Anonymous

Teaching Approaches/Language: Difference between revisions

From OER in Education

Teaching Approaches/Language (view source)

Revision as of 10:54, 13 October 2012

25,028 bytes added ,  12 years ago
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{teaching approach header}} {{teaching approach footer}}")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{teaching approach header}}
{{teaching approach header}}
Readers should refer to the section on [[:Category:Dialogue|Dialogue]] for guidance on dialogue.  Readers should also consider the specific guidance given in the sections [[:Category:Mathematical thinking|Mathematical thinking]] and [[:Category:Think like a scientist|Thinking like a scientist]].
=Developing Reading=
==Recent research into reading comprehension (or making meaning from texts)==
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Reading - Research Summary|Whole|Over the last few years there has been a renewed research interest (Pressley 2000, Kintsch 1998) into what is called, in the USA, ‘reading comprehension’. This renewed research interest is not, however, a return to the concept of comprehension current in the period from 1945 to 1980. At that time the research was characterised by attempts to identify the sub-skills of comprehension, then to establish some sort of hierarchy and then to teach these identified skills to pupils in progressive order. (Such an approach is still to be found in some reading comprehension exercises.) Rather, the renewed research focus is based on seeing the child as actively engaging with the text to create meaning. It emphasises the acquisition of strategies whilst engaged in authentic reading, rather than being taught as a separate suite of skills; it has broadened the range of strategies to include both cognitive and interpretive strategies and it uses a problem-solving approach. It also recognises the impact of reader differences and the wider socio- cultural context within which any act of reading takes place.
Pressley (2000) has undertaken a major research review in this field and he offers a list of approaches to reading development, and particularly comprehension development, which represent an up-to-date synthesis of all the major strands of research-derived strategies for improving reading. Some of it is particular to Key Stages 1 and 2, but much of it is directly relevant to Key Stage 3.
Pressley’s list of strategies places considerable emphasis on various forms of vocabulary work. The importance of vocabulary development is also stressed in the US government’s National Reading Panel Report (NRP 2000), which has
undertaken a review of the research evidence regarding effective teaching of reading. In looking at reading comprehension it examined 230 research studies and noted three main themes in the research on the development of reading comprehension skills.
First, reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that cannot be understood without a clear description of the role that vocabulary development and vocabulary instruction play in the understanding of what has been read.
Second, comprehension is an active process that requires an intentional and thoughtful interaction between the reader and the text.
Third, the preparation of teachers to better equip students to develop and apply reading comprehension strategies to enhance understanding is intimately linked to students’ achievement in this area.
Extract from the US government’s National Reading Panel Report 2000, National Reading Panel. Used with permission.
The second element (intentional and thoughtful engagement between the reader and the text) is also stressed in Pressley’s list which puts emphasis on a number of ways in which the student’s comprehension might be enhanced through making connections and considering responses. Such activities are characterised as being cognitive and social, and are also active (for example rehearsing prior knowledge, generating mental images, activating knowledge about text structure) and interactive (for example asking ‘why’ questions, engaging in reciprocal teaching, working with the teacher and peers).
This emphasis on collaborative and/or interactive approaches to reading comprehension has been a characteristic of research in the field over the past 10 years and draws on theoretical perspectives from the cognitive sciences (for example from schema theory and story grammar) and socio-cultural perspectives (for example the ‘teaching models’ of Vygotsky and Bruner). The model of teaching advocated by Pressley and the NRPR is therefore a balance of direct instruction along with teacher modelling and guided practice, leading to independent practice and autonomy. This model is one which is reflected in KS3 training.
Both Pressley and the NRPR research overview on comprehension emphasise the crucial role of the teacher in explicitly encouraging the use of comprehension strategies. The NRPR cites evidence to show that the pupils of teachers who consciously included reading comprehension strategies within their reading programmes made better progress in their reading. It seems that comprehension improves when teachers provide explicit instruction in comprehension strategies and when teachers design and implement activities that support understanding (Tharp 1992). Explicitly planning to include such strategies within shared and guided reading would therefore seem to be an essential part of a successful reading programme.
