Summer Reading- Post 2 of ? : "To be a Scientist, you must always read"

Summer Reading- Post 2 of ? :

 "To be a Scientist, you must always read"

TL;DR - Science teachers should get students to read more scientific articles / information because it is their job, and what is best for kids. Reading aloud is one technique that I would like to use more, both to break down the culture of fear surrounding being wrong, and to add life and excitement to material that may otherwise seem listless or boring to some students. 

     In his book "Teach Like A Champion" Doug Lemov discusses techniques to optimize your students' classroom experience. One such technique that caught my eye was "Control The Game". Upon first reading the title, I assume this was going to be something about classical classroom management. That it was going to be some psychobabble regarding being the dominant presence in the room, or some such other thing. Imagine my surprise when right from the byline it states "Ask students to read aloud frequently, but mange the process to ensure expressiveness, accountability, and engagement."

     I have a confession to make. I am a big. fat. phony. At least that is how I feel after reading this chapter. I have long taken up the cause of the beleaguered Humanities teachers. A bit of back story first perhaps? 

1. One of the most important skills a child develops is how to read. The vast majority of research available indicates that the best way to get better at reading, is to read more.
   
2. Many science teachers recognize this, and bemoan their students inabilities to read and comprehend scientific information. Furthermore, they often level criticism at their Humanities counterparts. "Why don't you ask them to read more scientific information" they often lament.
    
3. It is not the job of a Humanities teacher to teach the skills of a science class.
   
4. It is; however, the job of a science teacher to teach the skills of a science class

--- Q.E.D.---

5. It is my bloody job to teach students how to bloody well read scientific information!

     So that sounds great and everything. But here is the problem. You see, nobody ever taught me how to read scientific information. It was something that I just picked up over time, and honestly, I am not entirely sure exactly what I do when I read scientific papers. So here is where the hypocrisy comes in... I haven't quite been doing that, actually to be fair, I haven't been doing that at all in my Jr. Classes. Do I ask my Jr. Science classes to read from the text book? Sure, sometimes. Do I bring in the occasional article? Yeah. But with my Jr. Science classes 1, I have been seriously lacking. 

     Back to the book. Lemov recommends reading early, reading often, and reading out loud. Furthermore, he suggests not just reading out loud, but reading with emphasis and emotion. I can't tell you the last time I had a student read out loud, let alone with emphasis or emotion! He continues in the chapter to further refine the "read out loud" theme. I'm sure you had a similar experience to mine. A teacher would start with one student, then predictably move around the class, each student reading one paragraph. You would look around the class, figure out what paragraph was yours, then promptly tune out. For that reason (tuning out), he proposes keeping students' on their toes by mixing how much they read, who reads, and obviously what they read. This connects with the technique mentioned in my previous post regarding a culture of wrong, and regarding mistakes a learning opportunity, rather than something to be embarrassed about. In addition, not accepting "I don't know" or "I don't want to read" as an answer. Even if they just read a sentence, or the teacher reads the majority of the material, but they pause and make the students read out important words. 

     I remember during my time in  high school, there was nothing worse than having to read out-loud, a new word, and then stumble and fumble over it. Part of the dread of reading out loud came from the fear of failure, or being wrong. If I can reduce that fear, maybe I can reduce some of the anxiety around reading aloud  and thereby introduce more meaning to the deluge of scientific reading I will be throwing at them ;) .  Furthermore, by reading the material out-loud I can bring more meaning and life to it. If a student reads something in a monotone voice, I can re-read it with emphasis on the parts that I found interesting or surprising, or I can ask them to re-read it doing the same. On occasion, it has been pointed out to me, not unkindly, that I am a bit of a nerd. That is to say, I am very passionate about topics that one is typically not passionate about. It is that passion that may be one of my greatest strengths as a teacher. What better way to try to get my students to match that passion then with matching my volume and cadence with reading a particularly juicy sentence out loud?

     What do you think? Maybe you disagree and you think it is the English teachers' job to teach students how to read different types of literature (science included). Maybe you think asking students to read aloud is cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe you didn't like how I switched between out-loud and aloud (I checked, they both suffice). You know where to comment. 

