creating a sense of wonder by engaging all readers in high-level discussions about text
DESCRIPTION
Creating a Sense of Wonder by Engaging all Readers in High-Level Discussions about Text. Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D. University of Kentucky [email protected]. Goals. What does high-level talk look like in discussions? (How does peer discussion differ from teacher-led discussion?) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Creating a Sense of
Wonder by Engaging
all Readers
in High-Level
Discussions about
TextJanice F. Almasi, Ph.D.University of [email protected]
Goals
• What does high-level talk look like in discussions? (How does peer discussion differ from teacher-led discussion?)
• How do we create a culture for high-level talk in discussion?
• How do we assess and evaluate discussion?
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
What We Know
• Type of discussion can determine children’s responses and focus their interpretations in particular ways (Many & Wiseman, 1992)
Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
What is Peer Discussion?
How do you define peer discussion?
As you watch try to notice:
How did the participants interact?
How was language used to make sense of the text?
What scaffolding was done?
By what social rules
did the group
function? What topics were discussed?
What questions were asked?
What did the teacher
do to the environment
to foster comprehension?
How did participants
interact?
How was Language Used to
Make Sense of Text?
How were participants scaffolded?
Teacher-led Discussion
Peer Discussion
Teacher: They were at camp and what were they going to do there at this camp? Yes?
Student: They were going to have a contest. They have a map and a compass and they have to find stuff.
Teacher: Does anyone know the name of the camp? Yes?
Teacher: Alright, um, who is Bobbi?
Student: Bobbi was the girl.
Teacher: The girl, the character in our story. What other characters were in our story? Yes?
Student: Jamie
Teacher: Alright. Where were these characters? Yes?
Student: They were at camp.
Initiate
Respond
Evaluate
Initiate
Respond
Evaluate
Example: Teacher-led
DiscussionIRE Participant Structure
(Cazden, 1988; Mehan, 1979
Defining Peer Discussion
• Dialogic classroom event in which students are cognitively, socially, and affectively engaged in collaboratively constructing meaning or considering alternate interpretations of texts to arrive at new understandings (Almasi, 2002)
• Students gather to talk about, critique, and understand texts with minimal teacher assistance.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Peer Discussion: A Different Type of Post-reading Discussion
• Peer Discussion─ Decentralized Context
• Teacher facilitates group as a momentary scaffold─ Student Goals include:
• Interacting with others in a manner that fosters meaningful interpretation
• Using strategies for interpreting literature and constructing meaning
• Setting agendas and group norms for discussing literature independently
─ Conversational Discussion Group format (O’Flahavan, 1989)
O'Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of participant structure upon literacy development in reading group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign.
Participant Structure in a
Discussion
Decentralized• All participants take
equal responsibility for:• Deciding who may talk• Deciding what to talk
about• Deciding how the
conversation proceeds• Determining the nature
of future conversations
Centralized• An authority takes
responsibility for:• Deciding who may talk• Deciding what to talk
about• Deciding how the
conversation proceeds• Determining the nature
of future conversations
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
A Discussion Continuum
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
CentralizedMore Teacher Scaffolding
(Microgenetic)60-75% Teacher Talk
DecentralizedMinimal Teacher Scaffolding
(Ontogenetic)0-10% Teacher Talk
Peer Discussion Teacher-led DiscussionInstructional Conversations
Questioning the Author
Creating a Culture that Fosters High-
Level Talk
Discussion
Text Selection/Arrangemen
t
Context/Environme
nt
Type of Scaffolding
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Creating Groups(adapted from Wiencek & O’Flahavan,
1992)Student Social Ability Comprehension/
Interpretive Ability
Reading/Decoding
Ability
1 = Quiet student2 = Willingly shares ideas 3 = Willingly shares ideas in discussion and leads
1 = Difficulty comprehending text and unable to share basic ideas of text with peers2 = Able to comprehend most text and share with peers3 = Able to comprehend text independently and justify meanings created using text
1 = Unable to read/decode text independently2 = Able to read/decode most texts independently3 = Able to read/decode a variety of texts independently
Ashley
RoseWiencek, J., & O’Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions
about literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71(7), 488-498.
Decentralized Structure:
Introducing Conversation• Establish Social and
Cultural Norms• What is the goal?
• What is peer discussion like?
• What do you do in it?
• How do you act/participate?
• What do you say?
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
First Grade
Discussion Reminders1. You don’t have to raise your hands to speak.
2. Call each other by your names.
3. Take turns speaking.
4. Don’t interrupt each other.
5. Use you’re inside voice, but talk loud enough so everyone in the group can hear you.
6. Don’t use bad words or talk mean.
7. If someone is doing something they shouldn’t be doing ask them to stop.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Decentralized Structure:
Model Questioning Behaviors
Learning to think and talk while reading
• Book Buddies• During teacher read aloud• Teacher stops at various
points in the text• Poses thoughtful, open-
ended questions• What might happen next?• What are you wondering?• What do you think the
author meant?
• Turn and talk to your buddy
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Decentralized Structure:
Model Questioning Behaviors
Learning to think while reading leads to interesting
topics for discussion
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
I wonder . . .
I wish . . .
I worry . . .
I don’t understand . . .
Decentralized Structure: Learning
to Talk with One Another
Respectfully
If you start with Book Buddies . . .
