Did they get it?: Comprehension Activities

An important part of teaching reading in the classroom is being able to identify if students understand what is being taught. John Macalister (2011) offers a few ideas of how a teacher can analyze if students are really comprehending the lesson and the readings.

First, he offers the obvious comprehension questions as a way of knowing if students comprehend. Multiple choice, fill in the blank, and other common types of questions are good for gaining access to what a student has absorbed from the reading. This can be a challenge for the teacher, because writing good questions takes  a lot of time and thought. The questions need to probe the expected knowledge without being too difficult to understand, or focusing on the wrong things. There are several guides online that can help teachers come up with good questions to ask.

There are several other options if you want to avoid simple tests. When I was in high school, one of my favorite activities used after we finished reading a book or a section of a book was "inside/outside circle." I can't really remember the name of it, but it was something like that. The class was divided into two groups and given a couple of days to prepare. The first day of the activity, one group formed a tight circle with their desks, facing each other. The second group formed a larger circle outside that one. The outside circle asked questions for the inside circle to discuss, focusing on the reading. The next day, we switched groups. We were graded on whether we had 3 good questions to ask when we were in the outside circle, and if we spoke times when we were in the inside circle. That way we were graded mostly on participation, and were free to speak up on topics that interested us. We were free to voice our opinion about the reading, and not just answer questions about it. When we knew this would be our testing activity, we all tended to read more in depth and take more notes. We were more familiar with the themes of the book and took more notice of details. I would recommend this activity to any teacher.

In any case, when we use comprehension activities with the students, we can see if they are using reading techniques we have taught them. If they are having trouble, we may need to review the MINUS idea (mentioned in the previous post) to ensure that we are teaching the right things in the right way.  I feel like most, if not all, students can understand the assigned reading if we as teachers give them the right resources and reading cues. When we have a specific goal in mind for them to accomplish, we can better know how to go about teaching it, and how we can identify whether they have learned it or not.

Teaching Reading: We've Been Doing it Wrong!

Today's Teaching, Tomorrow's Text: Exploring the Teaching of Reading. By John McAlister

The article I chose for the next couple of posts is one that gives teachers some really great ideas for actually teaching reading. It begins by giving a common scenario present in thousands of classrooms across the nation. A teacher announces that there will be a reading assignment and proceeds to teach new vocabulary that the students will encounter in the reading. Then, the students take turns reading aloud. When the reading is complete, they answer written questions about the text, exchange books with their peers, and check their work. All assume that reading has been “taught.”

However, the author, John McAlister (2011), is quick to point out that no reading has actually been taught. Instead, it has been practiced. The real teaching of reading comes in when a teacher truly understands the purpose of reading. A question he proposes for teachers to ask themselves is “How does today’s teaching make tomorrow’s reading easier?” (p. 162).  If a teacher can identify what they want to teach today in order to give more substance to the next day’s reading, they can truly teach reading.  If not, then there are some revisions to be made.

From there, McAlister points out the four points of language—reading, writing, listening, and speaking (p. 162). However, these ideas don’t help in the teaching or understanding language.  Instead, he encourages the focus on “meaning-focused input, language-focused learning, meaning-focused output, and fluency development.” He goes on to explain that reading and listening are considered meaning-focused input, while writing and speaking belong to meaning-focused output. When a teacher focuses on these four “strands,” he or she can begin to understand the goals and intentions of the specific reading activity.

When teachers consider a reading activity, it is in their best interest to see if it falls into the strand of “meaning-focused input.” To help make this process easier, McAlister has included a mnemonic device to remind teacher of the goals (p. 162):

M – there is a focus on meaning

I – the texts and tasks interest the learners

N – there is new learning

U – for understanding; the input is understandable, activities help understanding

S– tasks are stress-free or, at least, designed to reduce stress for the learners

I found this device to be helpful in being able to see if certain activities are useful in the classroom. If an activity only fits one or two of the ideas, then it probably isn’t a great activity to include in the lesson schedule. For instance, if an activity has meaning, such as learning new vocabulary, but is boring to the students, or is too intensive for the grade level, then the activity should be omitted. The best activities will fulfill all of the requirements.

I really liked these ideas. I felt justified in feeling that even if an activity was important for knowledge, if it didn’t hold the interest of the students, then it was a waste of time. I find this happens a lot in my Chinese classrooms. The younger students need more games and educational cartoons (Blue’s Clues is a favorite).  I think I will start implementing some of these ideas when I am planning for class to make sure the activities are good ones to use. 

References:

Macalister, J. (2011). Today's Teaching, Tomorrow's Text: Exploring the Teaching of 

Reading. ELT Journal, 65(2), 161-169. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq023

Pairing with Peers: Does it Really Work?

When the writers of this article were doing their research, one of the main things they wanted to see was whether or not group work helped students utilize the methods of self-regulation that they had been taught. When a peer was introduced to the working environment, were students better able to create and maintain a plan? Were their plans better when they worked with a partner? Also, did they need to modify the steps in order to successfully work with a peer?

During the study, the section of students that were paired up were given instructions to note each time they helped their partner, or shared their own strategies. Another group of students worked individually.  As I read the article, I assumed that the paired group would do better than the individual group, since these were students labeled as having writing difficulties. I began to question my own hypothesis as I read, however. I thought back to my high school days, and I seem to remember the type of student that didn’t do well with peers. They were unmotivated and easily let anyone else take charge of the group. These were the students that were often behind or performing at a lower level. I wondered how the students in the study would perform if they, too, were that type of student that had a hard time focusing on groups. Working with a peer can be difficult; if you don’t get along, you don’t work together; if you DO get along, you tend to chat about non-school things.

As I read more, however, I noted that there was a lot of teacher-supervision and instruction going on with this group in order to help them identify what they needed to do as they worked together. By being asked to keep track of when they helped their partner, they were better able to focus on the task at hand.

Students who worked as part of a pair were graded better on their papers, and the length of the papers were longer than their single counterparts.  The results of this study made me reevaluate my own feelings about group work. Growing up, I loathed it. I dreaded the paired assignments and would much rather work on my own. I felt that groups held me back and I had no interest in slowing down to match my partner’s speed. I felt I could do much better on my own than with someone else.

I realize now that this isn’t true for all students. I thought students were either like me, and just tolerated group work, or were slackers, and used the time to just mess around. After reading this article, and after learning about learning difficulties in class, I see that a lot of students need this kind of thing. Like we saw in the Marvit video, group learning is helpful if done correctly. It brings out the “leader fish” in students that otherwise don’t really get to experience it.