already know > about teaching reading. Willingham says that in order to move > things from short term to long term memory, you can (1) chunk, > as you mention; (2) develop the background knowledge necessary > to make the new information meaningful; (3)ensure that the new > material is attended to (you have to think about it). > > Another thought I had while reading this chapter was a "forest > for the trees" analogy - the fixation on minor details that can > confuse, as opposed to the 'big picture' that allows you to make > meaning. > > For myself, I hate the 'part to whole' stuff that has not been > introduced as a 'whole' first. I think that peeve relates to > what he is talking about.

I really relate to this. I am totally a holistic learner and absolutely must have the whole before I get to the parts. I have to, for example, read the brief summary of a book on Amazon before I read the book. If I don't, I'm halfway through before the pieces begin to fit together. I need to have that summary as a structure to hang the pieces on. Shelby had the same problem. I taught her this trick and it has really helped her. I suspect more kids are like this than we realize. I know that we changed the original BTSA support provider training because no one was getting it and the reason they weren't was because there was no overview. We were supposed to stick religiously to what BTSA had provided, but when I, who was training the support providers, didn't even understand what I was saying, I added the overview on my own. Then I found out that many trainers had done the same thing. So, I think this is fairly prevailing learning style that we need to consider. Having info given piece by piece with no framework to hang it on is not fun. And, even for those very analytical people who need all the details first before they get the whole, will not be harmed by hearing the brief summary first. > > One thing I do like is that he is making cognitive psychology > comprehensible. I took quite a few psychology classes and > learned this stuff, but re-reading this is developing "deep > structure." Your work with Madeleine and Bruce solidified your > deep structure long ago, Jan, so this stuff is probably > elementary to you!

No,not elementary at all! In fact,this last chapter on memory gave me the examples on beginning reading that added to what I know and make it clearer. I think the more examples we get of the principles we know, the deeper our learning is. Examples, to me, are the key to both effective learning and effective teaching. And, I honestly do not think it is possible to solidfy deep structure in teaching. There is so much too it...and, of course, the principle of "the more you know the more you know what you don't know" rears its ugly head. It is HUGE in teaching. I think one of the major problems we have in teaching, though, is that many do not have the deep structure and don't want it....they think they have teaching mastered. I just don't think that's possible. The complexity is beyond what I ever imagined. Every day I make a new connection that strengthens what I know. And, I also hear new things that I've NEVER heard of before. That's scary....how long does it take to know what you're doing in this profession?! > > What would be helpful that is lacking in this book (so far) are > concrete examples that I can apply to my daily teaching.

As I said above (before I read this part of your post) this is the problem for me. But, I've decided that perhaps Willingham didn't intend to...he is writing it from the perspective of a cognitive psychologist to give us more background information and that is his purpose. He quite likely didn't intend to translate these principles into teaching practice. And, that may be a VERY good thing. I think the tendency in teaching (not these nerds on the prof reading board, but normal teachers!) is to learn the education translation but have no understanding of the psychological principles that underlie it. That's not good because then teachers cannot develop conditional knowledge to know when these strategies are needed and when they are not. Like the teachers who have the definition of set that they see in a book of teaching strategies and use it for every lesson they teach.They don't have the understanding of the psychological concept so can't determine when it's appropriate and when it's not, when it is useful and when it can be harmful, and what should actually be in the set in order to meet the psychological needs that learners have for mental set. They have the educational recipe for set and they throw it in every lesson with no clue what it does...or how to modify it for their own situation. > > :-)Kim >

Jan 17, 2011

report post

KimK1ca What I am enjoying most about this book is the fact that Willingham is validating many practices that I have used in the past without realizing I was referencing my cognitive psychology 'tinker toys.

One of my regular volunteer parents noticed me using letter tiles for Making Words today with about four of my kinder students. She noted th...See More

Jan 18, 2011

report post

HEY, YOU GUYS!

by judy5ca

Jan 16, 2011

I don't watch Sesame Street anymore, but I sure do feel like Millie! HEY, YOU GUYS!

Where are you? I've posted about my class, about my article, and about the book we're reading. I'm a posting saint, but where are you?

Hey! Judy

Comment

(3)

report post

view previous comments

dc Sorry, Judy! It was a four-day weekend (with no pay/furlough days) for both of us, so we "took off work" for the weekend! Thanks for stepping in!

GREAT NEWS on turning some corners with your kiddos. I knew that you would end up loving some of their diverse thinking and ways of looking at the world.

