Entry #8: /fɑː.nɪks wɪð frendz/ feat. Chloe Patterson

This post will be in response to Chloe Patterson's excellent post on phonics! I will be looking at the incorporation of what she discussed in the classroom in regard to worksheets, connected texts, and supporting below grade level learners.

Bless

Cheering Chloe on for her post!

Chloe did a great job of connecting what we learned last week to her future classroom. I especially loved how she included diverse, connected texts that she would stock in her class library - I always love seeing book recommendations for students! It was clear from her post that she knew what she was talking about.

Address

One of the questions I had for Chloe - and Tompkins and the authors of the article - was about the use of worksheets. I completely agree that worksheets by themselves are an ineffective way to teach phonics; Stahl et al. (1998) said that "the amount of time students spent on worksheets did not relate to gains in reading achievement" (p. 33), and I am not disputing that in any way. 

Isn't offering as many means to understand information what it's all about?

However, if they were to be coupled with direct instruction - if students were to fill them out as a class while doing the activities mentioned - would they be a meaningful reinforcement? What I like about worksheets is the chance to see the written representation of what has been discussed; if students are simultaneously seeing a word or spelling pattern and hearing the teacher say it, wouldn't that be useful, especially at the third grade level? Plus, they would then have a physical reminder of what they learned that they could refer to. 

Press

I have two areas I want to press on to see if Chloe could expand. The first has to do with the books she selected. I was not familiar with any of the books (though upon looking them up, they look very cute). I would love to know: how did she discover these books? How did she decide they were good books to use in her classroom? How would she classify them using Bishop's models that we learned in Möller (2016)? What topics would she link with them? What phonics related instruction would she pair with each of them? 

Chloe, because I'm sure she already has thought about all this!

The next has to do with something Chloe mentioned in the last paragraph. She discussed that she would use the activities to help students with below grade level phonics skills - I would love to know how she would use the activities. Would she pull the students for one-on-one intervention? Would she embed support into whole group lessons, thereby reviewing it for other students? How would she ensure they are getting as much reading time as other students despite their difficulties with phonics? Which activities would she prioritize? Since many third graders would still be working on learning some digraphs and diphthongs (Tompkins, 2017), how would she ensure students are catching up to grade level and learning the new phonics material with their classmates?

References

Möller, K.J., (2016). Using diverse classroom literature collections using Rudine Sims Bishop’s conceptual metaphors and analytical frameworks as guides. Journal of Children’s Literature, 42(2), 64-74.

Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5

Tompkins, G.E. (2017). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #7: Confession - I Can't Spell

Before these readings, I had never heard the term "invented spelling" (Tompkins, 2017, p. 170). The concept didn't seem all that radical, so I was a bit surprised - and then not surprised - at the controversy surrounding it. 

(Why was I then not surprised? Because we love to make everything controversial.)

Invented spelling, as described by Stahl et al. (1998), is when "children invent their own spellings in their writings, using what they know about letters and sounds" (p. 343). Basically, children spell as best they can with what they already know, rather than using dictation or memorization to spell words. The teacher doesn't correct the spellings, as it is more about developing phonics (in relation to spelling) than perfection.

By using invented spelling, children develop better phonemic and graphophonemic awareness, as long as they are also receiving spelling instruction. As they receive instruction and their awareness increase, their invented spellings become more conventional. Spelling also improves through increased time spent reading and writing - exposure and practice are always important factors in learning, in my opinion.

So what's the big deal about this? Well, many think that students are developing bad spelling habits (Tompkins, 2017) or do not learn how to spell conventionally (Stahl et al., 1998). 

And I get it. It looks like that. The spelling is going to be riddled with errors as they are learning. But isn't that just learning? We do it wrong until we learn the skills necessary to do it right. Isn't it better that they are practicing how to do it themselves and understand why things are the way they are rather than just being told what to do? I'd much rather have students practice invented spelling and spell something phonetically - where I can see they understand the connection between sounds and letters - than have them used memorized words or have it dictated to them. You know what you learn when someone does things for you? Practically nothing. 

