Whole-Class Novels vs. Choice-Only Reading: Part One

Teachers know that most adolescents lack motivation to read, both academically and recreationally, yet we can see how crucial it is for students to develop reading interest and stamina in order to become competent readers and flourishing adults.

As a kid, like most of you, whole-class novels built up the entirety of my ELA curriculum; however, there was (and still is) a huge push across the last decade or so for more independent choice reading. Yet as with most things in education, with that push, it’s obvious that there has been an even more recent reactionary, theoretical pendulum swing back towards more rigorous, shared texts, inspired by the CCSS or otherwise.

Unfortunately, when districts try to operate from these competing and drastically swinging philosophies, this further inhibits adolescents from becoming life-long readers.

It’s frustrating—I’m saying this in the most mild-mannered sense, because trust me when I say that some days I’m beyond frustrated—because there is some much literature out there that presents competing and often misunderstood theoretical perspectives.

If you’re reading this blog, than you’re probably just like me, a self-proclaimed, literacy professional literature junkie. You love studying the craft and working to foster adolescent literacy.  You’ve read everything from Rosenblatt, Krashen, Allington, Beers & Probst, Lesesne, Schmoker, Fisher & Frey, Gallagher, Allen, Burke, Harvey & Goudvis, Keene, Marzano, Kittle, Newkirk, Routman, Smith, Tovani, Miller, and on and on and on. You’ve read it all.

The thing is these texts should work to inform our knowledge of adolescent literacy and thus impact our classrooms. Instead stakeholders (other teachers, coaches, administrators, parents, publishers, politicians, etc.) take these sometimes competing philosophies and—rather than take what these researchers have to say and find a balanced approach—use them to make drastic, one-sided decisions that have long-term impact on students.

Sadly, this dispute of philosophy begins to ignore the canon of research and slip slides its way into the classroom, appearing as very heated English department debates, Twitter battles, and blog rants (maybe a bit feisty like this one!) that call for either more rigor that whole-class novels provide or bemoan the disparity of voluminous reading that only choice novels can offer.  Teachers question whether novels should be shared as a whole-class texts or if students should freely chose novels according to their own interests and plans for growth, when instead these stakeholders should be discussing ways to find balance between them.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I want to expand the conversation about whole-class novels and choice-only reading. I’m going to do my best in this blog series to share and translate the vast body of research on both “sides” of this debate.

In a dispute that has very loud voices on either end,  it may be unpopular to ask stakeholders to “chill out” and just seek some balance, but I encourage you to share the research you’ve read and experiences you’ve collected in your own classroom.

There’s no need for the literacy pendulum to keep swinging when there is still so much work for us to do.

I look forward to engaging with you in this important goal. Either respond here in the comments section or tag me on Twitter (@B10LovesBooks) using the hashtag #seekbalance. Thank you.

Advertisements

Tip for Teaching Vocabulary & Word-Level Comprehension: Word Chunks

Q: What are  Word Chunks?

They’re simply the Greek and Latin parts of words (i.e. prefixes, roots, and suffixes) that make up most words in the English language.  Kelly Gallagher and Kylene Beers both talk about teaching vocabulary or word-level comprehension by means of introducing students to these word chunks. Mike Schmoker, author of Focus, explains that the most effective classrooms “repeatedly practice and master…the 50 most common transferable word chunks…to build up students’ reading vocabulary” (2011, p. 104).  In other words, the highest performing teachers make time to introduce these word components to students.

Q: Why should I introduce my students to Word Chunks instead of just teaching them a list of actual vocabulary words?

If teachers reveal what’s behind these repeated Word Chunks, students will 1) have a better grasp of how the chunks make up the meaning of individual words and 2) they’ll also gain a deeper understanding of texts as a whole, because we all know comprehension is essential to the game.  And let’s be honest: not all kids have caught on that these chunks are repeated throughout our language; furthermore, they don’t realize the chunks have meaning on their own.

I always thought that my students would develop better vocabularies by just reading more. (Reading more is the solution to all the world’s problems, isn’t it?) And yeah,  they do learn more words, but only to an extent.  This indirect, cross-my-fingers-and-hope-type of vocabulary instruction wasn’t cutting it, especially for those kids that come from print-poor homes. The word poverty was so dense in my room that students needed serious rehab in order to get back on track.