Have two pairs of students turn and talk to each other
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Decentralized Structure: Learning
to Talk to One Another
Respectfully
If you start with small groups
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
• Prior to the next peer discussion have students watch a videotape of their previous discussion and look for ways they could improve their own participation
• Fishbowl by watching another group live or on video and critiquing
Group A Fishbowl
Group B Observers
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Peer Discussion FormatIntroduction
(5 minutes)
Peer Discussion (20 minutes)
Debriefing (5 minutes)
Peer Discussion:5 Minute Introduction
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
• Teacher functions as facilitator to remind students of group norms for interaction and to foster substantive interpretation
Scaffolding
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
How do we Assess and Evaluate
Discussion?
20 Minute Peer Discussion
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
• Students collaboratively construct understandings of text.
• Teacher takes anecdotal notes to inform instructional next steps that can be addressed in the debriefing or in a mini-lesson at a later time.
• Teacher functions as momentary scaffold intervening only to refocus the group.
• Goal is to help students learn how to recognize and resolve problems on their own.
Discussion
Peer Discussion
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
The Teacher’s Role:• Trust students’
questions• Sit back and permit
students to discuss• Scaffold for
interaction and interpretation when needed
• Observe group and record successes and areas for improvement
5 Minute Debriefing
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Scaffolding
• Teacher returns to help the group evaluate their discussion and set new goals for the next discussion.– Interpretive Goals
• What can we do to help each other make sense of the text better?
– Interaction Goals• What can we do to make
the discussion run more smoothly?
Student Self-Assessment
I listened carefully to what others said. A lot like me Somewhat
like me A little like me
Not at all like me
I did not interrupt others when they spoke.
A lot like me Somewhat like me
A little like me
Not at all like me
I added onto what others’ said. A lot like me Somewhat
like me A little like me
Not at all like me
I asked questions to help me understand the text better.
A lot like me Somewhat like me
A little like me
Not at all like me
I think I did ______ really well in the discussion.
Next time we have a discussion I would like to improve ______.
My goal next time is _____.Garas-York, K., Shanahan, L. E., & Almasi, J. F. (in press). Comprehension: High-level talk and about texts. To appear in B. M. Taylor & N. Duke (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction: Handbook of research and practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
(from Garas-York, Shanahan, & Almasi, in press)
Teacher Eval/Long-term
Planning
Long-Term Goal (from CCSS)
Date Observation
Progress Toward
Goal
Next Steps
1. Listen to others with care
2. Speak one at a time about topics and texts under discussion
3. Build on others’ talk by responding to one another’s comments through multiple exchanges
4. Ask questions to clear up any confusion about topics and texts under discussion
(from Garas-York, Shanahan, & Almasi, in press)
A Discussion Continuum
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
CentralizedMore Teacher Scaffolding
(Microgenetic)60-75% Teacher Talk
DecentralizedMinimal Teacher Scaffolding
(Ontogenetic)0-10% Teacher Talk
Peer Discussion Teacher-led DiscussionInstructional Conversations
Questioning the Author
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
For Further Information:
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
References
Almasi, J. F. (2002). Peer discussion. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 420-424). New York: ABC.
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314-351.
Almasi, J. F., Cho, H., Garas, K., Shanahan, L., Ma, W., Yoon, B., & Augustino, A. (2003, December). The Genesis of Dialogic Inquiry: Phases of Language Development during Peer Discussion. In B. Palmer (Chair), Peer Discussion Ecosystems: The Impact of Identity, Power, Authority, and Scaffolding on the Development of Dialogic Inquiry. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Almasi, J. F., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). The Impact of Peer Discussion on Social, Cognitive, and Affective Growth in Literacy. Paper to be presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
References
Almasi, J. F., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., Augustino, A., & Palmer, B. M. (2005, November). A Longitudinal Study of Development: Comprehension, Interpretive Strategy Use, and Language Use Among Children in Grades K-3. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Almasi, J. F. & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion of text. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp. 470-493). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Almasi, J. F., O'Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and teacher development in more proficient and less proficient peer discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96-120.
References
Almasi, J. F., Palmer, B. M., Garas, K., Cho, H., Ma, W., Shanahan, L., & Augustino, A. (2004). A longitudinal investigation of peer discussion of text on reading development in grades K-3. Final Report submitted to the Institute of Education Sciences.
Almasi, J. F., & Russell, W. (1998, December). Scaffold to nowhere? Appropriated voice, metatalk, and personal narrative in third graders’ peer discussions of information text. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Almasi, J. F., & Russell, W. (1999, December). An ecology of communication: Peer discussions as semiotic systems. In L. Galda (Chair), Classroom talk about literature: The social dimensions of a solitary act. Symposium conducted at the 49th Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
ReferencesCazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of
teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garas-York, K., Shanahan, L. E., & Almasi, J. F. (in press). Comprehension: High-level talk and about texts. To appear in B. M. Taylor & N. Duke (Eds.), Effective literacy instruction: Handbook of research and practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
References
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards English language arts. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
O'Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of participant structure upon literacy development in reading group discussion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Champaign.
O’Flahavan, J. F. (1995). Teacher role options in peer discussions about literature. Reading Teacher, 48(4), 354-356.
Wiencek, J., & O’Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions about literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71(7), 488-498.