Reflection
Overall, I believe the lesson asking students to construct a analytical essay utilizing the Psychoanalytical Lens went very well. Considering that the students are new to using Critical Lens Theory and that it is considered a college level skill, for a first attempt I think they did pretty well. I used our district’s Informative Writing Rubric to grade the essay and, in my reflection, I will focus on how well the groups performed on the first two categories of the rubric: Claim and Reasons, and Command of Evidence. Of the five groups, three met the standard in Claim and Reasons and while only one group met the standard in Command of Evidence. This data reveals an on-going theme with my classes – the use of precise textual evidence in a nuanced discussion. Often the students just want to throw in some evidence, but then they are unable to connect that evidence in a sophisticated manner to provide a nuanced discussion of the text. This skill is one we work on throughout the year. While some students master it sooner than others, by the end of the year, most are able to attain it. For my CLD students, taking the analysis to the deeper level beyond just what the text says is even more of a challenge as analyzing literature represents another level of literacy for which they may be unprepared. According to Kristoff Schoeman in his 2011 dissertation “literature classes, particularly in Grades 10 to 12, present one of the greatest challenges for ESL learners, as the language demands are commonly complex, figurative, and especially demanding of an appropriation of cultural norms. The learners need cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP) for the study of literature; because they will have to use or reflect on the surface features of language outside of the interpersonal context” (pg. 18). As I move forward, I plan on reading this dissertation as it directly applies to my classroom practice as I seek to help my CLD students see beyond the surface level of literature and into the figurative realm. Thinking about this particular assignment, it also fell at the very end of the semester right before finals were given. As such, when reading the essays, it was clear that some groups rushed the essay and didn’t give it the time and attention it may have otherwise received. For example, Group 5 did not complete the essay, but the part they did write would have been at the advanced end of the rubric; hence, that group’s low scores are throwing off the data to some degree. As we move into the next unit, I will keep in mind that we need to have more practice with incorporating evidence and using it in a nuanced discussion. Also, being mindful of the timing of these kinds of assignments will allow for students to have enough time to turn in a quality product. Since the groups were small, I believe the scores are a good indication of individual student ability, but I would like to start this next semester with an individual writing assessment to determine which students are struggling the most with employing textual evidence so that I can better address individual needs. Herrera and Murray (2011) note that CLD students can benefit greatly from instruction that helps them understand how a text is structured and how that organization helps readers make meaning from text (pg. 84). By knowing where the struggle is happening, I can adjust my instruction to small groups and work on close reading texts together for use of textual evidence.
In the lesson asking students to employ metacognitive strategies to annotate a text for short story structure, I have to say there was great success. Students worked well annotating the text and using the web-based reading platform to do so. I noticed that most students were able to track the elements of short story well, but some students only went so far as to label/identify the section of the text without offering more commentary on how that element was developed in that particular story. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I needed to be in the directions as I wanted more than simple identification of short story elements. In the future, I should show the students exemplar annotations so they know exactly what I want from them in terms of metacognitive thinking. The research is clear on the active act of annotating a text; according to AP Literature teacher Nick Otten, “What the reader gets from annotating is a deeper initial reading and an understanding of the text that lasts . . . when you come back to the book, that initial interchange is recorded for you, making an excellent and entirely personal study tool” (How and why to annotate a text). One thing I really like about Actively Learn is the reporting function. I am able to see how much time each student spent reading, how many words looked up, and how many annotations were made. Looking through this data, it is clear that most of the students spent a quality amount of time on the assignment, focused on answering the text dependent questions, and made a sufficient amount of annotations. Some students went above and beyond. It will be interesting to see if those students who put more effort into the metacognitive strategies will write stronger original stories in the unit culmination.
Finally, the Socratic Seminar went extremely well. Over the course of two days, students engaged in close reading of a text, development of leveled questions, and formation of assertions and refutations. Because I incorporated two full class periods in the computer lab to complete the Socratic Seminar Pre-Planning document, the majority of students were fully prepared to engage in the discussion. For those students unprepared, I had at the ready a planning template with an outline of an argumentative essay. Students unprepared were given this document and time during class and over the weekend to write an argumentative essay on the topic. The threat of writing a long essay motivated most students to complete the pre-work ahead of the actual seminar.
On the day of seminar, I recorded that out of 14 students, only one student was unprepared. The remainder of the students engaged in a rich debate around the central question that was supported with several pieces of textual evidence gleaned from the provided supporting documents. Students were observed using accountable talking stems, persuasive language, academic language, and other language features specific to the genre.
I believe this lesson incorporated many differentiation techniques that allowed all learners to successfully access the content. From the supports offered via the internet and the pre-designed student planning document to the actual small group discussion/debate, all students were able to provide grade-level responses regardless of CLD status.
In the lesson asking students to employ metacognitive strategies to annotate a text for short story structure, I have to say there was great success. Students worked well annotating the text and using the web-based reading platform to do so. I noticed that most students were able to track the elements of short story well, but some students only went so far as to label/identify the section of the text without offering more commentary on how that element was developed in that particular story. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I needed to be in the directions as I wanted more than simple identification of short story elements. In the future, I should show the students exemplar annotations so they know exactly what I want from them in terms of metacognitive thinking. The research is clear on the active act of annotating a text; according to AP Literature teacher Nick Otten, “What the reader gets from annotating is a deeper initial reading and an understanding of the text that lasts . . . when you come back to the book, that initial interchange is recorded for you, making an excellent and entirely personal study tool” (How and why to annotate a text). One thing I really like about Actively Learn is the reporting function. I am able to see how much time each student spent reading, how many words looked up, and how many annotations were made. Looking through this data, it is clear that most of the students spent a quality amount of time on the assignment, focused on answering the text dependent questions, and made a sufficient amount of annotations. Some students went above and beyond. It will be interesting to see if those students who put more effort into the metacognitive strategies will write stronger original stories in the unit culmination.
Finally, the Socratic Seminar went extremely well. Over the course of two days, students engaged in close reading of a text, development of leveled questions, and formation of assertions and refutations. Because I incorporated two full class periods in the computer lab to complete the Socratic Seminar Pre-Planning document, the majority of students were fully prepared to engage in the discussion. For those students unprepared, I had at the ready a planning template with an outline of an argumentative essay. Students unprepared were given this document and time during class and over the weekend to write an argumentative essay on the topic. The threat of writing a long essay motivated most students to complete the pre-work ahead of the actual seminar.
On the day of seminar, I recorded that out of 14 students, only one student was unprepared. The remainder of the students engaged in a rich debate around the central question that was supported with several pieces of textual evidence gleaned from the provided supporting documents. Students were observed using accountable talking stems, persuasive language, academic language, and other language features specific to the genre.
I believe this lesson incorporated many differentiation techniques that allowed all learners to successfully access the content. From the supports offered via the internet and the pre-designed student planning document to the actual small group discussion/debate, all students were able to provide grade-level responses regardless of CLD status.