Blog Entry 10: Homework Structure

Homework Structure

Rationale/Purpose for Homework and Independent Work:

Students will occasionally ask, “If we’re in school all day, why do we also have to do homework?” In fact, parents may be wondering the same thing. As teachers, we must make sure we effectively communicate the purpose for our homework assignments. First, Hill and Flynn (2006) state that students spend only 13% of their waking hours in their first 18 years of life. So, it seems reasonable expectation that students do some work on their own time. Also, students need to be developing this work ethic because the simple truth is that every year their teachers will expect them to do increasing amounts of homework. They need to develop this work ethic to succeed in the school system. But the most important reason for assigning homework and independent work is to give students the opportunity to practice and apply the new skills learned in class (Hill and Flynn, 2006). Hill and Flynn (2006) cite research to show that on average native speaking students need to practice a new skill 24 times before they gain proficiency; ELL student often need even more practice. Homework and independent work are an excellent way to provide students with such an opportunity for practice and application. The teacher teaches the students a new class in class. Students begin practicing the new skill in the classroom, while the teacher observes and offers help to students as needed. Then, the students go home and spend a little more time practicing the new skill by themselves.

What Constitutes Meaningful Homework?

 For homework to be meaningful, it must meet 3 criteria. First, it must either be practice or application of a new skill that has been learned in class, or it must prepare students for future learning, such as having students read a brief article on a topic they be examining in class in much more depth (Hill and Flynn, 2006). Students should be able to complete the homework assignment by themselves; since it is practice or preparing for new learning, students should not need their parents’ assistance (Hill and Flynn, 2006). Because students should be able to complete the homework assignment independently, homework assignments may need to be differentiated to the level of different students, especially ELL students (Hill and Flynn, 2006). Perhaps most importantly, students must understand the purpose of the homework assignment. The teacher must explain that the homework is assignment with the purpose of giving the students the opportunity to gain mastery of the new skill they have learned (Hill and Flynn, 2006).

Intended Objectives:

The assigning of homework can actually serve three objectives. First, It is a way of letting students gain first-hand experience of the connection between effort and success. Hill and Flynn (2006) state that for many students this connection--that many teachers might take as a self-evident truth—needs to be explicitly taught to many students. When students practice newly learned skills, they will see that gain greater mastery of that skill, perform better on assessments, and earn better grades. The assigning of homework also prepares students for future in success in school. I teach 7^th and 8^th graders. When they reach high school, their teachers will certainly be expecting them to do a certain amount of homework each week. They need to start building this work ethic now. The primary objective for homework, however, is to provide students with the opportunity to master the skills they learn in class (Hill and Flynn, 2006). My primary homework assignment is for students to create a reading-response journal taken from a book they are reading outside of class. If we are working on supporting interpretations of the text based on specific textual evidence, for example, student’s homework will be to support interpretations of their outside reading based on specific textual evidence. The homework, then, provides the opportunity to practice this new skill and even apply this skill to another text.

Providing Specific Feedback:

Providing feedback on student’s homework is crucial. First, students need to know that their homework is valuable enough for the teacher to spend time assessing. Even more importantly, if the objective of homework is for students to gain mastery of the skills taught in class, then the teacher needs to know where students are excelling in terms of the new skill and where the students may need further instruction and assistance. Furthermore, the students themselves need to know where they are excelling and where they can improve.

I will provide feedback in at least three different ways.  First, I will assess each student’s reading journal for the quality in which they apply the skill to their outside reading. I will write my comments next to their entries, explaining their strengths and areas of improvement. Occasionally, I will have students assess each other’s reading journal. They will not give a grade, or course, but they will explain where they think their classmate did excellent work and where they might still improve. Finally, I will also provide an overhead example of student’s work (making sure to gain permission first) and have the class break into small groups to assess the strengths and areas for improvement of student work. When I see a common pattern among a number of students (either strengths or areas for improvement) I can also create my own journal entry from these common patterns to have the class discuss.

 Using Technology in the Communication Process:

It is important to communicate general and specific homework requirements along with the purpose and rationale of the homework to both students and parents. Harry Wong (2009) provides many helpful strategies for such communication. Before school even begins, I will send a letter and email to each family explaining my purpose and rationale for homework and general requirements, such as students will need to do about an hour a week of outside reading and responding. I will also create a class webpage which will contain each week’s homework assignment, so that both students and parents have access to all class assignments, including homework. 

Reference List

Hill, Jane D., & Flynn, Kathleen M. (2006). Classroom Instruction that works with English Language Learners. Alexandria, VA. ACSD.

Wong, Harry K. and Rosemary T. (2009). The First Days of School: How To Be An Effective Teacher. Mountain View, CA. Harry K. Wong Publications.