'''The importance of having a range of learning strategies'''
It seems from the research quoted above that there is a growing consensus about the kinds of experiences pupils need in order to develop their reading comprehension, in the teaching model and in the range of strategies that might be helpful. The NRPR drew attention to the importance of pupils having a range of reading comprehension strategies. Work in cognitive psychology has shown that pupils need to have access to a range of strategies to enable development to take place. Siegler (2000) in a recent overview into learning and development makes the point that learners need a range of ‘production strategies’ (ways of doing things) and that having a wide range of production strategies is important for development to take place. Learners, he claims, add to their repertoire of strategies by
*  observation (watching someone do it);
*  discovery/invention (finding out for themselves);
*  direct instruction (explain, show, tell, practise, feed back);
*  analogy  (if this works for X it might also work for Y).
They then go on to refine these strategies by
*  automation (practising it until it becomes habitual);
*  reflection (doing something and then thinking about it);
*  examination (i.e. social examination, comparing and contrasting with others). Access to a range of strategies is important for development but also to accommodate pupils’ different learning styles. Research into brain function has shown that different areas of the brain are used when different kinds of thinking and learning are required. Some pupils show a marked preference for strategies that require a particular type of learning to be used. Using a range of strategies ensures that pupils can use not only those strategies that they prefer but also those that require other types of learning to be stimulated. Howard Gardner (1993) has identified seven different aspects of learning. These are
*  linguistic or verbal;
*  visual/spatial;
*  logical/mathematical;
*  physical/kinaesthetic;
*  musical;
*  interpersonal;
*  metacognitive.
Robert Fisher gives a useful summary of strategies to enhance these different types of learning in his book Teaching children to learn (1995).
'''The importance of metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension'''
Siegler (2000) sees the pupil as moving from acquiring strategies to being able to reflect on their usefulness and compare them with others. This implies a level of conscious decision-making by the pupil. This ‘self-awareness’ and ability to reflect is important in learning. Gardner (1993) lists metacognitive intelligence as one of the types of learning, but it is one that, until recently, was rarely actively encouraged in many classrooms. Vygotsky (1962) suggested that there are two stages in the development of knowledge: firstly there is automatic unconscious acquisition (we learn things or do things but do not know that we know these things), and secondly there is a gradual increase in active conscious control over that knowledge (we begin to know that we know and that there is more we do not know). The second of these is a metacognitive level of understanding. Over the last decade we have become increasingly aware of the importance of metacognition in learning to read (Baker and Brown 1984). One of the characteristics distinguishing younger readers from older readers, and poorer readers from fluent readers, is that younger and poorer readers often do not recognise when they have not understood a text (Garner and Reis 1981); that is, there is evidence that they are not actively aware of their own level of understanding and are therefore not able to make an autonomous decision to use a strategy to enhance their understanding. Other readers show a greater awareness of their own level of understanding for they will stop when a text does not make sense to them. Some will then go on to select from their range of strategies that which might help overcome their problem.
In shared and guided reading sessions we can model for pupils how fluent readers monitor their understanding and use strategies to clarify their own understanding. These may range from semantic strategies to work out a troublesome word to sophisticated reflections on whether the meaning is deliberately obscure (as in a mystery) or perhaps challenging the author/text because the reader thinks they are incorrect. Such teacher modelling is an important part of the learning opportunities within reading sessions. The work of Gerry Duffy and Laura Roehler (Duffy et al. 1987; Duffy and Roehler 1989) concerning teacher demonstration and modelling is the one most often referred to.
'''References'''
*  Baker, L. and Brown, A. L. (1984) ‘Metacognitive skills and reading’. In D. Pearson (ed) Handbook of reading research. Longman. ISBN: 0805841504.
*  Duffy, G. G. and Roehler, L. R. (1989) ‘Why strategy instruction is so difficult and what we need to do about it’. In C. B. McCormick, G. Miller and M. Pressley (eds) Cognitive strategy research: from basic research to educational applications, pp. 133–154. Springer-Verlag. ISBN: 0837968695.
