Why are educators petrified to assign complex text?

This post was originally written by a colleague in January. Despite the fact that she encounters many teachers who argue with the idea of assigning complex texts to their students, educators claimed her notions were inaccurate. I disagree. I believe she was on target. What do you think?

LiLaaC: Literacy, Language, and Culture

At first, I was afraid, I was petrified

Kept thinking, I could never live without you by my side

But then I spent so many nights thinking, how you did me wrong

And I grew strong and I learned how to get along

Educators, you can survive without catering to your students’ self-esteem. Plus, you and your students will learn to get along without it. Don’t be afraid of letting your students grapple with complex learning; much more, grapple with complex reading passages. It will not harm their self-esteem.

Text complexity and complex text simply restated is stimulating, exceptional literature that requires critical thinking. Lamas, Imams, Priests, Prophets, Pastors, Ministers, and Rabbis have been using complex texts for centuries within their vast denominations, leaving no reader behind.

So why are so many educators scared of designing lessons that require students to wrestle with content and to extend their thinking? Perhaps…

View original post 316 more words

But There is Hope (for the Common Core)

‘Innovation’ can be dangerous when we do not understand the subject.

Sheron, I suspect your deconstructing process is a valuable process for helping educators make decisions about their own professional learning needs regarding understanding one’s subjects. What are you noticing?

Susan stated this in response to a post a few weeks back. I answered with a short list of what I’ve noticed. I’m answering again now, but more in depth. Here’s some of what I’ve seen:

1. Eagerness to deliver on the Common Core without deep knowledge of the standards
2. Evaluation of instruction without a clear understanding of what the standards demand
3. Resistance to change and contentious school environments
4. Misaligned curriculum–standards, lessons and assessments
5. Well intentioned urgency with unintentional thoughtlessness
6. Overemphasis on informational texts while unnecessarily discarding literature
7. More telling than teaching, more demanding than coaching

Some of what I’ve seen so far, will quickly result in despair and panic.

But there is hope. I’ve seen leaders like Fred Sitkins in Michigan lead the charge in his district. I’ve seen teachers like Heather Simpson in Washington, DC improve the effectiveness of her practice by using The Core Deconstructed process. I’ve seen professors like Anitra Butler in Maryland use the process in her teacher preparation courses to cultivate the next and current generation of teachers.

Innovation is only innovation if something new or different is introduced. The Core Deconstructed promises different for all (and new for some) in this era when we say new and different are required.

If you want to know more about The Core Deconstructed, you can…

1. Get your grade-level appropriate copy in iTunes
2. Download a complimentary preview on SlideShare
3. See some results of deconstructed standards on Pinterest
4. “Direct Message” me on Twitter
5. Connect with me on Linkedin
6. Leave a comment on this page
7. Send an email

What’s the Objective?

“Does the learning target align with the learning activities?” That’s the first question I ask during a classroom visit, and it was the one I asked as I visited classrooms at Kilonpuiston school in Finland last week.

In one class, 8th grade students had to figure out the locations of different parts of the world using  photos, written clues and an atlas. In a second class, 7th grade students had been in the process of figuring out how to design an article of clothing by using math to create the pattern and actually making the garment. And in a third class, 2nd grade students were learning different modes of media, specifically by creating a comic, but in a second language. (All students are required to learn a language outside of their native tongue.) As always, I looked to the board for an objective, but the board was clean in every class. “What’s the objective?” I asked.

In each class the students were reasoning and using higher order thinking skills. They were beyond identifying and retelling. They were analyzing, evaluating and creating. And they were doing so on their own. When there is no objective posted, I tend to use the Objective Builder to figure out what the students are doing in terms of thinking processes, and the products of their thoughts. Here’s what I came up with:

• distinguish the features of the world’s regions to label and justify their location selections
• produce an article of clothing using the dimensions in their self-created patterns
• evaluate the details of their comic to check for clear communication in their second language

I had the opportunity to talk to the second grade teacher and she explained that teachers share the goal of the learning at the start of their unit, but not necessarily during the “exegesis when students are demonstrating what they have learned.” So the Finns do use objectives, but not quite the way we do. The point: whether or not objectives are posted daily, the lesson target:

1. MUST be clear and focused;
2. MUST align with the learning activities; and
3. MUST be derived from the standards.

The Objective Builder ensures all three.

