Every time I see the letters S-T-E-M, I instantly see neon lights flashing, “Hot Topic!” Everyone is talking about it—even the President of the United States! As we all know, very few of our high school graduates are pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, though many believe careers in STEM are the future of our country.

Science, technology, engineering, and math are important, but literacy skills are the foundation or glue that holds it all together. So when I look at the STEM acronym, I always wonder if there’s a letter missing: the letter L.

In order for our students to be prepared for STEM careers, they must be able to navigate informational text. This involves understanding text features they rarely encounter in fictional stories. Also, our students must build their vocabulary and strengthen their writing skills. “STEML” may not flow off the tongue as easily as STEM, but I believe without the L for literacy skills, there is no STEM.

Making the Most of Text Features

Comprehending informational texts includes understanding unique text features. Diagrams, captions for photos, bold print, and headings are just some of the features children might encounter in such text.

By including quality printed and digital informational texts in the classroom, we are laying the foundation. However, it isn’t enough to just have the materials available. We can’t assume that children will notice or understand the features that make informational text unique. When I was a student, I looked at a graph in a content area text as one less page to read. Well, I doubt I was the exception, and many of our students feel the same way. We have to draw their attention to the unique linguistic features of text in order for them to realize the important role graphs, charts, and other visuals play in conveying and extending information found in texts.

We can show our students how differently information is presented in a timeline of the transportation revolution versus an article on the same topic. Also, children can compare the writing used in an article on plants and the sequential steps in a science experiment explaining how to grow a plant. Student-created texts that contain text features can also be used to reinforce linguistic features. By displaying the text in the classroom, we are not only ensuring a print rich environment, but we are building our students’ confidence as literacy learners and reinforcing their content knowledge.

Strengthening Word Knowledge

Vocabulary is another area which can cause issues for our students. Everyone knows that vocabulary in the content areas is much more technical than that found in fictional stories. Therefore, we have to spend extra time focusing on the vocabulary demands of STEM texts.

There are so many engaging ways to develop vocabulary skills. Do a strategy search with other teachers and try some of the research based vocabulary strategies found. One of my favorite strategies is “Ten Important Words Plus” (Yopp and Yopp, 2007). For this strategy, children work in small groups to find ten words they think are important within a chunk of text. A class graph is then created, showing how often specific words were selected by student groups.

After discussing the graph and the words on it, the class is divided into new groups. The teacher selects one word off the graph and lets each group complete an activity with the word. Group tasks may include acting out a word, drawing a picture to depict the word’s meaning, finding other sources which contain the word, or creating a graphic aid containing synonyms and antonyms for the word. (Be creative and brainstorm some other tasks students might enjoy!)

After groups finish their assigned task and share the results, the teacher selects another word off the chart on which to focus. Group tasks should change after every few words in order to keep the students engaged.

This activity is a win-win in my eyes. Students are motivated because they get to select important words and work in groups, yet the teacher gets to choose the words which are focused on in class. Plus, chances are students will learn a lot more than the ten words they initially selected.

Writing with a Purpose

photo: jimmiehomeschoolmom via photopin cc

While dialogue journals have been popular for many years, their popularity may diminish as teachers look for ways to reinforce writing for various audiences and purposes. Writing to learn is a great time to draw students’ attention back to the linguistic features discussed earlier. Students need to consider the audience, purpose, and information conveyed as they develop visuals such as charts, timelines, headings, and other features in their own student-created texts.

We might have our students create an informational text for younger children in the school. Students can talk to the children, find out their areas of interest or a topic currently studied and create a text on the topic which includes graphs, timelines, or other features. Another idea is for students to interview adults who use math or science in their career. There are many ways to conduct the interviews. Adults might come to the classroom for the interviews, students might conduct the interviews outside of school, or perhaps the interviews can be done via Skype.

Students will not only learn about science, engineering, and math and the importance of those areas to the world around them, but they will also improve their oral communication skills as they ask questions and their written skills as they convey the information gathered to a wider audience.

Yes, I agree that STEM is important. However, I still wonder at times if we shouldn’t call it STEML…

Reference

Yopp, H.K., & Yopp, R.H. (2007). Ten important words: A strategy for building word knowledge. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 157-160.

Jennifer L. Altieri, Ph.D. is the Literacy Division Coordinator in the School of Education at The Citadel in Charleston, SC, and the author of CONTENT COUNTS! DEVELOPING DISCIPLINARY LITERACY SKILLS, K-6. Jennifer will be speaking more about putting the L in stem as part of the Carolina curriculum leadership series at the National Science Teachers Association Conference in April. Her presentations will focus on helping teachers link literacy with science and math. Contact Jennifer at jenniferaltieri@bellsouth.net.



Building Content Literacy with Math Word Problems

We’ve been engaged in analyzing texts for complexity and teaching students to read them closely for almost two years now. We’ve seen students progress in their reading ability such that they begin to independently annotate texts, re-read, and dig deeply for meaning. We’ve had countless teachers tell us that they now realize that they have under-expected their students’ performance. Just last week, a kindergarten teacher said that she had never witnessed young children engage in the types of conversations they are this year, using evidence from the text in their discussions. She attributed it to her careful analysis of text complexity, the development of teaching points from that analysis, and her students’ close reading of the text.