Furthermore, if we can make sense out of what they are writing, does it really matter all that much? I think the content of what they are writing is more important than the conventions. And with the rise of technology, I feel like the need for perfect spelling is diminishing. I think I've misspelled about an eighth of the words I wrote for this post (including the word misspelled!), and you can't tell at all. It's gotten to the point that the only times I am physically writing is when I am taking notes for myself (in which case, only I have to understand what is written) and when I am writing letters to my friend in Germany (and half the time I type out my letters before I write them because I want to get my thoughts organized beforehand). 

I'm not saying spelling is unimportant. I think it is more important, though, for students to figure it out for themselves. We teach the skills they need - word patterns, affixes, roots, things like that - and how to proofread well, but we shouldn't worry all that much. It is something that will develop through exposure and practice.

And if it doesn't? That's what spellcheck is for.

References

Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5

Tompkins, G.E. (2017).  Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Entry #6: No Blank Slates In This Classroom

This week, there was something that Tompkins (2017) said that I thought applied to the education field as a whole:

"Literacy development has been broadened to incorporate the cultural and social aspects of language learning, and children's experiences with and understandings about written language - both reading and writing - are included as part of emergent literacy" (p. 111). 

Let me explain because I'm not talking about emergent literacy being applied to all of education. I am talking about the idea of widening the lens through which educators view students' skills and experiences. It seems like a common theme in education; the best practices now involve looking at the child more holistically, at everything they bring to the table, rather than just very specific features that have traditionally been valued. 

What came to mind first had to do, of course, with English language learners. In my other literacy class, in our section on getting to know our students, I read this great article by Moll et al. (1992). Moll et al. (1992) switched their mindset from what their students couldn't do to what their students could do. They learned about their students and saw that they had rich cultural knowledge, diverse experiences, and practical skillsets that just weren't appreciated by the traditional American school setting. They called what these students had "funds of knowledge," defined formally as "historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being" (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133). These funds of knowledge were then consulted to design lessons that were engaging and related to students' lives. Clearly, this is an example of broadening to incorporate cultural and social backgrounds of students in education.

Similar to Moll et al. (1992), DeCaupa and Marshal (2011) focused on students' (particularly SIFEs' (students with interrupted formal education)) experiences and strengths. They developed the mutually adaptive learning paradigm (MALP), based on the collectivist culture of education found in many of the societies SIFEs come from. DeCaupa and Marshal (2011) describe it as such:

"in MALP-driven instruction, the teacher acknowledges and uses what the [SIFE] bring with them but also provide pathways to new and different aspects of learning that their students will need in order to achieve academic success" (2011, p. 40).  

This approach values what students can already do and uses what they can do to develop their skills further. 

I can also see this idea in Muhammad's (2020) Historically Responsive Literacy (HRL) Framework. I mean, Muhammad (2020) literally has "identity" as a dimension of HRL. It is clear that she values incorporating individual and cultural experiences into the literacy development process. 

Even the Innovation Configuration (IC) allows students to connect their personal lives into the literacy experience. One of the goals for comprehension development with the IC is for students to make "text-to-self connections to characters, setting, or story events" (Beauchat et al., 2009, p. 30). Text-to-self questions allow for students to make meaning of a story by using what they already know. 

I can see this holistic, broad-lens approach in our class as well. We are constantly using and sharing our diverse literacy experiences through both discussions and our literacy autobiography. We didn't all come to this class with the same experiences - far from it. But all of our experiences bring something important to the table that allow us to see different perspectives that make us grow as both an educator and a person. 

No student comes to us a blank slate. Rather than seeing the deficits, I want to rejoice in the valuable and diverse experiences that can enrich the classroom and support learning. 

And of course, this sounds all fine and good, but it will take some real work to shift our thinking (at least, I know it will be for me). It is so easy to see what students can't do, especially in the ENL world, where students might come with no English and no written literacy in their home language. How can I work to change the narrative in my classroom so that everyone can see all that they can do?

References

Beauchat, K. A., Blamey, K. L., & Walpole, S. (2009). Building preschool children's language and literacy one storybook at a time. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 26–39.

DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2011). Reaching ELLs at risk: Instruction for students with limited or interrupted formal education. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903291680 

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Home and School. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141

Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Tompkins, G.E. (2017).  Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.