*  Duffy, G. G. et al. (1987) ‘Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies’. Reading Research Quarterly 22, 347–368.
*  Fisher, R. (1995) Teaching children to learn. Nelson Thornes. ISBN: 074872091X.
*  Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., Neuman, S. B. and Pressley, M. (1999) Best practices in literacy instruction. Guilford Publications. ISBN: 1572304421.
*  Gardner, H. (1993) Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books. ISBN: 0465025102.
*  Garner, R. and Reis, R. (1981) ‘Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: an investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper grade good and poor comprehenders’. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 569–582.
*  Harrison, C. (2002) Roots and research. Ref. DfES 0353/2002. Available on the Key Stage 3 website www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/publications.
*  Harrison, C. (2002) ‘What does research tell us about how to develop comprehension?’ In R. Fisher, G. Brooks and M. Lewis (eds) Raising standards in literacy. Routledge. ISBN: 0415263506.
*  Kintsch, W. (1998) Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0521629861.
*  National Reading Panel (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Available at www.nationalreadingpanel.org.
*  Pressley, M. (2000) ‘What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?’ In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson and R. Barr (eds) Handbook of Reading Research 3, 545–62. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*  Tharp (1992) ‘The effective instruction of comprehension’. Reading Research Quarterly 17:4, 503–27.
*  Siegler, R. (2000) ‘The rebirth of pupils’ learning’. Child Development, 71:7, 26–35.
*  Voygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and language. MIT Press.}}
=Improving Writing=
==Choice of teaching strategies can make a difference==
{{adaptedfrom|Improving Writing - Research Summary|Whole|In a meta-analysis of research looking at a range of studies on teaching strategies in secondary classrooms, three broad approaches to the teaching of writing were identified (Hillocks 1986)
* presentational: where the role of the teacher is that of setting tasks and marking outcomes;
* process: where the pupil controls the writing choice and writing is developed through drafts and peer-conferencing  (Graves 1983; Calkins 1988);
* environmental: a more guided, negotiated approach where active teaching of complex strategies supports pupils towards independent use (Australian genre theorists).
The study suggests that the latter approach is two or three times more effective than the ‘process’ approach and four times more effective than the ‘presentational’ approach because
*  new forms and criteria for writing are modelled;
* enquiry and problem-solving processes are involved;
* distinct features are identified and pupils are helped to apply these in their own independent writing.
Effective teaching of writing will depend on the degree to which teachers understand the complexity of the task (Schulman 1987).
'''Clear, focused writing objectives support pupils'''
Tightly structured lessons, which establish a clear sense of purpose and direction through clearly defined achievable targets, benefit all pupils but especially boys (Frater 1998).
Writing needs to be purposeful and offer pupils a stake in the negotiation of meaningful opportunities for expressing their interests (Britton et al. 1975). This is crucial for maintaining the interest of boys. Teachers have been slow to use boys’ particular knowledge of media and information technology and to link preferred writing to their preferred reading of factual ‘real world’ texts (Daly 1999). There is clear agreement in research on the need to integrate activities in writing around purposeful, authentic learning tasks.
'''use of shared reading as a bridge to writing'''
Teachers need to provide good examples of texts so that pupils are able jointly to investigate and analyse the features as readers or as writers. Callaghan and Rothery (1998) suggest that there are three stages in this approach
* [[:Category:Modeling|modelling]]: teacher shares information about the uses and features of the text type (genre);
* joint construction: teacher and pupils work together to construct a new text sharing the same generic features;
* independent construction: pupils construct a new text in the same genre, drafting and editing in consultation with peers and the teacher.
American researchers Nystrand, Gamoran and Carbonaro (1998) found that writing achievement was positively related to the degree of coherence between reading, writing and discussion (peer response) in secondary classrooms. Research with older primary pupils suggests that teaching writing in combination with reading prompts better critical thinking about texts than when the activities are isolated.
Writing at Key Stage 3 involves learning to read from multiple sources and writing critically in response. Writers need to be able to organise more complex information and to orchestrate, control and reflect upon their writing of a wide range of fiction and non-fiction texts (Hillocks 1995).