The Tri-State Rubric: Do The Lessons You See Measure Up?

Exactly one day after completing the 3-part “Designing for Close Reading” lesson design series last week, I was introduced to version 5 of the Tri-State Quality Review Rubric for Lessons and Units. You could imagine my reaction. I immediately went into reflection mode asking myself, “Do my lessons measure up? Furthermore, does the Dr. B. Lesson Design Framework foster the thinking (professional decisions) required to create a lesson that measures up to the Tri-State rubric? I needed to find out, and so, I analyzed the framework using the rubric.

See what I found out below. (Click on the 4 arrows in the bottom right corner to enlarge the slides.)

HOT DIGGITY…it does measure up! Now you know that Designing for Close Reading, Parts I, II and III lesson examples were on target. And isn’t it reassuring to know you can trust the source?

But there’s more: you still have to deconstruct the standards to design well connected units demonstrated through the series. Why not start right now?

Designing for Close Reading: A Practical Example – Part III

So let’s get clear about  text dependent questions (TDQs.) What does that have to do with close reading? Keep reading and you’ll soon find out.

Before you engage in dialogue about either, it is imperative that those in the conversation hold the same definitions. For example, last year I observed a professional developer inform teachers that close reading meant holding the text closely and reading slowly. Yes. She said that. If we engaged in dialogue we’d be using the same terms, but holding different definitions. We’d be talking, but we would not be communicating.

Such was the case for a district literacy leader that I coach. She was asked to model the Elder-Paul method of close reading–the method adhered to on this blog. Specifically, she was asked to demonstrate Level 1 using triad groups along with TDQs and that was the problem. To those who requested her demonstration, TDQs were simply questions related to the text; however, she embraced the meaning purported by the Aspen Institute (2012).

An effective text dependent question first and foremost embraces the key principle of close reading embedded in the CCSS ANCHOR READING STANDARDS by asking students to provide evidence from complex text and draw inferences based on what the text explicitly says (STANDARDS 1 AND 10) (p. 1). [The emphasis is mine.]

Now, you can choose to ask students to draw inferences after Level 1, but you’ll be sure to frustrate your students and possibly yourself because Level 1 is about paraphrasing the author’s thoughts. On this level, students are just beginning to gain an initial understanding of the complex text-the operative word being complex. This is not an ideal time for most TDQs as defined by The Aspen Institute. Furthermore, the institute suggests how to frame TDQs. The suggestions are listed below along with my recommendations for the appropriate levels of close reading. The questions should focus on the following:

1. Defining academic vocabulary (Level 1-2)
2. Testing comprehension of ideas and arguments (Levels 2-5)
3. Unpacking challenging portions of the text (Levels 2-5)
4. Why the author chose a particular word/phrase (Levels 3-5)
5. Examining the impact of sentence structures (Levels 3-5)
6. Tracking down patterns across sections of text (Levels 3-5)
7. Looking for pivot points in the paragraph (Levels 4-5)
8. Noticing what is missing or understated (Levels 4-5)
9. Investigating beginnings and endings of texts (Levels 4-5)

*Note: defining vocabulary was a part of her lesson, but they wanted to see her model TDQs 2-9 while modeling close reading Level 1.

Most of the frames are best after Level 1 which only requires sentence level paraphrasing. Level 2 requires students to summarize the author’s thoughts and relate them to information they already know; Level 3 requires students to analyze the author’s thinking based on the eight elements of thought; Level 4 requires students to evaluate the author’s thinking based on the intellectual standards; and Level 5 requires students to integrate the author’s thoughts with his own and/or others’ ideas and concepts. (See this graphic for a visual explanation of the levels.)

