Читать книгу Teaching Common Core English Language Arts Standards - Patricia M. Cunningham - Страница 7

Introduction

There are not enough hours in a day or days in a school year to teach the Common Core State Standards for English language arts (CCSS ELA) one at a time. And there is no reason to! The idea underlying this book is that many of these standards relate to and complement each other, and teachers can develop them simultaneously. An integrated lesson in which students gather information through listening or reading and communicate with each other by speaking or writing can help you work toward several of these goals at the same time, or as Pat’s mother would have put it, “Kill two (or more) birds with one stone!”

A Plethora of Standards

You may be familiar with the standards you are expected to teach in your grade. However, in many schools, teachers are less familiar with the standards in other grades. If the task of implementing the CCSS ELA feels overwhelming to you and your fellow elementary teachers, there are over 250 good reasons for that. Yes, there are thirty-two anchor standards and 250 grade-specific standards—250 standards that kindergarten through fifth-grade teachers are expected to implement and teach to their students (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010). Skeptical about the mathematics? Table I.1 presents the breakdown.

Table I.1: K–5 CCSS ELA

* There is no literature standard for Reading standard eight (RL.8; see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 11–12).

Actually, even this count may underestimate the challenge. Yes, a second-grade teacher has forty separate English language arts standards to teach and assess this year. However, many of these standards have multiple goals! For example, Language standard four (L.2.4) requires second graders to:

Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases based on grade 2 reading and content, choosing flexibly from an array of strategies.

a.Use sentence-level context as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase.

b.Determine the meaning of the new word formed when a known prefix is added to a known word (e.g., happy/unhappy, tell/ retell).

c.Use a known root word as a clue to the meaning of an unknown word with the same root (e.g., addition, additional).

d.Use knowledge of the meaning of individual words to predict the meaning of compound words (e.g., birdhouse, lighthouse, housefly; bookshelf, notebook, bookmark).

e.Use glossaries and beginning dictionaries, both print and digital, to determine or clarify the meaning of words and phrases. (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 27)

Teachers have to teach these strategies to second graders. So, is Language standard four (L.2.4) one standard, or is it actually six?

A fifth-grade teacher has forty-three separate standards to teach and assess this year, and many of these standards also have multiple goals. For instance, Writing standard two (W.5.2) requires fifth graders to:

Write informative/explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey ideas and information clearly.

a.Introduce a topic clearly, provide a general observation and focus, and group related information logically; include formatting (e.g., headings), illustrations, and multimedia when useful to aiding comprehension.

b.Develop the topic with facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples related to the topic.

c.Link ideas within and across categories of information using words, phrases, and clauses (e.g., in contrast, especially).

d.Use precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to inform about or explain the topic.

e.Provide a concluding statement or section related to the information or explanation presented. (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 20)

If you teach second grade, there are sixty goals included in the forty standards. If you teach fifth grade, that number is eighty-five. Teachers of other grades are in a similar predicament. This analysis also assumes your students have all mastered the goals set for the previous grades. Is that a reasonable assumption? What about the struggling students in every school? What about the students who transfer into your school each year from somewhere else? Shouldn’t you expect to reteach or review at least a few of the standards from previous grades? How can you possibly teach this huge number of capabilities in a way that all your students will learn them?

Moreover, in order to teach the CCSS, you must understand the special terminology and dot notation used to distinguish them: strands, anchor standards, domains, grade-specific standards, and grade bands.

•Strands are the four main divisions for the standards: (1) Reading, (2) Writing, (3) Speaking and Listening, and (4) Language. The Reading strand has two parts: Reading Standards for Literature (RL) and Reading Standards for Informational Text (RI). Foundational Skills (RF) are a third part specific to grades K–5 (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010b, pp. 15–17).

•Anchor standards define general, cross-disciplinary expectations for college and career readiness (CCRA). The anchor standards are numbered consecutively for each strand. For example, CCSS ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.1 signifies college and career readiness anchor standard (CCRA), Reading strand (R), and anchor standard one (1). In this book, we use a simplified version of the standard designation—CCRA.R.1.

•Domains define categories of anchor standards for each of the strands. The domains are consistent across the grades and ensure continuity as the standards increase in rigor and complexity. The four domains in the Writing strand are (1) Text Types and Purposes, (2) Production and Distribution of Writing, (3) Research to Build and Present Knowledge, and (4) Range of Writing (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 18).

