Since my classroom is a Kindergarten, my CT plans almost all or lessons around literary. She will explain a new concept then use a book reference it to. After the book we will summarize the story then they will do an activity. From Goldenbergs article it talks about instructional and conversational discussions. I believe my CT uses both. Most of the time we use instructional discussion, because she already has the lesson and questions planned out ahead of time and goes by the lesson. Other times if a student brings up a good point, a more in depth answer, or a question we will go into a spontaneous discussion which is the conversational discussion. The student then have the opportunity to discuss their thoughts and keep the conversation open end.
In the Almasi article it talks about traditional and recitation discussions. Almost 100 percent of the time my CT uses traditional discussion. This discussion is a question and answer discussion. The teacher asks a question about the readings and the students answer. This tends to be book concept based and comprehensive based. Just like Jimmy in the article says “We have discussions so that if you don’t understand the story you might be able to understand it better if you talk about it.” This shows me it is not looking out side of the box and just talking about minor details. As for the recitation discussion is opposite from traditional. The students are required to look outside the box and think more of critical thinking. It tends to be more personal and the students are able to discuss amongst themselves. My CT never uses this way of discussion she relies every from the book and her own thinking.
As for the McGee article it states the understanding of response-centered talk. This is based on critical thinking as well. It is meant to explore the book and take a deeper position on the readings. This takes extensive planning, thoughtful interactions from the students, ways to assess the students, and personal responses from them. Again my CT does not use this way of discussion.
To scaffold the student’s response- centered talk the teacher needs to plan ahead open-ended questions to guide the students in their discussion. Also letting the students speak among themselves. The teacher is there to lead the students and help pout the back on track if the discussion gets lost. The teacher can expand on student’s thoughts and create new ideas. To keep the questions open-ended the teacher can ask a question such as what did you like about the story? Then expand from that.
To promote rich discussion with participation of all the students I would use conversational conversations, recitation discussion, and response-centered talk. This creates an open, personal, and interactive discussion in the classroom. Most of my students in the classroom need a teacher’s guidance to create discussion. The students have not had a chance to have recitation discussion, so I do not know if they have the skill to interact and speak amongst themselves. To have a response-centered talk my students will need to start with a traditional discussion just so they students understand the readings then go into a conversational conversation to bring up new ideas and go off into discussion that may lead to critical thinking. I could see maybe 5 of my students being able to even use critical thinking, but the rest will need the teachers guidance and leading,
Like Danielle, I attend a kindergarten classroom for my field placement, and similarly much of the class is focused on literacy and literary processing. Throughout the readings, the authors have commented on the importance of having meaningful, student based conversation about stories or texts read in class.
ReplyDeleteMy CT regularly uses conversation with the students to enhance and extend their understanding of the text, although much of the conversation at this point is focused on comprehension since the students are beginning readers. When she reads a story aloud to the class, my CT uses guiding questions to elicit responses from the students. Unlike the CT that Danielle works with, she allows the students to build on each other's responses but she manipulates the direction of the conversation with the types of questions she asks instead of simply asking content based questions.
I very much agree with Danielle that using these methods of guiding conversation in the classroom will create an open, personal, and interactive discussion. Furthermore, I think that the Triplett-Buchanan article has the right idea in highlighting the importance of individualizing the discussion. Getting to know your students and their interests will allow you to make the discussion even more personal and allow the students to gain more from the reading by relating it to their personal lives.
I chose to do my part of the assignment on the Goldenberg article, Instructional Conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. According to the article, "Instructional conversation is the engaging of students in interactions to help promote analysis, reflection, and critical thinking." I think that this article brought up a very good point when they discussed how instructional conversation has been around for a long period of time. This has been a strategy that we know works but it has almost been pushed aside. I think that most teachers dont use this technique because it goes beyond just teaching the material. I have noticed that my CT uses some elements of instructional conversation, including the promotion of more complex language and expression. She is always asking the students, what do you mean, tell me more about that, why do you think that questions. She uses conversational and instructional elements in her teaching, much like Danielle's classroom my CT always has a set plan but if discussion comes up unannounced she is very good at allowing the students to express their thoughts and opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think that conversational conversations are a very effective way of teaching literacy. Like Danielle talked about, this is a great way to hear your students thoughts and the teachers job to get their students to think beyond what they are already thinking. I also think that response centered talk would be another useful strategy to use. This will give you one more way to have your students think critically. This takes an in depth look at a reading that they would be assigned and then being able to talk about what they read and what they felt the reading was trying to say. Response centered talk takes a lot of preparation on the teachers end as they need to know how to keep the conversation going. I also think it is important to hear from all of your students, making sure that not only a couple of students run the group talk.
I also enjoyed the Triplett-Buchanan article which talked about individualizing the classroom discussions. I liked Allison's point she made when she said, "getting to know your studnets and thier interests will allow you to make the discussions more personal and allow students to gain more from the reading by relating it to their personal lives." I think that this is very important, especially for elementary learners. If the teacher is able to make things more interesting then maybe the students will want to lean more. It is up to the teacher to become a motivator for their students. Knowing your students will do nothing but help you as a teacher.