Part II–last week’s lesson–and Part III provide the mental structures required to engage with most types of TDQs. The lesson below assumes that the teacher would have scaffolded students’ interaction with complex text over the course of several readings as demonstrated in Parts I and II. Given that, the points to keep in mind as you review the lesson are the following:

1. The standard of focus is RI.7.3. Analyze the interactions between individuals, events and ideas in a text.
2. The lesson is based on the evaluate/create column for the conceptual and procedural knowledge components of the standard. (See The Core Deconstructed.)
3. The lesson is designed for the authentic use of knowledge deeply understood in Part II through the process of evaluating.
4. The Critical Thinking Foundation’s model for close reading  is employed (Level 4)
5. The Lesson Design Framework housing the lesson organizes the elements of an effective lesson.

So without further ado, here is Designing for Close Reading – Part III:

Close reading and TDQs: get clear on the definitions before you start conversing and planning in order to reduce teacher obscurity and increase student success.

The Aspen Institute (2012). Text Dependent Questions and the CCSS. Retrieved from http://kvecelatln.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/6/6/13660466/text_dep_qu_and_the_ccss.pdf

Designing for Close Reading: A Practical Example – Part II

As promised, the intermission–a break from the standards–ends and we continue with lessons designed to advance students through the levels of close reading. Part I’s lesson focused on facilitating the acquisition of new information and adhered to the appropriate lesson design process. Part II’s lesson (the lesson below) focuses on deepening students’ understanding of the knowledge acquired in Part I.

Here are a few points to consider as you review the lesson:

1. The standard of focus is RI.7.3. Analyze the interactions between individuals, events and ideas in a text.
2. The lesson is based on the apply/analyze column for the conceptual and procedural knowledge components of the standard. (See The Core Deconstructed.)
3. The lesson is designed for extending the understanding of knowledge acquired in Part I through the process of  analysis.
4. The Critical Thinking Foundation’s model for close reading  is employed (Level 3)
5. The Lesson Design Framework housing the lesson organizes the elements of an effective lesson.

Next week we’ll move to Part III and take students to the highest levels of thinking–beyond the requirement of the standard–because as I wrote last week, it’s not just about the standard. It’s about cultivating mature thinking.

It’s Not Just About the Standard!

A funny thing happened on the way to Designing for Close Reading-Part II. Well actually, two things happened. First, I became engrossed in a conversation with a seasoned educator who did not understand the purpose of the activator in Part I. Second, while conversing with an ELA teacher, she indicated that her Vice Principal did not expect teachers to complete novels or other forms of chapter books with students. Instead he was expecting teachers to expose students to the texts, but focus on teaching the standard.

Picture a double-take. That was my reaction while internally I screamed, “Oh my goodness! What is he saying? He’s made school boring, irrelevant and only about the standards, but IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE STANDARDS!”

The two events caused me to retreat and reflect. As a result, I decided to craft this post as an intermission to Designing for Close Reading for the purpose of addressing a topic that is discussed often, yet is unintentionally overlooked: critical thinking.

Paul and Elder (2009) define critical thinking as,

Self-directed, self-discipline, self-monitored and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcoming our native egocentrism and socio-centrism (p.2).

Given the definition, it is not enough to simply “teach the standard.” It is necessary for us to employ the standards to facilitate critical thinking while using valuable content, hence the reason for the activator in Part I. Students should not just learn the standard. They must learn to think while engaging with the mind of an author. The sketch below depicts the critical thinker’s interaction with an author. Please share it with your colleagues who might benefit from it, or simply save it as one of your favorites. In addition, I highly recommend Paul and  Elder’s guide on critical thinking.

I’ll go on record saying that I am a fan of the Common Core, yet I do not believe they are an ends. Instead they are the means to an ends. The standards do not guarantee success. The standards are mediums through which we develop mature thinkers and it is the mature thinking that secures success.

Next week the intermission ends and we’ll resume with Designing for Close Reading-Part II.

Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2009). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools. Dillon Beach, CA: Critical Thinking Press.

Designing for Close Reading: A Practical Example – Part I

“What is Close Reading?” posted on January 1, 2012 continues to be my most popular post. That coupled with the feedback received on the recent series, “Process the Common Core” Parts I, II and III have prompted the practical examples in today’s and the next 2 weeks’ posts.