•Grade-specific standards define what students should understand and be able to do at the end of the year. These standards correspond to anchor standards with the same number designation. For example, RL.5.1 represents Reading Standards for Literature (RL), fifth grade (5), and standard one (1) in the domain Key Ideas and Details. Similarly, SL.3.1 represents Speaking and Listening (SL), third grade (3), and standard one (1) in the domain Comprehension and Collaboration. Additionally, we refer to standards that are applicable to all grades K–5 by the strand and standard number. For example, Reading for literature standard one, or just RL.1, and Language standard five, or just L.5, represent grades K–5.

•Grade levels and grade bands are groupings of standards by grade—grade levels for K–8 and grade bands for 9–10 and 11–12.

Implementing, teaching, and talking about these standards are hearty tasks for elementary teachers! No wonder many teachers feel overwhelmed. In this book, we hope to make this task less daunting.

Three Main Goals of the Standards

In our work with teachers, we have found it helpful to explain that, even though all the English language arts standards are important and must be taught, the three main goals of teaching these standards are to (1) improve students’ reading comprehension, (2) improve their writing, and (3) promote independent reading and writing.

Reading Comprehension

First, think about the ten Reading standards. The first nine require reading comprehension of one sort or another. The tenth Reading standard, however, says that students will be able to meet the first nine standards in grade-appropriate texts. The Foundational Skills within the Reading standards exist so that students will have the decoding ability, sight words, and fluency necessary to comprehend the texts they read. Such skills are also covered in the other strands. For instance, Language standard five (L.5) includes the knowledge of figurative language important for comprehending grade-appropriate texts (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 27–29). Language standards four and six (L.4 and L.6) focus on meaning vocabulary knowledge, long known to be essential for reading comprehension (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 27–29). Of course, the Speaking and Listening standards are valuable in their own right, but Speaking and Listening standard one (SL.1) also includes student interaction and discussion, which play a facilitative role during comprehension instruction (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 23–24). In addition, Speaking and Listening standards two and three (SL.2 and SL.3) include being able to comprehend while listening in ways parallel to Reading standards one, two, six, seven, and eight (R.1–2 and R.6–8; see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 11–14, 23–24). Similarly, Writing standards seven through nine (W.7–9) require students to comprehend literature and informational texts well enough to write about them (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 19–21).

Table I.2 presents the number of standards that focus on reading comprehension.

Table I.2: K–5 CCSS ELA for Reading Comprehension

* There is no literature standard for Reading standard eight (RL.8; see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 11–12).

By our calculation, improving students’ reading comprehension is a goal of 182 of the 250 ELA standards—more than two-thirds of them!

Since reading comprehension is a goal of so many of the standards, it is important to understand what the CCSS mean by reading comprehension. Reading comprehension in the CCSS for grades kindergarten through fifth grade includes both close reading and higher-level thinking about texts. For instance, Reading standard one (R.1) focuses on close reading and is a prerequisite to all other Reading standards. Inferential comprehension is not a separate standard in the CCSS but is required for every Reading standard. Reading standard two (R.2) focuses on main idea comprehension. Reading standard four (R.4) requires students to learn word meanings during text comprehension. Reading standard six (R.6) expects students to deduce or infer a character’s or author’s point of view. Reading standard eight (R.8) reflects critical reading. Students are expected to be able to compare, contrast, and synthesize two or more texts (Reading standard nine; R.9) or a text with media (Reading standard seven; R.7). Never before has there been such a full and rich view of comprehension reflected in reading standards (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 11–14).

Most significantly, the Reading standards make a major distinction between comprehending literature (stories, dramas, or poems) and informational text (historical, scientific, or technical writings). Every K–5 Reading standard applies to informational text, and every Reading standard except eight (R.8) also applies to literature. An examination of Reading standards two through nine (R.2–9), however, reveals just how different comprehension is for the two kinds of text (see NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 11–14).

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), or the Nation’s Report Card, has steadily increased its use of informational text in grades 4, 8, and 12 assessments (National Assessment Governing Board, 2008). To coincide with this growing emphasis on informational texts, the CCSS call for an even distribution of reading literature (50 percent) and informational text (50 percent) by third grade (Coleman & Pimental, 2012). The CCSS do not specify a split between literature and informational text for grades K–2. It seems prudent, however, to have primary students read enough informational text to prepare them for the 50 percent split they will encounter in third grade. Furthermore, in grades 6–12, the CCSS call for a shift to substantially more literary nonfiction reading and instruction (Coleman & Pimental, 2012). By twelfth grade, the CCSS call for a 30 percent literature and 70 percent informational text distribution (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). For this reason, we recommend a 70 percent literature and 30 percent informational text split for reading lessons in grades 1 and 2.