Week 6. Blog Entry #9: Fiction and Non-Fiction

Discussion Accompanying Contrasting of Textbook and Fiction

I created a “double-bubble” thinking map to compare and contrast fictional books and textbooks. The two large bubbles on the left and right represent textbooks (left) and fictional books (right). The three center bubbles are used for things each of these genres have in common. I have placed the “Title Page” and “Table of Contents” as similar features. Both textbooks and fictional books have a title page that contains the title, author, and publisher. Both also have a table of contents that lists things in the order of presentation. After these two areas of similarity, I saw many differences between the two genres.

I used the upper left bubble (textbook) and upper right bubble (fictional books) to show what each genre covers. The fact they this information is presented in opposite boxes shows that there exists a similarity in the major category under examination, namely “what each genre covers.” But the fact that this information is presented in opposite bubbles instead of the three interior bubbles shows that there is a major contrast. Fictional books cover character development, plotline, and theme. These categories are usually not addressed in a textbook. A textbook usually covers content and vocabulary.

The rest of the information presented in my thinking map is all listed under the textbook genre and does not have a corresponding category in fictional books. In sharp contrast to fictional books, textbooks usually have heading and subheadings, appendixes, graphic features, a bibliography, and a glossary. Also, textbooks tend to be structured differently than fictional books. Textbooks are usually structured chronologically, of course there are some exceptions. Textbooks can be structured chronologically, especially history textbooks. But textbooks can also be structured topically, by comparing and contrasting things, in a cause and effect manner, and even in a problem and solution manner.

I believe most features of texts will support English language learners. There are less text features in a fictional book, but those present will only support an English language learner. The table of contents will be very helpful, especially if it gives names to each chapter. The reader can look at the chapters and get a general idea what happens. The reader can even look at the entire list of chapters, if they have names, and get a sense of the entire flow of the story; the reader may get a sense of some of the events in the book and the different places in which these events may occur. Such previewing can only help an English language learner, or any reader for that matter. The back of the book may also provide the English language learner with additional support. The back of the book often gives a brief summary of the synopsis of the book, which would help the English language learner get an overall sense of the plotline, the major characters, and even the setting. The title page might offer some support. The English language learner could certainly develop an idea about the story by the book’s title. He might even recognize the name of the author and thereby anticipate a certain style of writing or genre. I doubt the name of the publisher would either provide support or cause any additional difficulties.

Textbooks generally have more features than fictional books—and most of these features will provide added support for an English language learner, or any reader for that matter. The title page will give the English language reader a sense of what topic the textbook covers. The table of contents will provide a big help to the English language learner.  He can preview the overall scope of material covered in the book. He can also get a sense of what he can expect to be covered in each chapter before he actually begins reading the chapter. The progression of the chapters presented in the table of contents will even tell the reader in what manner the book is structured, such as chronologically, topically, cause and effect, problem solution.

There are several features commonly seen in textbooks that will also provide support for the English language learner. Most topics have headings and sub-headings. While this language may be academic and, therefore, cause some difficulties, such language cannot be avoided in textbooks. Once the English language learner can grasp the meaning behind this language, heading and sub-headings are very helpful. They help the reader keep his thinking focused only on the material under consideration. The reader knows that all the information they read should fit under the broad heading or slightly less broad sub-heading. Graphic features are also very helpful. Pictures, graphs and photos can be very helpful for and ELL student struggling with some of the language to make sense of the material. A glossary is also very helpful for the ELL student. Textbooks by nature are academic—and this is usually the last type of language developed by an ELL student. The ELL student may know the word under consideration in his native language—he may know the concept. But he may not know the word in English. The glossary will allow the ELL student to look up the definition of an academic word he does not know.

A couple features of a textbook will probably not be that helpful to an ELL student, but neither will they cause difficulties. Textbooks often have a forward. It could help, if the student even reads the forward. I must admit, I often do not read the forward. If the student reads the forward, he may indeed get some meaning from the forward. If he is only confused by the forward, however, this will not interfere with his reading of the text, as the text can certainly stand on its own independent of the forward. I also think the bibliography will offer little in the way of support and nothing in the way of difficulties. The bibliography could provide some support if a student was really passionate about a subject and wanted to do some additional research. But it will not provide any difficulties because, like the forward, it is really independent from the meaning of the text itself.

The main difficulty I see for the ELL student reading a textbook is the academic language, which is typically the last part of language developed, and the academic content and concepts, which may entirely new to the ELL student, or for any student.