Our own experience with adolescents is the same. The students at our high school enjoy close reading. We don’t do it every day, and when we do they know that they are going to read something that won’t give up the meaning easily or quickly, and that it’s going to be worth it when they finally get to that level of deep understanding.

For example, tenth grade teacher Marisol Thayre was close reading “Experiences in a Concentration Camp” by Viktor Frankl (1946). Her students were engaged in this complex piece of text, working hard to figure out how this fit with their understanding of the Holocaust and what they had learned from reading NIGHT (Weisel, 1982). Consistent with a close reading approach, the students in Ms. Thayre’s class annotate as they read, discuss their ideas with peers and the whole class using evidence from the text, and respond to a series of text dependent questions. (You can watch a part of Ms. Thayre’s class on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFRClI2q18Y.)

Similarly, the students in Mr. Vaca’s and Ms. Schaefer’s history classes are engaged in close reading of the poem “In Flanders Field” by John McCrae (1915) as part of their studies of World War I. Again, the students annotated the text, discussed the text with their peers and the whole class using evidence from the text, and responded to a series of text dependent questions, such as:

• How does the author’s use of metaphor help convey the message?
• Who is the audience for this poem?
• Can you identify the passage of time in each stanza? How does it impact the meaning of the poem?
• Who is the author and what is his message?
• What is the author’s belief about war?

An example of a student’s annotation and her first quick write and then final evaluation of the message can be found here.

As we have noted, the use of close reading has been beneficial for students as they engage in complex text. But that’s really not our point in writing this blog. Having been working on this for some time, we’re thinking more carefully about an appropriate scope and sequence for the teaching points in a close reading. We have identified a number of factors that contribute to text complexity (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012) including:

• Density and complexity
• Figurative language
• Purpose
• Genre
• Organization
• Narration
• Text features and graphics
• Standard English and variations
• Register
• Background knowledge
• Prior knowledge
• Cultural knowledge
• Vocabulary

When texts are complex in any of these areas, they can become a teaching point during the close reading. For example, standard English is one of the factors that contribute to complexity in the poem “In Flanders Field.” In addition, lack of prior knowledge about World War I could contribute to the complexity, as could the density and complexity of the ideas, or the levels of meaning. In knowing this, Mr. Vaca and Ms. Schaefer integrate modeling and explanations in their close reading lessons.

photo: Enokson via photopin cc

By doing so, Mr. Vaca and Ms. Schaefer will build their students’ understanding of these specific aspects of text complexity. Over time, these factors will contribute less to the complexity as students master the knowledge and skills expected of them. Importantly, these factors can be assessed, and might just be with the new Common Core State Standards assessments (PARRC and SBAC). We’re fairly confident that integrating teaching points into the close reading through an analysis of the text’s complexity will result in increased prowess of students. We’re already seeing evidence of this after just a short time.

What we are concerned about is the scope and sequence that do not yet exist. What if the texts that are selected over a three-month period never are complex based on narration or figurative language, just to name two? Then students would not receive specific and targeted instruction on those two factors of text complexity and would be ill-prepared for texts that include these factors. It seems that we need to start making a list of the factors that contribute to text complexity, and there may be more than we have identified (for example, White, 2012 says that there are 34 text features that can obstruct text comprehension). We can begin to map texts that we have used to monitor our teaching points. For example, Mr. Vaca and Ms. Schaefer might start a grid like the one in figure 1 to ensure that their students experience a range of instructional topics appropriate for text complexity and close reading.

We’re wondering if anyone else is thinking about this. Do you have ideas about how to keep track of the teaching points related to close readings? Do you think that this is a worthy concern? We look forward to hearing from you.

WANT MORE? See Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey at IRA's 58th Annual Convention in San Antonio, where they will present "ACT NOW: Accessing Complex Texts" as part of the Teaching Edge series. For more information, go to www.iraconvention.org.

References

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Frankl, V. (1946/2006). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

White, S. (2012). Mining the text: 34 text features that can ease or obstruct text comprehension and use. Literacy Research & Instruction, 51, 143-164.

Wiesel, E. (1982). Night. New York: Bantam.

Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey are professors in the College of Education at San Diego State University and teacher leaders at Health Sciences High and Middle College. They are interested in quality instruction for diverse learners and are coauthors with Diane Lapp of TEXT COMPLEXITY: RAISING RIGOR IN READING (International Reading Association, 2012).



TEXT COMPLEXITY: RAISING RIGOR IN READING (member-login required)

With the New Year, as we are setting goals related to our health and well-being, we are both focusing on pilates. Kim’s interest has evolved through years of practicing pilates regularly. Jan’s interest is new, and arises with fresh concern (and discomfort) associated with sitting in front of a computer for hours each day and getting very little exercise at all.