'''Explicit teaching and modelling language choices'''
Anticipating the needs of their audience and understanding the reader/writer relationship require clarity of objectives, purpose and task. Teachers need to be clear with pupils how the audience and purpose for their piece of writing will determine the structural and linguistic choices they make as writers (Cope and Kalantzis 1993).
Australian genre theorists have shown how reading–writing links can be productive, particularly in teaching non-fiction writing. They advocate explicit teaching of how texts work in order that pupil writers can construct texts and organise their own ideas for particular purposes and audiences effectively (Halliday 1985).
Exploration of texts can help writers access a range of ‘discourses of power’, that is ways of writing used by people to organise and influence the world around them (Martin 1989). Many aspects of written information texts can be explored directly with pupils to create awareness of the different language resources that serve different purposes (Christie 1998, Derewianka 1990, Hasan and Martin 1989, Kress
1982).
Evidence shows that teachers can support pupils in managing complexity by modelling the power of sentence-combining  activities (Shaughnessy 1979). Modelling is more than ‘demonstrating’ writing because it involves talking pupils through the thinking and decision-making processes used when writers write. The teacher takes the role as ‘expert’ (Vygotsky 1980). The use of metacognition and meta-language are important factors. Pupils need a supportive writing environment but benefit from seeing and experiencing the ‘struggles’ that are part of developing the writing skills (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1982, 1987).
'''Guided writing'''
Guided writing offers small-group teaching opportunities to support writers in making valuable connections between the text-, sentence- and word-level decisions required to shape texts with particular criteria in mind. Teachers can clarify the cognitive processes used when pupils are planning and revising, before, during or after writing parts of a text. The aim is to develop better-focused and more fluent writing with the support and feedback of teacher and peers (Scardamalia et al. 1981).
'''Scaffolding'''
Scaffolding is an effective process by which the teacher organises learning that is challenging to pupils in such a way as to assist them to carry out the new task successfully (Wood et al. 1976). It is a complex process and involves
*  activating and maintaining the learner’s interest;
*  reducing the number of choices available;
*  keeping the pupils on-task;
*  highlighting critical aspects;
*  controlling frustration;
*  demonstrating the process to pupils.
Scaffolding has a role in moving pupils to independent use of new strategies by supporting them as co-constructors of knowledge and co-users of more expert strategies than those they can control independently (Palincsar 1986). Writing frames are just one example of scaffolds, but their misuse has underlined the complexities in the process of pupils becoming sufficiently independent to manage without the ‘expert facilitator’ (Lewis and Wray 2000).
'''Feedback and revision'''
<section begin=Assessment />Since writing involves the integration of several processes, re-reading to revise is important (Norwood, Hayes and Flower 1980). Chanquoy (2001) shows the positive effect of returning to writing after the event. The time delay seems to help, but the techniques for revising need to be explicitly taught, that is modelled by the teacher. Glynn et al. (1989), behavioural psychologists researching in New Zealand classrooms, found considerable evidence that positive oral feedback has an impact on both motivation and the amount written. This was found to be more significant when errors were selectively targeted and when pupils were involved in error correction and praised for this. The research suggests that teachers’ comments should be organisational, encouraging, constructive, challenging and push pupils’ thinking. The work of Black and Wiliam (1998) and Black et al. (2002) looks at formative assessment and its relationship to raising standards in pupils’ learning. They comment that effective feedback needs to make explicit to pupils what is involved in producing high-quality writing and what steps are needed for improvement. They suggest that pupils should be actively engaged in the thinking and discussion involved. <section end=Assessment />
'''References'''
*  Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1982) ‘From conversation to composition: the role of instruction in the developmental process’. In R. Glaser (ed) Advances in instructional psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0898594227.
*  Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987) The psychology of written composition.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0805800387.
* Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. King’s College, London. ISBN:1871984688.
*  Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2002) Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. King’s College, London. ISBN: 1871984394.
*  Britton, J. et al. (1975) The development of writing abilities (11–18). Macmillan. ISBN: 0333178629.
