In my internship this year, one of the professional dilemmas I am anticipating that I will need to manage is constructing a relevant Language Arts curriculum for my students. I made a text-to-self connection with the Kersten and Pardo article because the school in the article used a basal reading program that was scripted for the teachers, and did not involve higher-order thinking for the students. My school uses a basal Langauge Arts curriculum as well. At Cornell (actually, in all Okemos Public Schools elementary schools), we use Reading Street as our Language Arts curriculum. I have heard a lot of positives and negatives when it comes to the Reading Street curriculum. For example, I have heard it is a good program because it covers a wide range of Language Arts topics (e.g., writing, reading, spelling, etc.). However, one of the biggest complaints I have heard is that it is scripted, so it leaves the teacher with no room to add any part of themselves into each lesson. Over the summer, I took home some of the teacher edition books to look at, and I was overwhelmed with what they expect Kindergarten students to complete in one week of instruction. In addition, certain aspects of the curriculum do not seem relevant in the lives of my Kindergarten students. For instance, sitting for long periods of instructional time without participating in engaging activities is not developmentally appropriate for a Kindergarten student. Therefore, I connected with the two teachers in the article because they did not find that the basal Language Arts program their school would be using was relevant in the lives of their students, when it was used in isolation. In turn, the two teachers finessed or hybridized their basal Language Arts curriculum to best meet the needs of their students, and to make the curriculum relevant to their students. While each teacher went about this a different way, they still stuck to the school's mandate of using the basal reading program, while incorporating other important Language Arts aspects into their curriculum as well (they made the curriculum their own). Going into the second week of school, we have not started doing anything with the Reading Street curriculum yet, but I am imagining that my MT and I will have to finesse or hybridize the curriculum so our students benefit from a Language Arts curriculum that is relevant to the lives of our students. While Reading Street forms a good foundation for a Language Arts curriculum, it should not be used as the only aspect of the Language Arts curriculum.
Also, I am anticipating the dilemma of constructing a relevant Language Arts curriculum for my students because of their opportunities to question what we are reading. In the textbook, the authors discussed asking questions as one comprehension strategy. They mentioned that Kindergarten students ask many questions without raising their hands. Yet, they also said schools do not encourage students to ask questions, so the students lose their curiosity as they get older (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 17-18). I put a star by this in my textbook because I have already seen this in my classroom. So far, during read alouds, my students blurt out questions or comments that they are curious about as I am reading a story. However, when they do this, I tell them it is important to question or think about what they are reading, but I say they need to keep their thoughts to themselves because it disrupts the other students from listening to the book. I know it is very relevant for my young students to be able to ask their questions or share their comments for a story we are reading as a class, but I am not sure how to have them do this in a way so they do not disrupt their peers. I will have to work with my MT on this specific comprehension strategy, in terms of modeling and allowing the students to use this strategy. The book provided some solutions that allow students to talk about the text without disrupting the class. The idea that really stood out to me was the "turn and talk" strategy. In this strategy, the students are given times periodically throughout a read aloud to turn to their neighbor and share their thoughts, questions, feelings, and so on (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 54). I have tried this strategy before, but never during a read aloud. The last thing I want for my students is to not have the opportunity to share their thoughts/questions because I want them to remain curious. Therefore, I want our Language Arts curriculum to be relevant to them in that it plays into their curiosities and encourages them to be curious.
I thought you brought up a lot of good points about the basal curriculum and I can definitely relate since at my school we also have a similar reading program, just looking at one teachers edition and what should be done is so overwhelming, it makes me wonder when any other subjects would get fit into the day if we were trying to fit in all the suggested material. However I like some of the activities in the book for students to do and points to talk about, which serve as good reminders so you don't forget anything to bring up. I connected with your post because I am also in a kindergarten class and believe that my MT and I will also choose to create a hybrid reading program rather than only use the basal program or not use it at all.
ReplyDeleteI think the concern you brought up about not knowing how to balance kindergartners asking questions and expressing their curiosity while trying to limit the questions to only appropriate times is also relevant to my class as well. I would love to answer all of my students questions about a book or anything else but there just is not nearly enough time in the day, and because they cannot write yet, they cannot write down their questions to remember later to be answered. Plus if some students get their questions answered and others do not, simply because of the time issue, students who don't get their questions answered may think that are not as important as the ones who do. While I was reading I was thinking about how I could keep control in the classroom while students were talking in pairs and small groups since we have some very distract-able students. I know that in the book the authors said that the way to keep control was to pick out engaging literature students could relate to, but yesterday in class I read a Clifford book, and during breakfast the students LOVE the Clifford videos we watch, but they weren't very interested, and all students have different interests so I think that it would be incredibly hard to keep all their attention long enough so they could have meaningful conversations with a partner.
I too have the same professional dilemma about the Reading Street Curriculum (Allison and I are both Kindergarten interns at Cornell). I am most apprehensive about it because I have had multiple professors in the past openly criticize it. I also connected with the Kersten and Pardo reading because as teachers we are going to have to cope and work with the curriculum that the school requires. However, it was enlightening to see that teachers are able to hybridize or finesse a curriculum successfully. Like most things in life, balance is needed. The right amount of Reading Street and outside resources will be the most beneficial. I see Allison's concern because as Kersten and Pardo state, "...we argue that finesse is a finely tuned craft, representing a sophisticated level of skill..." (2007, p.151).Therefore, as interns it will be difficult and something we need to work on, but with the help of our mentor teachers I believe we can do it!
ReplyDeleteI also relate to your concern about the questions during read-alouds. Sometimes young children raise their hands and make a comment that seems to be completely off topic, however to them they may be making a connection to the story! I think this is also a balance issue. Like Brianna said, there is no way we can cover everyone’s questions during a read aloud, but that could be a comprehension strategy we teach them.
When I was reading the textbook I kept thinking of ways in which I could make these powerful strategies work for young children. I too think the turn and talk would work well. In addition, when reading about the sticky note strategy I thought of something that might work for my class! During a read aloud if a child wanted to ask a question about the story or make a connection specifically to the story they could tell the teacher to mark that spot. After the story is read the class could go back to those sticky notes and talk about them in a discussion like manner where the students do the majority of the talking. Children would also do this sometimes when they are reading leveled readers at home with their family. This idea also has some glitches to work out, but I liked the sticky note idea and I wanted to work for Kindergarten.