Fortunately, goal setting, breaking and establishing habits, and taking risks have similarities, regardless of the context. Basically, we are both thinking of how to extend ourselves in our health practices.

Similarly, neither of us have much balance in our lives. We work far too much and take care of ourselves and our personal lives far too little. Rather than saying, however, “Balance is just impossible for us,” we’ve begun to push back on these feelings of overwhelmedness. Instead, we’re asking, “Given that we won’t be perfectly balanced by New Year’s Day 2014, what can we do to become more balanced this year?” Becoming more balanced feels doable.

Many educators are understandably overwhelmed by the Common Core State Standards. It seems that the field of education is changing at light speed, with little margin for reflection. If the CCSS feels bigger than you can take on or if you just don’t know where to start, try nudging your instruction in the direction of the Common Core with gentle stretches.

None of us will figure out a perfect Common Core implementation—there will always be new ways to shape and refine our work with students—but we can extend our work in the direction of the Common Core. These extensions of practice align with sound instruction, whether you are thinking about the Common Core or not, so you can adopt and adapt these ideas to fit your practice today.

Here are five ways you can start stretching:

Stretch 1: Plan lessons that address more than one standard.
For years now, school districts, books, and consultants have told us “one standard per lesson.” We’ve been ardently encouraged to FOCUS. The Common Core is different in that the anchor standards are interconnected, and you really can’t work on one without working on others. So in reality, our efforts to narrow our instruction to a single standard have been an exercise in impossibility. All lessons teach more than one thing. With the Common Core, we can begin to think about the ways these connections between standards can serve students.

Stretch 2: Select texts that give students a lot to think about.
We refer to anchor standard 10—“Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently”—as the “Read to Think” standard. Basically, rather than getting lost in lexile levels and grade-level bands, you can dip your toes into the Common Core by selecting texts that make students think more. Is there something substantive to consider in the book you are sharing with students? If there is, then they will practice looking closely at the text, whether it is the exactly right level (as if such a thing exists) or not.

photo: myyogaonline via photopin cc

Stretch 3: Make your modeling messier.
Typically, our instruction along the gradual release of responsibility begins with modeling that is very tidy. The context illustrates the meaning of the word we are trying to figure out. The paragraph we are summarizing has just enough sentences and makes a clear point. While contrived practice can be helpful, it is inauthentic and doesn’t mirror the work students will need to do as they read independently. When you are modeling in read aloud, shared reading, or guided reading, let yourself have some problems. Don’t plan everything you are going to say so perfectly, but put your planning time into finding a text that will engage students and give them something to think about. In sum, make the modeling you do look more like real reading.

Stretch 4: Watch and listen more. Talk less.
This fourth stretch is deceptively simple, but when we work with schools, we find that educators really struggle with this. Basically, we have to close our mouths more during lessons and open our eyes. Don’t spend every minute of independent reading conferencing with students. Take some time to walk around and watch them. Make notes. Administrators who are reading this are getting nervous! We aren’t implying that teachers sit back and relax. We are saying, instead, that all the frenetic activity of classrooms may not be accomplishing as much as everyone thinks. Slow down a bit. Watch and wait. Plan. Work smarter.

Stretch 5: Foster problem-solving rather than dependence.
This stretch is really the simplest and probably and perhaps the most powerful. By changing your language in subtle ways, you can encourage students to take risks and stick with difficult tasks. Instead of sending students off to work independently by saying, “Raise your hand if you need help and I will come help you,” try one of these:

• Raise your hand if you solve a problem; I want you to show me how you figured it out.
• Raise your hand when you have a page of writing; I want you to read it to me.
• Raise your hand if you learn a new word from the book you are reading; I want you to teach it to me.

We look forward to facilitating a pre-convention institute, “The Common Core Literacy Block: What Will It Look Like In My Classroom?” at IRA’s 2013 Annual Convention. We are excited to have Barry Lane, Dorothy Barnhouse, Mary Lee Hahn, and Vicki Vinton join us as co-facilitators. The day promises to be filled with music, poetry, ideas, lessons, and laughs. We hope you can join us!

Jan Miller Burkins is the founder of Jan Miller Burkins Consulting and Literacyhead.com, and is an author of PREVENTING MISGUIDED READING: NEW STRATEGIES FOR GUIDED READING TEACHERS (IRA, 2010).

Kim Yaris has worked as both a classroom teacher and a literacy coach for 19 years. Currently, she serves as Executive Director of Literacy Builders and in this role she provides literacy staff development to school districts across Long Island, New York. She works daily alongside teachers in grades kindergarten through eight demonstrating lessons, coaching for more effective teaching, mapping curriculum, and providing thoughtful training seminars in reading and writing workshop. Kim regularly presents her work at local, regional, and national conferences, maintains literacy-builders.com, a website designed to serve as an online teaching resource center for educators, and blogs daily about the Common Core with Jan Miller Burkins at burkinsandyaris.com.



The Common Core State Standards for Literacy: How Do We Make Them Work?

Teaching Tips: What Should Be Common in the Common Core State Standards?