Writing

Another principal purpose for teaching the CCSS ELA is to improve student writing. There are ten Writing anchor standards, each specifying an aspect of writing competence. In addition, Language standards one and two (L.1 and L. 2) address the traditional concerns of usage and mechanics in writing or speaking. Language standard three (L.2.3) expects second-grade writers to know the difference between formal and informal language. It also expects them to make effective and precise word choices. Language standards four and six (L.4 and L.6) address meaning vocabulary knowledge, which is crucial for academic writing. Language standard five (L.5) addresses figurative language, which is helpful to writers as well. Additionally, Speaking and Listening standards four and six (SL.4 and SL.6) support improvements in student writing, and Reading standards seven through nine (R.7, R.8, and R.9) focus on reading comprehension required for writing about texts and other sources.

Table I.3 presents the number of standards that focus on improving writing.

Table I.3: K–5 CCSS ELA for Improving Writing

Improving students’ writing is a goal of 120 of the 250 English language arts standards—almost half of them!

Since writing is a goal of so many of the standards, it is important to understand what the CCSS mean by writing. Notably, the Writing standards include the overall objective of writing instruction: that students will be able to write well for their grade (Writing standard four; W.4). Equally important, the Writing standards tell us how students are expected to achieve that objective: by writing a variety of types and lengths of texts routinely across the school day and week (Writing standard ten; W.10) and by using the writing process to develop and strengthen some of what they write (Writing standard five; W.5). The Common Core specifies three general types of writing (opinion pieces, informational pieces, and narratives) that students are expected to learn how to do well (Writing standards one through three; W.1–3). Students are also required to learn how to use technology to write and publish (Writing standard six; W.6). In addition, students are expected to both write about what they read (Writing standard nine; W.9) and do research (Writing standards seven and eight; W.7 and W.8). Language standards one and two (L.1 and L.2) require students to write with correct language usage and writing mechanics (spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) as well. The level of writing instruction the CCSS call for is the most comprehensive and powerful we have ever seen.

Reading and Writing Independence

There are two essential literacy activities that students must be willing to do independently before they leave kindergarten: (1) recreational reading and (2) first-draft writing. At every grade level, teachers have the challenge of making sure they have books available that all their students can and will want to read independently. They also have the challenge of establishing an atmosphere in which all students are willing to take the risk of writing independently, even though they know they can’t yet spell every word correctly or abide by every grade-appropriate usage, capitalization, or punctuation convention. It does students no favors to allow them to resist independent reading or writing. Students’ willingness to engage in these two activities is foundational for literacy growth.

Once students are willing to read and write independently, teachers can use a variety of instructional tasks to help them improve. In reading, many of these are complex comprehension tasks. In writing, many of these are complex revision and editing tasks. A dilemma that all teachers face is how much support to give in order to help students improve their reading comprehension and writing.

Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of Instruction

Many educators suggest that instruction should follow a gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Wilhelm, 2001). Where appropriate, teachers begin by assuming all the responsibility, modeling and thinking aloud about what they want students to do. This step can be most easily understood as “I do, and you watch.” Next, teachers invite students to join them in deciding how to perform the task. This step can be thought of as “I do, and you help.” In the third step, students assume much of the responsibility by working together in small groups, and the teacher becomes the coach, providing guidance and redirection as needed. This stage can be thought of as “You do it together, and I help.” During this stage, the teacher observes the interaction among the students and formatively assesses how individuals are progressing and what kind of further instruction they need. Finally, when the teacher sees that students understand the task, students complete a task on their own that shows they have moved from teacher dependence to independent application. This final stage is the point at which summative assessment eventually takes place and can be thought of as “You do, and I watch.”

Essentially, the gradual release of responsibility model requires lots of teacher and peer modeling and support for the first several lessons. During subsequent lessons, however, you remove some of that support until students are ready to work through the lesson framework on their own. At that point, you’ll be able to use a summative assessment to document whether each student has moved from teacher dependence to independence. This way of thinking about instruction is intuitively appealing because it describes the way many of us learned most of the complex routines we perform. How did you learn to bake? To play tennis? To master all the technology you need in a modern classroom? Chances are, you watched someone, helped, tried it out with some friends or your mentor nearby, and eventually could orchestrate this complex task on your own without even thinking about it.

Thus, within most of the lesson frameworks that make up this book, we employ the gradual release of responsibility model to help you teach your students how to perform the complex tasks of thinking deeply about texts as they read and conveying ideas clearly and convincingly as they write. The two lesson frameworks designed primarily to build fluency, Poetry Aloud and Plays Aloud, do not follow this model because they are intended primarily for developing oral reading skills.

