4/8/13 Reflection on Recent Data

I analyzed the discussions of two different book clubs this week: the lowest level reading group, currently reading The Beast in Ms. Rooney's Room, and a mid/high level group, currently reading a historical fiction novel called Journey to Jo'burg.

Many students in the lower level group came to their discussion feeling like they hadn't understood the chapter well, and wanting to talk about it. They spent most of the initial discussion talking about who the main characters were, and then zeroed in on a sentence that many of them had found confusing. I pushed them to take a step back and ask bigger questions like, "What are we learning about this character? What are we learning about the setting and the situation?" I'm interested in what these readers do when they're struggling in a book, and in particular how they use their book club conversation to help mediate that struggle. So many of my students--especially the strugglers--have a tendency to zoom in on individual sentences with such a narrow lens that they lose broader meaning and context. I'm not quite sure how this fits into my inquiry, but it's definitely a dilemma that's getting in the way of students having higher level discussions about text.

The second group's discussion was really interesting. They spent the first ten minutes highly engaged in a discussion in which they summarized what had happened in the part they had read. They had all kind of great discussion habits: they added on to each other's ideas, chose confusing parts to focus on and clarify, and asked questions about why characters had acted in certain ways. But they didn't move past summary into interpretation. After about ten minutes, I stopped them and talked about the difference between summary and interpretation, and how both are important. They began talking again, this time with the goal of moving more toward interpretation. The idea of discrimination came up, which they batted around for a while, until I asked them to think about the differences and similarities between South Africa during this time period and present-day Oakland. This led into a really rich discussion of whether discrimination and racism still exist.

Both groups seem to have a tendency to keep their discussions factual; they have a hard time moving toward themes, symbolism, and deeper meaning on their own. Are they just not developmentally ready for that? Do they need some kind of scaffold (e.g. question cards)? What are the limiting factors?

Revising my indicators of success

Meeting with Brook and Dina at our meeting this past Tuesday helped me clarify some ideas I'd been grappling with. We talked about how, in the transcript of the book club meeting, the students repeatedly got close to some big thematic ideas, and then moved on to a different idea as soon as they got stuck. I was trying to make sense of the distinction between discussion centered around basic facts and discussion that analyzes big ideas--Dina and Brook helped me realize that clarifying questions can often lead into bigger questions and ideas. The important thing is whether students stick with one idea long enough to push it "deeper and forward," as Brook said.

We also talked about how I might have too many indicators, and how they could be overwhelming, both to me and to the students who use them for self evaluations.

So I'm going to try narrowing down to just two indicators that reflect what I'm now thinking is most important in students' conversations:

1. Students discussed one idea deeply, and built on it by asking questions, responding, agreeing, disagreeing, and adding on. 

2.    Students developed theories about the book together, and used evidence to support those theories.

Thoughts about indicators and next steps

First of all, I realized that I never wrote about some follow-up teaching that I did after our last work in progress session. In that discussion, I realized that I hadn't done any explicit teaching around asking different types of questions, yet the kinds of questions that students asked seemed closely linked to the richness of their book club discussions. So I taught a mini lesson on "deep" vs. clarifying questions, and then showed the original book club video to students for a second time. This time, I asked them to write down all the questions that they heard students ask, sorting them into two columns for the two different types. Afterward we debriefed, discussing what kinds of questions we heard, and how we knew the difference between the two types. As follow-up, I've asked students to regularly come prepared to their book clubs with both types of questions, and to pay attention to whether their questions are sparking rich conversation. I'm interested to track the kinds of questions that students are asking in their book club conversations...in some ways, that alone could be the inquiry.

As I've spent more time looking at the transcript of the book club discussion today, a few things jump out. For one thing, it's clear that the students are invested and excited to talk about the book. The main issue seems to be that they're having trouble deciding what ideas and questions are worth spending a lot of time digging into. Without my guidance, they spent a lot of time trying to analyze some pretty literal, straightforward parts of the text. It was only after I guided them a little that they started to dig into some bigger ideas about symbolism and race in the book.

So now I'm wondering how I can help students develop that skill of knowing which questions will lead to big ideas, and knowing which ideas are rich and complex. Should that be an indicator? Is it even possible to teach that?

Indicators of Success: 3/5/13

My area of Inquiry/Inquiry Question is:

How can I raise the level of discourse in students’ talk about reading?

My routine data source is: recordings and field notes from book club conversations

Demonstrating Success: Reflect on what evidence you see in the routine data source that tells you how your student is or is not progressing on the indicators.

