Trying Something New
“Responsive teaching in middle school literacy classes depends on a shared partnership between a teacher and students. It requires that we present students with clearly stated goals that define where we want to take their literacy and learning; it requires that we listen to their voices so that we can respectfully and individually guide them toward their destinations,” (Gutzmer & Wilder, 2010, p. 37).
How can we design and respond to the disciplinary literacy needs of adolescents?
Motivation
I believe that the first step toward designing and responding to the disciplinary literacy needs of adolescents is motivation. Providing students with a challenging task creates a “motivating environment” that they crave (Fisher & Frey, 2010, p. 30). A lack of motivation can have the opposite effect. As a personal example, the middle school I teach in has three levels of students: Odyssey (highest performing), Honors (average), and College Prep (low performing, also known as CP). In my CP class, I have a wide variety of students. Some border CP and Honors, but for scheduling purposes ended up in CP. Others have a first grade reading level. In order to meet the needs of the lowest performing students, I had to create guided notes to ensure that those students had all of the necessary information at their disposal. This actually angered the higher performing students, though. They felt as though I was babying them, and refused to take notes at all, which significantly impacted their grades and my relationship with the students. As an alternative, I typed up questions for those students to answer during class that would ensure they understood the material, had all the information, and did not single them or the lower performing students out. This is an example of a bigger problem: the lack of a challenging, motivating environment that meets that particular student needs causes him or her to disassociate from the rest of the class, hindering their performance.
The challenge of the task should be scaffolded, just as everything else is with teaching. As students “develop a stronger sense of accomplishment for meaningful work,” the level of difficulty can increase until the desired goals are met. As Fisher and Frey say, “students are eager to take on a difficult task, provided they are assured of the support that comes from peers and the teacher,” (2010, p. 35–36). This means that, as long as students know that the supports have been put in place, they are “eager” to complete the tasks set before them.
Academic English
This leads into the idea of “academic English.” Academic English requires students to not only listen, but to produce the language of the subject. With proper scaffolding, students can learn how to go from listening, to processing, to producing, and ultimately become “increasingly sophisticated in their use with practice” (Fisher & Frey, p. 34).
Argumentation/Debate
With the development of academic English, students should be able to formulate arguments and debates. These are both “measure[s] of an adolescent’s growing ability to respond with logical and ethical claims to support or defend a position.” This is an effective form of literacy, as students can come at from many different angles and levels of literacy. Additionally, students can “learn to channel appeals to the emotions in ways that are more sophisticated and nuanced,” (Fisher & Frey, 2010, 33).
Things to Remember and Avoid
Responding to Incorrect Answers
There are many practices teachers use to facilitate literacy and learning that can actually be detrimental to students’ education. Often these are well meaning practices that have worked in other situations, but are either not appropriate for the current situation or are used improperly (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2010, 57).
Teachers often use prompting and cueing to encourage students to come up with the answers on their own. This can be an excellent practice for both the teacher and the student. For the teacher, it can help locate areas that need to be examined more in depth. For the student, it can help him or her piece together bits of knowledge and find the answer on their own. Prompting and cueing becomes a problem when it takes too long. As Fisher, Frey, and Lapp point out in their article, “the rest of the class…begins to disengage and go off task. While attempting to resolve the error made by one student…the teacher moves into individual helping while others become bored,” (2010, p. 58). If the student does not appear to understand after prompting, the teacher should open it up to the rest of the class to see if anyone can help the struggling student. If none of the students can help, there is a deficit in their knowledge that needs to be addressed.
Another common issue in classrooms is the teacher’s lack of prompting and cues. Simply giving students the information is doing them a disservice. Students will develop a “learned helplessness instead of learning to think independently” if they are simply spoon-fed the information (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2010, p. 58). Students must be prompted and cued in order to develop critical thinking skills necessary for their future endeavors.
Teaching to the Test
The final disservice I will mention involves teaching to the test. All too often, weathered teachers will use standardized testing as an excuse to do the bare minimum for his or her students. He or she will focus on the retention of information, rather than the development of valuable critical thinking skills. These teachers will say that they can only raise test scores by “covering tested items and practicing the test format.” McTighe, Seif, and Wiggins contend that “teaching the key ideas and processes contained in the content standards in rich and engaging ways” will raise test scores (2004, p. 2–3). If we teach our students the critical thinking and literacy skills that align with our standards, they will be better prepared for the standardized tests they will inevitably take.
Sources
D. (2009, November 23). The Simpsons — on national testing. Retrieved December 07, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjEJeaa2gWs.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2010, September). Responding when students don’t get it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 57–60.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Motivation Requires a Meaningful Task. English Journal, 30–36.
Gutzmer, C., & Wilder, P. (2012, March). “Writing so people can hear me” Responsive teaching in a middle school poetry unit. Voices from the Middle, 19(3), 37–44.
McGraw-Hill Education Follow. (2016, May 31). Dr. Doug Fisher: Visible Literacy Learning. Retrieved December 07, 2017, from https://www.slideshare.net/McGrawHillEducation/dr-doug-fisher-visible-learning-for-literacy.
McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004, September). You can teach for meaning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 26–31.
Meaning of the Arts: PHIL 0847: Information Literacy Assignments. (n.d.). Retrieved December 07, 2017, from http://guides.temple.edu/PHIL0847/infolit.