Twenty Lesson Frameworks to Teach the Standards

Since 2010, when the standards first appeared, we have been working with teachers to develop, adapt, and tweak their lesson plans so they are working on multiple standards simultaneously. This book is a result of that collaboration. Each of the twenty chapters presents a lesson framework you can adapt to your students, curriculum, and grade level. Some of these include graphic organizers and anticipation guides you may already use. Others (like What’s Your Opinion?) will provide a fresh approach to meeting the standards. Our hope is that by using a variety of these lesson frameworks, you can provide multifaceted learning opportunities in which your students talk, listen, read, and write to become more competent and confident English language users. As your students develop these critical communication skills, they will also be learning the knowledge and strategies necessary to achieve the worthy objectives delineated in the CCSS ELA.

Because improving reading comprehension and writing are two umbrella goals of the CCSS ELA, many of the twenty lesson frameworks teach at least one of the Reading standards or one of the Writing standards. In turn, helping students achieve these two goals serves the third goal of enabling them to read and write independently. Of course, as promised, every lesson framework also teaches more than one standard.

Think of these lesson frameworks as recipes. We both like to cook, and we generally follow recipes when we do. We have a friend who is both an excellent and a creative cook—she can just look in her cupboard and refrigerator, see what’s there, and prepare something delicious that uses what she has. She doesn’t usually measure and claims she rarely makes the exact dish twice. Why don’t we cook like Sharon? Because if we did, the quality of our culinary life would noticeably decline! Whatever ability she has to create a new recipe on her feet and have it turn out well is a talent both of us lack. However, we are reasonably competent at choosing tasty and nutritious recipes, tweaking recipes after we have followed them carefully a time or two, and consistently getting good results with them from then on.

Certainly, there are teachers who can create successful lessons that neither they nor anyone else has seen before. We admire and sometimes envy them, but in our experience, they are very rare. Most good teachers we have known benefit from having effective lesson frameworks. They use their professional expertise and knowledge of their students and materials to plan, tweak, pace, and repeat lessons as necessary in order to maximize effectiveness. The lesson frameworks in this book can be seen as a set of recipes for teaching the CCSS ELA. As with culinary recipes, each framework exists because it does something the others do not. However, across all twenty, most of the standards are taught. In fact, the most important or challenging standards for reading comprehension and writing are taught in several lesson frameworks, because students benefit from repetition with variety.

Table I.4 outlines the twenty lesson frameworks (and chapters), as well as the college and career readiness anchor standards and grade-level standards that each addresses. (The grade-level standards are specifically for lesson frameworks focusing on Reading Standards for Literature and Reading Standards for Informational Text—RL and RI, respectively.)

How to Use This Book

Treat this book as you would a cookbook. Don’t feel like you should start at the beginning and read to the end. Each chapter can stand alone. Scan the brief introduction and feature box introducing the standards to each framework, and use table I.4 to find lesson frameworks that will teach something your students need right now.

Table I.4: Twenty Lesson Frameworks and the CCSS

Each chapter offers a sample lesson with tips to guide your instruction and ends with a section that breaks out the standards and explains how the lesson framework helps teach them to students. As noted, many lesson frameworks follow the phases of the gradual release of responsibility model: “I do, and you watch,” “I do, and you help,” and “You do it together, and I help.” These chapters conclude with a focus on the final phase—“You do, and I watch”—by looking at implementing the lesson framework across the year.

When you have located frameworks your students need, consider how successful they will be with them and how much they will enjoy participating in the lessons. To build their confidence (and yours!), begin with the lesson frameworks you think students will enjoy most. Mark the others they need, which might be more difficult or less engaging, and plan to use them after success with the frameworks you deemed more engaging.

We wish you every success in teaching the CCSS to all your students!

CCSS in a Guess Yes or No Lesson

Guess Yes or No is a lesson framework you can apply to any informational text. When you lead students through this lesson several times and gradually release responsibility to them, you are helping them learn the reading, speaking and listening, and language skills in the following standards.

Reading

CCRA.R.1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

RI.2.4: Determine the meaning of words and phrases in a text relevant to a grade 2 topic or subject area.

RI.3–5.4: Determine the meaning of general academic and domain-specific words and phrases in a text relevant to a grade-level topic or subject area.

Speaking and Listening

CCRA.SL.1: Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

Language

CCRA.L.4: Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases by using context clues, analyzing meaningful word parts, and consulting general and specialized reference materials, as appropriate.

Source: Adapted from NGA & CCSSO, 2010, pp. 10, 13–14, 22, 25.