Indicators	“ANAG” Book Club; 3/5/12 __________________	Student Name __________________
I: Students stayed on one idea and built on it by responding, agreeing, disagreeing and adding on.	☐ Met ☐Not met  X Partially Evidence/How can you tell? Students stayed on one idea, even when it wasn’t leading to any big revelations (like Sounder being healed by the leaves). I wonder whether it’s worth talking about which ideas are worth really digging into, and which ideas can be discussed briefly and then left? It goes back to the issue of deep vs. clarifying questions.	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
II: Students asked deep questions that sparked good conversation.	☐Met ☐Not met  X Partially Evidence/How can you tell?  They seem very close. They were definitely making an effort to ask deep questions, like “What if the mom’s humming isn’t a signal anymore?” and “Why did they have to shoot Sounder?” These questions weren’t leading them to very rich places though—mainly to a recounting of the details. The conversation really got deeper when someone brought up the recurring story of David and Joseph. I started prompting them with questions, and that seemed to help a lot.	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
III: Students asked clarifying questions when they were confused.	XMet ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? They did this a lot, and were quick to respond to each other with details that clarified confusions.	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
IV: Students challenged each other to support their ideas with evidence.	☐Met ☐Not met  X Partially Evidence/How can you tell? They didn’t do this explicitly, but their conversation was definitely based in the text—I don’t think that anyone could have gotten away with saying something unsubstantiated in the text. What would it look like to do this explicitly, yet still have a natural conversation?	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
III: Students developed theories about the book together.	☐Met ☐Not met  X Partially Evidence/How can you tell? They were getting there by the end, as I helped them steer their conversation toward some richer themes. They started moving toward the metaphor of the David story, and the theme of racism in the South in the 1930s…it seemed like their ability to develop theories was going to be limited by their lack of background knowledge. It would be interesting to build up their background knowledge about both of those ideas, and see how that enriches their book club discussion.	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?

Notes:

Compared to the previous set of data that I analyzed (from a different book club), this group got much closer to exploring big ideas and themes. It seemed to help them a lot when I recast some of their statements, or pushed them to say a little more about something. What would it take to teach students to do this for themselves? The issue of background knowledge seems really relevant here as another limiting factor. I’d love to collect some data about what happens to their discussion when their equipped with more background information about references and historical context.

Transcript of book club conversation 3/5/13

"ANAG" Book Club: 3/5/13

N: What if the mom’s humming isn’t a signal anymore?

A.M.: Yeah because in the book she kept humming, but nothing…

A.V.: Nothing was really a sign. Mostly bad things were happening to other people except for the mom.

AM: Like remember, I think Sounder survived because he went inside the leaves…

[others jump in]: The oak leaves!

AM: So I think he just went in there, that’s why he wasn’t under the house. So he must have went to the woods. He probably knew it would heal him, because of his ear.

G: But how would it heal his eye?

AV: If he lost his eye? Because when he got shot, I can’t imagine how he actually lost one of his eyes.

AM: Because either the eye healed on it’s own, or the leaves somehow…

N: But the ice would be able to heal his eyes…

G: Because if your eye gets hurt, you can’t get another eye.

AV: When I read, I read this amazing part that after Sounder got shot, a little while later, he barked for the first time when he got shot.

AM: So I guess he’s feeling like a lot better from the trees. But if the trees were high, I think the leaves would have to be on the floor.

G: They were like falling or something. Or they were like a bush.

AM: Yeah.

AV: Because there is no way that a dog that is wounded can jump that high up a tree.

AM: Yeah, they could be really hurt, so they can’t jump like crazy.

Teacher: I’m hearing you guys talk a lot about the details of the story. Is that right? Like would you agree that that’s what you’re focusing on? How could we take our discussion to the next level?

AV: I’m wondering why did they have to shoot Sounder in the first place?
N: Because, I remember that the officer told the boy to hold Sounder, and if didn’t, and he goes running after the father, he would shoot the dog. So that’s why he shot the dog, because the boy didn’t hold onto Sounder, and Sounder went running after the car where the boy’s father was.

AV: Exactly, but if Sounder wanted to go after the boy’s father, why did they shoot him?

G: Because they told him to hold him!

N: Because, I don’t know, they probably thought he would be able to like do something to the sheriff.

AM: There was a part…where the boy, he keeps talking about some guy named David. I think like, a king, like King David.

G: No, it’s like a story that his mom tells him!

AM: Oh, that’s what I was confused by.

Teacher: Why would his mother keep telling this story?