*  Calkins, L. M. (1988) The art of teaching writing. Heinemann. ISBN: 0435082469.
*  Callaghan, M. and Rothery, J. (1998) Teaching factual writing: a genre-based approach. NSW Board of Education, Australia.
*  Chanquoy, L. (2001) ‘How to make it easier for children to revise their writing, a study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades’. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 15–41.
*  Christie, F. (1998) Literacy and schooling. Routledge. ISBN: 0415170176.
*  Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (1993) The powers of literacy: a genre approach to teaching writing. Falmer Press. ISBN: 0822911795.
*  Daly, C. (1999) ‘Reading boys’. In J. Miller (ed) Changing English 6:1. Carfax Publishing.
*  Derewianka, B. (1990) Exploring how texts work. PETA, Australia. ISBN: 0909955905.
*  Frater, G. (1998) ‘Boys and literacy’. In K. Bleach (ed) Raising boys’ achievement in schools. Trentham Books. ISBN: 1858561035.
*  Glynn, T., Crooks, T., Bethune, N., Ballard, K. and Smith, J. (1989) Reading recovery in context. Report to Research and Statistics Division, New Zealand Department of Education.
*  Graves, D. (1983) Writing: teachers and children at work. Heinemann. ISBN: 0435102710.
*  Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) A short introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
*  Hasan, R. and Martin, J. R. (1989) ‘Language development: learning language, learning culture’. Meaning and Choice in Language 1.
*  Hayes, J. R. and Nash, J. G. (1996) ‘On the nature of planning in writing’. In C. M. Levy and T. S. Randall (eds) The science of writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*  Hillocks, G. (1986) Research on written composition: new directions for teaching. NCTE, Urbana. ISBN: 0814140750.
*  Hillocks, G. (1995) Teaching writing as reflective practice. NY Teachers College Press. ISBN: 0807734330.
*  Holdaway, D. (1979) Foundations of literacy. Scholastic. ISBN: 0868960144.
*  Kress, G. (1982) Learning to write. Routledge. ISBN: 071009048X.
*  Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading images: the grammar of visual design. Routledge. ISBN: 0415106001.
*  Lewis, M. and Wray, D. (2000) Literacy in the secondary school. David Fulton. ISBN: 1853466557.
*  Martin, J. R. (1989) Factual writing: exploring and challenging social reality. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0194371581.
*  Millard, E. (2001) ‘Aspects of gender: how boys’ and girls’ experiences of reading shape their writing’. In J. Evans (ed) The writing classroom. David Fulton.
*  Norwood, N. J.,  Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. S. (1980) ‘Identifying the organisation of writing processes’. In L. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg (eds) Cognitive processes in writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*  Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A. and Carbonaro, W. (1998) Towards an ecology of learning: the case of classroom discourse and its effects on writing development in high school English and social studies. Albany.
*  Palincsar, A. S. (1986) ‘The role of dialogue in provided scaffolded instruction’. Educational Psychologist 21, 73–98.
*  Perera, K. (1989) Children’s writing and reading: analysing classroom language.
Basil Blackwell/Andre Deutsch Ltd. ISBN: 0631136541.
*  Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Marks, M. B., Brown, R. and Stein, S. (1992) ‘Good strategy instruction is motivating and interesting’. In K. A. Renniger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (eds) The role of interest in learning and development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 0805807187.
*  Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, B. and Fillion, B. (1981) Writing for results: a sourcebook of consequential composing activities. OISE Press. ISBN: 0896881849.
*  Schulman, L. S. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’. Harvard Educational Review 57.
*  Sharples, M. (1999) How we write: writing as creative design. Routledge. ISBN: 0415185866.
*  Shaughnessy, M. P. (1979) Errors and expectations: a guide for the teacher of basic writing. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195025075.
*  Vygotsky, L. (1980) Mind in society (ed M. Cole et al.). Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674576292.
*  Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem solving’. Child Psychiatry 17.}}
{{teaching approach footer}}
{{teaching approach footer}}
Retrieved from "https://oer.opendeved.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/12442"