 

Week 5: Blog Entry #8. Sheltered Instruction

Due to difficulties in accessing this week's video, I am reviewing an article on sheltered instruction that I found on EBSCO. This article Teacher Learning and ELL Reading Achievement in Sheltered Instruction Classrooms: Linking Professional Development to Student Development examined the effectiveness of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) on student achievement.

The SIOP model is built upon the sociocultural theory of Lev Vygotsky, who emphasized the role of culture in learning. The SIOP model has eight components: preparation, which include preparing both content and language learning objectives, building background knowledge, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment.

This study began by training 21 teachers in the implementation of these eight components. The training was fairly extensive. It occured over 18 months and totalled 50 hours. The researchers wanted to ensure that the classrooms they were examining were in fact thorougly implementing the SIOP model. In fact, of the 21 teachers who went through this training, only 7 were included in the final study because only these 7 were seen by the researchers an fully implementing the SIOP model. By including only these 7 teachers, the researchers were doing everything they could to ensure they were actually testing the success of the SIOP program.

The research experiment compared the students of the 7 teachers who were selected to participate in the final study against a random set of students in other classrooms across the district. The findings seem to me to be less than overwhelmingly persuasive. The first variable used to test the achievement of the two sets of students was the PAS Reading test. McIntyre states, "Importantly, however, results indicated no statisically significant differences in PAS Reading test scores" (2010, p. 344). Its seems because the first variable (the PAS Reading test) showed no significant difference, the researchers then implemented a second test. It seems that they used the same PAS Reading test, but this time they considered student's pre-test scores (before the SIOP instruction) and post-test scores (after the SIOP instruction). This time the researchers did find a significance difference between the treatment group and non-treatment group. As I am not an expert in conducting research experiments, I am not sure why they did not consider pre-test and post-test scores from the outset, but I assume they--the experts--had their reasons. But even the significant difference caused by the second test did not result in great optimism of the researchers. In the section labeled "Discussion and Conclusions" McIntyre states, "This study illustrates that the SIOP model at least does not appear detrimental to reading achievement and may even support it, i f it is fully implemented as intended by the model authurs" (2010, p. 346).

This research project took volunteers, who presumably were encouraged by the model under consideration, provided ongoing professional development in how to implement the model for 18 months; they the researchers selected on 1/3 of the participants--those who they deemed most successful at implementing the model into their classrooms--for the final study. And then they get mixed results. The first method of analysis showed no significant difference between students exposed to the instruction and those who were not. And while the second method of analysis did show a significant difference, the researchers themselves conclude the model "at least does not appear to be detrimental to reading achievement..." Indeed, the model does not appear to be detrimental; and many of the practices seem like common sense teaching strategies that should work not only for ELL students but for all students. But before I can determine that research demands this approach, I will need to examine more research. It seems as though this particular study does not definitively establish the SIOP model as the best method of instruction for ELL students.

Week 4: Blog Entry #7. Running Record

This past week I conducted a running record/miscue analysis on two seventh grade students in my general population class. Saul is a native Spanish speaker and Andrea's first language is Korean. Both students, however, seem perfectly fluent in English and are excellent students. Both Saul and Andrea would certainly fit under Hill and Flynn's (2006) category of "advanced fluency." It is interesting that one of our readings stated that ELL students who tend to the best in English also have complete fluency in their native language. Both Saul and Andrea said they still speak and read in their native languages and consider themselves to be fully fluent in their native language.

I began by having each student read a 600 word passage from The Outsiders. This did violate the protocal I found in my research because they have both read this book in class and they did not choose this book themselves. Both students did exceptionally well. Saul seemed very relaxed and consciously not trying to read too fast. His reading was fluent and not overly rapid. Saul made one mistake in 600 words of The Outsiders. The protagonist says “but I usually lone it anyway.” Saul read “but I usually if anyway. This does qualify as a miscue; I interpret this as being a miscue resulting from graphic similarity. But, as in Gunther’s model, this is a miscue that did not result in a loss of meaning. Saul had an error ration of 1:600 for The Outsiders. From both a running record perspective and a miscue analysis perspective, this book is too easy for Saul. He only made one miscue, and it did not result in any loss of meaning. As a measure of fluency, this book is too easy for Saul. But I do think this book still provides Saul with numerous opportunities to further develop his reading skills. This book would offer a rich field for Saul to explore thematic and character development, just to name a few.

Andrea had an experience very similar to Saul in reading from the The Outsiders. Andrea read 600 words from The Outsiders and only made two miscues, for an error ration of 1:300. She substituted “moving” for “movie” and “getting” for “being.” Her substitution of “moving” for “movie” seems to have been due to graphic similarity. I suspect her substitution of “getting” for “being” was just one of those miscues we all make when reading orally for someone else. I do not think either of these mistakes resulted in a loss of meaning. While a running record assessment would say this book is too easy for Andrea, I do think, as in the case with Saul, this book still offers many learning opportunities, such as in terms of literary devices like thematic and character development.