G: And then the one about Joseph!

AM: Maybe it represents something…

AV: It represents something but we can’t…

AM: Because we’re kind of in the middle of the book, so we can’t tell…

AV: …what it means!

Teacher: So you have this idea that the story represents something, but you’re not quite sure what?

N: It was before when the boy asked his mom if she could tell him the story, and she just stayed quiet. Like he wanted to hear the story but that was before. She never said it again. He asked her, but she just stayed quiet.

Teacher: What does that make you think?

N: Maybe it’s because his dad was in jail and she didn’t really want to think about it.

AM: I mean, who wants to have a thought that their husband is in prison. Because of stealing a ham! But I see a reason why they put him in jail, but then I see a reason why they shouldn’t have too. Because for one, he stole something from the owner. And one reason I think they shouldn’t have is that his family was hungry.

AV: They hardly have anything to eat.

AM: Yeah, so they would have to steal because he can’t just let his family starve.

Teacher: So you’re kind of trying to figure out, did he do the right thing or the wrong thing?

N: He did the right thing because—

AV: And then at the same time he did the bad thing because, he stole the food, but I don’t see a reason why they put him in jail for a piece of ham.

AM: And at the same time, his family is hungry. So…

N: They didn’t care about African-Americans.

Teacher: Do you think his race had anything to do with him being thrown in jail?

G: Yeah, because he was an African-American. And he lived in a little house.

N: A lot of people were slaves. There were kind of like slaves…

G: No, it was past slavery. In the 19^th century.

A: And then they kept on talking about a big house.

AM: Yeah, that’s where they were…

AV: As being slaves…

Indicators of Success: Book Club Conversation 2/12/13

-->

My area of Inquiry/Inquiry Question is: How can I raise the level of students’ discourse in their conversations with each other about reading?

My routine data source is: Video and field notes from student book club conversations

Demonstrating Success: Reflect on what evidence you see in the routine data source that tells you how your student is or is not progressing on the indicators.

Indicators	Book Club Name "Call of Donuts" Book Club 2/12/13 __________________	Student Name __________________
I:  Students stayed on one idea and built on it by responding, agreeing, disagreeing, and adding on	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? Students discussed basics of what happened in the chapter that they read, important characters. J brings up idea that the book is similar to The Magic Treehouse. E changes the subject, but A returns to it. Not much disagreement, or especially interesting conversation happening. Are they lacking a strong enough initial idea that can sustain a good conversation?	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
II: Students asked deep questions that sparked good conversation	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? "What other books can you connect to this book?" (After the group had been discussing this for a while)	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
III:  Students asked clarifying questions when they were confused	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? "What are you trying to say?"	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
IV:   Students challenged each other to support their ideas with evidence	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? "How do you know [that the Magic Treehouse is about that]? "I read it."	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?
V:  Students developed theories about the book together	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell? Few big ideas raised, none sustained and developed.	☐Met ☐Not met  ☐ Partially Evidence/How can you tell?

Book Club Schedule

One of the challenges of teaching reading in the upper elementary grades is negotiating the transition from guided reading (an instructional practice most often used to move lower readers to higher levels of proficiency) to student-led, discussion-based book clubs or literature circles. In my classroom, reading levels range from late first-grade to eight- and ninth-grade. Creating more opportunities for students to be independent and in charge of their own learning is developmentally appropriate for fifth graders, but many of my below-grade-level readers need more guided support. I drafted an initial schedule for our book clubs that I hope will balance these dual needs for independence and guidance. I see the book clubs as falling along a guidance-independence continuum. As the book clubs show readiness, they will meet less frequently with me, and more frequently on their own.

Reading Workshop Schedule

	Monday	Tuesday		Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
8:50-9:10	Minilesson	Minilesson		Minilesson	Minilesson	Minilesson
9:15-9:30	Group 2	Group 3	9:15-9:35 Groups 5 and 6	Group 2	Group 3	9:15-9:35: Groups 1-6
9:30-9:45	Group 1	Group 4		Group 1	Group 4	Reflection, Self-Evaluation
9:45-9:50	Share	Share	Share	Share	Share	Share

	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Group 1	9:30-9:45		9:30-9:45		9:15-9:35
Group 2	9:15-9:30		9:15-9:30		9:15-9:35
Group 3		9:15-9:30		9:15-9:30	9:15-9:35
Group 4		9:30-9:45		9:30-9:45	9:15-9:35
Group 5		9:15-9:35			9:15-9:35
Group 6		9:15-9:35			9:15-9:35