My kids are working on issue research. They research and unpack the many points of view that comprise an issue. One student is working on paper usage in the US. This is similar to a topic done last year that focused on paper use in schools.
The big "A-Ha" for me was literacy and worksheets don't really mesh. In fact, I'd argue that if you're making a ton of worksheets for your literacy time (in the intermediate classroom :) you're in fact wasting your time (and your kids' time). Kids need the opportunity to real have authentic conversations about books, and record their thoughts. Countless packets of "stuff"? No. You can teach concepts that they record in journals- or that go on charts in your room. But daily spelling practice? Grammar work? You can do those in other ways without the class set of copies.
Next time you're heading to the copier think: is there another way that gets this done and meets the needs of my kids? I bet you'll say yes.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Friday, March 1, 2013
The Workshop Model
I enjoy using twitter. I get my daily sports news, running stuff (because it is different than sports!), general news, and education information. In my feed came a link to a post about the workshop model. Now the title is whether Lucy Calkins is insane, which would seem to be pure hyperbole for the sake of readers. Alas, further reading shows the title to be closer to the author's point of view than one might hope.
I've used the workshop model for 3.5 years. I used it in my student teaching, and have used it in my practice in 5th grade. Workshop has been a part of my practice for both reading and writing, although admittedly it hasn't been the only method I've used. Some are huge workshop fans, and others are very much against the workshop and the Teacher's College. Me? I'm probably more pro-workshop than anti-workshop.
Like any model or program it has positives and negatives. Positives are that reading and writing are more authentic through use of the Calkins model than through the use of a basal program, or scripted writing program. The basal program will have students focus on a particular comprehension strategy (envisioning, inference, etc) by having students read an 8-12 page excerpt, stopping periodically to monitor comprehension. In the workshop model students read, and will either record information in a reading journal or in discussion with a reading buddy. For me, I use the workshop model with a novel study. They will get together in groups, and they have people to discuss the book with. Questions will come at the end of the week as students summarize, generate meaningful questions from reading, and talk back to the text.
Comparing the two, as I've used both, kids have been far more successful with novels in their hand. Instead of parts of books, and drilling away at a comprehension skill with 3-5 questions while reading, they are able to read larger chunks. They can process information at the end of a 25-45 minute block, walking away with a far different idea of what reading is. A basal program just didn't do that with my kids, as I found them bored and meeting the minimum of what was expected. The basal essentially generated a script for me to follow, essentially making me an implementer of materials. While Calkins has a narrative for her strategies, I've found that you have great flexibility in your ability to chose strategies your kids need, and base them off of read alouds or books you have in your room. I've done inferencing and character description using Wildwood and Prue. Kids loved it, and were able to take the same strategies and apply them to their own stories they were reading.
There is one main question I've had in relation to this. Are my kids coming to me at a higher starting point than there's (therefore presupposing a higher incoming skill set)? Between 85-95% of my students have met standard in my 3 years (depending on year), a modest increase over where they were in 4th grade. If their skill set is higher, are they better able to fit in a less structured model? Is there an issue of materials available? I pour a ton of money into my classroom library each year- novel study and just plain novels. If you don't have a ton of books, particularly those at the levels of your kids, you're screwed in workshop.
The irony is the posting about Calkins and workshop mentions the lack of data to support the program's use. Education has been laden with pendulum shifts. If it isn't use of data for instruction, it is how data doesn't support a program (evidence based). If we aren't railing against programs that are too scripted and limit teacher freedom, we are railing against the lack of guidance and structure. I see the limitations in the lack of explicit phonics instruction. I see where having some smaller texts for small groups might be helpful in supplementing what you already do (to meet needs of students through ongoing assessment). But is Lucy Calkins insane? Doubtful. Idealist? Yes.
I've used the workshop model for 3.5 years. I used it in my student teaching, and have used it in my practice in 5th grade. Workshop has been a part of my practice for both reading and writing, although admittedly it hasn't been the only method I've used. Some are huge workshop fans, and others are very much against the workshop and the Teacher's College. Me? I'm probably more pro-workshop than anti-workshop.
Like any model or program it has positives and negatives. Positives are that reading and writing are more authentic through use of the Calkins model than through the use of a basal program, or scripted writing program. The basal program will have students focus on a particular comprehension strategy (envisioning, inference, etc) by having students read an 8-12 page excerpt, stopping periodically to monitor comprehension. In the workshop model students read, and will either record information in a reading journal or in discussion with a reading buddy. For me, I use the workshop model with a novel study. They will get together in groups, and they have people to discuss the book with. Questions will come at the end of the week as students summarize, generate meaningful questions from reading, and talk back to the text.
Comparing the two, as I've used both, kids have been far more successful with novels in their hand. Instead of parts of books, and drilling away at a comprehension skill with 3-5 questions while reading, they are able to read larger chunks. They can process information at the end of a 25-45 minute block, walking away with a far different idea of what reading is. A basal program just didn't do that with my kids, as I found them bored and meeting the minimum of what was expected. The basal essentially generated a script for me to follow, essentially making me an implementer of materials. While Calkins has a narrative for her strategies, I've found that you have great flexibility in your ability to chose strategies your kids need, and base them off of read alouds or books you have in your room. I've done inferencing and character description using Wildwood and Prue. Kids loved it, and were able to take the same strategies and apply them to their own stories they were reading.
There is one main question I've had in relation to this. Are my kids coming to me at a higher starting point than there's (therefore presupposing a higher incoming skill set)? Between 85-95% of my students have met standard in my 3 years (depending on year), a modest increase over where they were in 4th grade. If their skill set is higher, are they better able to fit in a less structured model? Is there an issue of materials available? I pour a ton of money into my classroom library each year- novel study and just plain novels. If you don't have a ton of books, particularly those at the levels of your kids, you're screwed in workshop.
The irony is the posting about Calkins and workshop mentions the lack of data to support the program's use. Education has been laden with pendulum shifts. If it isn't use of data for instruction, it is how data doesn't support a program (evidence based). If we aren't railing against programs that are too scripted and limit teacher freedom, we are railing against the lack of guidance and structure. I see the limitations in the lack of explicit phonics instruction. I see where having some smaller texts for small groups might be helpful in supplementing what you already do (to meet needs of students through ongoing assessment). But is Lucy Calkins insane? Doubtful. Idealist? Yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)