This week I used the lesson design process from Part I. Here’s what you should know about the lesson:

1. The standard of focus is RI.7.3. Analyze the interactions between individuals, events and ideas in a text.
2. The lesson is based on the remember/understand column for the conceptual and procedural knowledge components of the standard. (See The Core Deconstructed.)
3. The lesson is designed for acquisition of new knowledge with the goal of first strengthening students’ understanding before having them analyze.
4. The Critical Thinking Foundation’s model for close reading  is employed (Levels 1 and 2)
5. The Lesson Design Framework housing the lesson organizes the elements of an effective lesson. If you want to know more about the framework, consider scheduling 15 minutes of complimentary coaching by going here.

Teacher feedback on The Core Deconstructed has been grand! (More coming on that.) Because of teachers’ enthusiasm, the price has been reduced by 40% for the month of February! I want as many teachers as possible to experience the same successes as their peers who are already deconstructing. Next week is Designing for Close Reading Part II, so get your copy at 40% off and join me next week for the sample lesson that continues this series.

In the meantime, try this one on for size: close reading and the Common Core part 1.

Process the Common Core – Part III

“Doc, what’s the difference between analyze and evaluate?” This was the question of a curriculum leader in a session I led a year and a half ago. (I think the place should remain nameless.) Upon reflection, I applaud him for his bravery in asking, for had he not asked, he’d be “miscoaching” teachers and contributing to the condition of educational malpractice.

This 3-week miniseries, Process the Common Core, emerged from the desire to quench a realized need: the need to support educators’ thinking processes with the Common Core (esp. those who are nervous about asking questions in public.) The series also emerged from the desire to visually clarify the misconceptions of instructional design and delivery–for those who need it.

Part I clarified the process of designing lessons that lead to students’ successful acquisition of new information. Part II clarified the process of designing lessons that lead to students’ deeper understanding through application and analysis. Today, Part III–see the graphic below–clarifies the process that leads to students engaging in relevant tasks for the following:

1. Scrutinizing the acquired and deeply understood information from Parts I and II; or
2. Producing new knowledge, content or products through synthesizing the acquired and deeply understood information from Parts I and II

In the process of accountability, you promise to design instruction that leads to student success with the standards as your yardstick. Using a clear process for taking the standard apart (deconstructing the core), laying out the roadmap (unit and lesson design), and building the standard back up in the mind of the the student (facilitation of learning) assures you the confidence to assert that you can be held accountable.

Process: Deconstruct the Core!

*******************

[NOTE: In between posting Parts II and III, I created a tool that helps clarify the clear line between analyze and evaluate. See the “Analuate” below.]

Process the Common Core – Part II

Yesterday on Twitter a follower asked, “DrSBrown what do you personally think about the Common Core?” I would imagine they asked because I tend to recommend Common Core coaching questions daily and they wanted to turn the tables on me. I welcomed the change. In excitement I began shooting off a series of “less than 140-character” responses. One of them read, “The #CCSS is an opportunity to control how the curriculum is designed and delivered.” This opportunity delights some and frustrates others and it is for the latter that I write–especially my last 3 posts.

Last week I shared part one of Process the Common Core with the model standard being RI.7.3. The standard requires analysis and I mentioned that before analyzing can occur, students must first understand. So that’s what last week was about: a research-supported lesson design process for teaching that leads to understanding. This week I share a lesson design process for teaching that leads to application and/or analysis of the understood information.

Two weeks ago I shared that the process of accountability includes a simple notion: do what you say you will do. The stated promise of helping students master standards is backed by three unstated promises:

1. Break the standard apart to extract its 3 dimensions
2. Engage in a methodical process of designing learning experiences
3. Facilitate instruction to build the standard back up in the minds of the students

Those are the promises you make. Those are the promises you’re being held accountable for.

Below is a process tool that outlines how to build the standard back up in the minds of students. The model was designed with coaching in mind, so use it to have an internal conversation and follow the process. For a live complimentary coaching session, I still have a few days in January remaining. You can get on my calendar here.

Whether you use the full process in The Core Deconstructed, use the processes outlined on this blog, or select other routes, remember what’s most important is that you pause long enough to gain an intimate understanding of the standards that you’ll be held accountable for.

Again, process has purpose.