Your timeline sounds wonderful...See More

Jan 17, 2011

report post

Jan I am truly a practice devotee. I love 2 kinds.....guided practice and distributive practice. I had huge successes just from those two things alone. I am not so much a fan of independent practice for little kids. My whole lesson each day, in math, was pretty much guided practice. Here are Madeline's 4 short questions and answers about the principles...See MoreI am truly a practice devotee. I love 2 kinds.....guided practice and distributive practice. I had huge successes just from those two things alone. I am not so much a fan of independent practice for little kids. My whole lesson each day, in math, was pretty much guided practice. Here are Madeline's 4 short questions and answers about the principles of effective practice.

1. HOW LONG? (should practice sessions be) SHORT

2. HOW MUCH? THE SMALLEST PART THAT WILL RETAIN MEANING

3.HOW OFTEN? DEPENDS. Two answers. Sessions right together with no intervening activities for new learning (massed) and sessions further and further apart for long remembering.

4, HOW WILL STUDENTS KNOW IF THEY ARE RIGHT? YOU TELL THEM.You give feedback. Practice without knowing if they are right is a waste of time.

P.S. I did those from memory! It's been awhile since I've taught this piece.

On 1/17/11, dc wrote: > Sorry, Judy! It was a four-day weekend (with no pay/furlough > days) for both of us, so we "took off work" for the weekend! > Thanks for stepping in! > > GREAT NEWS on turning some corners with your kiddos. I knew > that you would end up loving some of their diverse thinking > and ways of looking at the world. > > Your timeline sounds wonderful. I'm envious. > > As to chapter 5, our district is now beginning a district > wide math facts PRACTICE program. We used to do it regularly > with Saxon math, but then switched to a "standards-based" > math curriculum (MacMillan-McGraw) which most of us hate. > The upper grade teachers have complained that the kids cannot > do higher levels of math because they no longer have a > command of their math facts, so we are going to implement our > own standardized math facts timed program to help kids be > successful. We swing back and forth in math, just like we > did with phonics/whole language. Good teachers know that you > need both, not one or the other. > > I'm glad to hear what he has to say about the importance of > practice. I'm naturally "old-fashioned" that way, so it's > good to know that it is still important! > > Thanks Judy, for yelling out the Sesame Street call, as you > brought some of our favorite folks out of the woodwork!

Jan 17, 2011

report post

The Willingham Book: Chapter 1, 2

by KimK1ca

Jan 16, 2011

I realize I may not be following protocol here by posting up top instead of under the correct thread. Heaven knows I don't need the Angry Thread Manager to take me to task!

I thoroughly enjoyed the first chapter for many of the reasons the author says we remember things - I enjoy the topic, I have substantial background knowledge with reg...See MoreI realize I may not be following protocol here by posting up top instead of under the correct thread. Heaven knows I don't need the Angry Thread Manager to take me to task!

I thoroughly enjoyed the first chapter for many of the reasons the author says we remember things - I enjoy the topic, I have substantial background knowledge with regard to it, and I am motivated to discuss this with other like- minded individuals.

I was instantly reminded of the work of E.D. Hirsch, author of 'Cultural Literacy,' and 'The Knowledge Deficit' (and other stuff, including numerous articles.) Dr. Hirsch maintains that a learner MUST have appropriate and adequate background knowledge (AND vocabulary) in order to comprehend challenging reading passages. Willingham discusses the need for the oft-maligned "factual/rote learning." Hirsch does the same thing - facts are the basis of knowledge. Without them, where would be the grist for our cognitive mills?

I am reminded of many students in my son's sixth grade math class. They don't know their multipliction facts because some where along the line, somebody decided it was 'stupid' and 'time-wasting' to memorize them. Well, guess what? Sixth grade math is more challenging than it needs to be if you can't rapidly apply your knowledge of basic multiplication.

Willingham also brings up a fascinating point that I am adding to my repertoire of knowledge regarding the Matthew Effect. On page 34, he provides a table that illustrates the idea that "the rich get richer." The more things you know, the easier it is to learn new things. YES! I could kiss this man, especially when he goes on to say that WIDE READING is the single BEST method of improving vocabulary and developing rich background knowledge. NOT T.V., NOT the internet, NOT video games.... BOOKS!

The mantra at my school (which is a work in progress) is "think outside the box." "Problem-solve." "Think critically." YET... what we notice about our older learners especially is that they lack the knowledge base of the BOX itself. How can you think 'outside' a box if you can't construct the box? Simply put, they lack the rich background experiences necessary to really dig into a real- world problem (in project-based learning) and come up with meaningful solutions.

Our 8/9 math and science teacher tried to get the kids interested in the mathematics of earthquakes. He set them loose on a computer program that would help them predict when the next wave would occur and how strong it would be. The kids floundered because they lacked the basic skills needed to apply what he thought they knew to the exercise.

I am also fascinated by Willingham's discussion of the human brain and how we avoid thinking. I took umbrage at first, but once I understood what he was saying, I found myself nodding my head in agreement.

I am enjoying this 'read' very much!

:-)Kim

Comment

report post