Initially, I used a list of SAT vocab words given to me by my department chair.  Now, you see, we don’t use the SAT in Michigan, and “list” is a bit of a blurry word for this haphazard collection of overhead transparencies, each depicting a word with a punny cartoon drawing on it: “The condor is full of candor.” (If I actually could find the picture from all those years ago, you’d see a big ol’ bird swooping down to chop on some smaller creature whilst calling out, “Be prepared. I am going to eat you.”) I’ll just speed up the year of agony on this one and let you know that giving kids a random splattering of 100+ words—even if they did have cute pictures—didn’t really work.

Kelly Gallagher’s Word Attack Strategy: “The 30-15-10 List” (from Deeper Reading, p. 73)

Then <cue the cheesy music>, Kelly Gallagher walked in to my life, and a new intellectual crush was born.  Reading Reasons.  Deeper Reading.  Readicide. These books totally changed my understanding of reading instruction provided by my EDU 100-level courses.  

In terms of instruction, most reading/writing workshop teachers have pushed rote memorization out of the classroom; however, Gallagher says that it does have a place—albeit limited—in terms of memorizing the meaning of the most common word chunks.  He’s “not advocating some of those word dissection programs where students are asked to memorize hundreds and hundreds of prefixes, roots, and suffixes. The amount of time spent on these programs takes away from reading time, which is where the most effective vocabulary acquisition occurs. But students can benefit from knowing —that is, memorizing—some of the ‘staples'” (2004, p. 72). <<P.S. This don’t-buy-the-program talk reminds me of Teri Lesesne’s UNprogram post >>. Essentially, Gallagher says that if we want our students to comprehend the vocabulary in complex texts, they need to memorize the meaning behind the core chunks of most words.

Q: How should I roll out my instruction of the Word Chunks?

Gallagher provides 55 of the most common chunks in Deeper Reading: Comprehending Challenging Texts, 4-12 (2004). Like Gallagher, I dole them out to students five terms at time, snowballing the list slowly until I am convinced that they’ve mastered all of the terms.  For example, I might introduce #1-5 in the first week, #1-10 in the second week, and then stick with #1-15 for the third and fourth week, before adding another five terms in the fifth week.

Word Chunks Pre-Test on Google Forms

Initially, of course, I do a pre-test with my students.  This is very quick and informal, because I use Google Forms to create the quiz.

Get the actual document here: Word Chunks – Student Study Pack

After that, my students work from a document that I created, drawing on Robert Marzano’s research about best practice for acquiring vocabulary, which includes drawing visual representations and generating word examples that use the chunk.

Generally, we spend under ten minutes of direct instruction on this each week; however, my students could easily suck up more of our class time as they try to impress one another with more unique examples of the word chunk in practice. So, I caution you to be aware of this early on when you introduce this to your students.

As we move through the 55 terms, I do mini-quizzes about every other week. These quizzes gather the snowballed list in a varied fashion (i.e. the terms that we’ve mastered—or should’ve mastered by now—are absolute fill-in-the-blank and the newer terms—especially when we get later into the big list—have some matching word-bank options). These quizzes are combined with our Mentor Sentences study, so about half the quiz is on the Word Chunks and the other half is on our Sentence-of-the-Week. <<I’ll try to do another post sometime soon to share how Jeff Anderson helped me face my fear of teaching grammar by introducing Mentor Sentences to my students.>>

While it took me a little getting used to, this notion of having my students memorize a concrete list of terms, the impact on their comprehension is just so obvious.  I see the students independently applying the meanings during reading conferences or collectively grappling with the meanings across our curriculum. For example, during our Great Depression unit in U.S. History, they had a very lively conversation about the term “mortgage,” because “mort” means die or death: “Aaagh! It’s ‘mort’ because you’ll be paying the bank ’til you die!” Even the math and science teachers on my team say that our students use the word chunks to help define academic vocabulary in their classes. With that… what more could I ask for? 🙂