Saul next read 600 words from Into Thin Air, (written at an 8th grade level) which tells of a disaster that occurred on Mount Everest in 1996. Saul had 5 miscues and one self-correction with this passage. Saul had a miscue ration of 1:120. One miscue seems to have resulted from graphic similarity. Saul read “invisibility” instead “visibility.” A couple of the miscues seem to have been nothing more that the occasional miscue we all make when reading orally for someone else. For example, Saul read “was" instead of “had” and he read “and” instead of “or.” I do not think any of these miscues resulted in much loss of meaning. One miscue he made did, I believe, resulted in a loss of meaning. The main character tells how he was leaning over and “retching.” Saul read this a leaning over and “reaching.” I think this was a new word for Saul. He did not self-correct and read the word wrong. By substituting “reaching” for “retching,” I do not think Saul grasped that the character was violently ill. Again, based on a running record analysis, this book is too easy for Saul. A miscue analysis would be more helpful. Although Saul’s oral reading resulted in very few miscues, there were places in the text that I could tell Saul was not following the action. Miscue analysis’ category of intonation could come be helpful in considering how to help a student like Saul reading this book. From my observation of Saul’s reading this text, he could benefit from work on separating dependent clauses from sentences. Saul could also benefit from activities that ask him to monitor his comprehension and strategies that help him repair meaning when it breaks down.

Andrea also read 600 pages from the 8^th grade text Into Thin Air. Even though the reading level increased from 7^th grade to eighth grade, Andrea’s number of miscues was still very low. Andrea had three miscues and one self-correction for an error ratio of 1:200. One miscue seems related to graphic similarity; she read “us” instead of “up.” But this did not seem to cause any loss of meaning. The other two miscues were words Andrea did not seem to know and could not sound-out. She could not pronounce the word “methodical” and did not seem to know what it meant. She also could not pronounce the rather technical word “crampon,” which are metal spikes climbers fasten onto their boots to help them navigate the ice. Andrea did seem to lose meaning because of these two miscues. As was the case with Saul, I think a miscue analysis would be an effective tool to diagnose Andrea’s instructional needs. While her error ratio was very low—well beyond the dependent level—she clearly had portions of the text where she lost meaning. There were a number of words she was able to sound-out, but she did not seem to know them. She seemed to struggle maintaining understanding throughout as she had to sound-out words she did not know and also work through longer sentences with frequent dependent clauses. Much like with Saul, I think Andrea could benefit from activities geared to becoming more comfortable with dependent clauses, self-monitoring practice, and strategies for when meaning breaks down.

Saul next read 600 pages from His Excellence, a biography on George Washington. This text is written for an adult audience. Saul made 16 miscues. Saul had an error ration of 1:37.5 A couple of his miscues were again those miscues that anyone could make while reading orally for someone else. For example, he read “of” instead of “at.” But 13 of his miscues came from words he did not know and had trouble sounding-out. For example, Saul had miscues around words like “canonization,” “idolatry,” “cadences,” and “providential.” From a running record perspective, I would determine this text was too difficult for Saul and would guide him a lower reading level. Miscue analysis would also help me further understand Saul’s difficulty with this text. First, many of his miscues were based on his unfamiliarity with these words and an inability to even sound-them-out. Also, I could tell by his pacing and intonation that he was not understanding much of what he was reading, even if he was pronouncing the words correctly. I believe a “retell,” in which Saul retold what he just read would have confirmed my suspicion that he did not grasp much of this text. But even though this text was so difficult for Saul, a miscue analysis could provide me with the strategies to help Saul better grasp this text. I would begin with building the vocabulary necessary for Saul to understand this passage and then I would build background knowledge.

Andrea also had a much more difficult time with the George Washington biography His Excellency. She had 12 errors for an error ration of 1:60. She had a few simple mistakes that did not seem to have arisen from graphic similarity but rather from feeling the stress of reading this difficult material out loud to another person. For example, she substituted “couple” for “few.” The majority of her miscues were on difficult words she did not seem to know and was trying to sound-out, such as “posterity,” “designation,” and “chroniclers.” From a running record perspective, this book is too hard for Andrea and should be abandoned for a lower leveled text. From a miscue analysis perspective, I might gear instruction (if we decided to continue with this book) toward vocabulary, background information, continued work with dependent clauses and longer sentences. I could also create instructional activities for Andrea to monitor syntax—does her reading sound right; and activities for Andrea to monitor semantics—does her reading make sense. This could also provide a opportunity to design instruction around using context clues to determine meaning of unknown words.