1- I am being a bit harsh on myself here. I think I do a much better job with my Sr. Science classes. I typically get them to keep a pdf I found regarding reading scientific articles, and I have a small selection of primary research articles for ecology and a few other topics. I also pepper in a liberal number of articles from "IFL Science" 

Summer Reading: Teach Like a Champ - Post 1 of ?

Summer Reading: Teach Like a Champ - Post 1 of ?

In this post: Checking for understanding, The culture of "wrong", and don't take "I don't know" for an answer.

In the dying days of the school year, and in a desperate attempt to maintain my motivation going into the summer, I decided to order a book of chapters.ca (No I won't call it indigo). I was torn between "Teach Like a Champion" and "Teach Like a Pirate". I was leaning heavily towards Pirate (for obvious reasons) but after learning that the latter book did not involve swords, parrots, or booty, I decided on "Teach like a Champion" by Doug Lemov [From here on out abbreviated TLC... don't go chasing water falls]

The book begins with some useful preamble about he purposes of the book, but in an effort to avoid stepping on the authors toes, I am just going to skip to the good stuff. The vast majority of this book involves techniques, so I will provide my take on some of the 62 techniques (Yes, you read that right, 62!)

The first six groups deal with checking for understanding, abbreviated as CFU by the author. This posed a bit of a problem for me, working as a lifeguard and taking quite a few molecular biology courses, CFU typically stands for Colony Forming Units and is indicative of how much feces is in the water.  But I digress.....

When Doug Lemov speaks of CFU, he isn't talking about at the end of a unit for the purposes of a report card, but rather activities at the beginning, middle, and end of a lesson to determine A) When it is time to move on and B) Where you need to focus some more attention. While reading, this is where I started to get really interested. I will be teaching math for the first time in a while starting in September, and all of this clicked well with how I was envisioning my math class. (These techniques will also work well with my Jr. and Sr. Science classes as well, and he provides examples on how to use them with an English class to boot!)

Unfortunately this first unit is also where I start to get a bit worried. Throughout TLC Lemov provides suggests that involve a great deal of preparation. He suggests having everything in a lesson planed out, from the questions you will ask, to the answers you expect to get from the students, and how you will address what you think the students will do incorrectly. At times it reminds me of some mad game of chess. That degree of planning might be obtainable for me after five of six times teaching a course, but I don't know if our curriculum will stay the same for long enough to make that possible (kidding....mostly) Here is my takeaway (I'm ignoring the parts that I don't agree with, or feel like I wouldn't have time for).

1. Ask probing questions in class.
      e.g. "Where is the energy transformation when a car stops? What else has a similar                       transformation? How do you know"
   These questions should be answered in full sentences so that someone walking by the room and only hearing the student answer, would know what was going on (more on that later)1. This ensures that the student DOES understand what is going on, and it isn't a fluke, and it makes sure that the other students understand it now as well (even if they didn't before) 
2.   Ask for volunteers infrequently. If you are asking questions of the class to assess understanding, and the same three students are answering your questions, you are really only assessing the understanding of those three students. Relying on the same few students also allows the remainder of the herd to relax and take a mental break during these question times. Not exactly what a teacher is looking for!
3. Don't take "I don't know" for an answer. Those herd members that want the rest know that if you just feign ignorance enough times, you will get that rest. Don't let them!
   E.g "Markus, Where would you find the largest biomass in an ecosystem""I don't know""Lets figure it out then. Where should we start to find the answer?""I don't know""What are the options""I don't know""Okay, Bobby Brownose, where would we find the LEAST biomass" "The apex predators""Correct Bobby, Frieda Cantfocus, why do you think Bobby said that""Because they rely on the next level down for energy, so if there were more of them, they would starve""I think you have the answer, but I'm not sure. Can you give that answer again, but convince me you understand it, maybe using the correct terms for everything""Apex pedators eat primary and secondary predators, so if there were more biomass with the apex predators, they would starve"
   "Much better Frieda! Now Markus, with that information can you predict where we would find the MOST biomass and why?
   This exchange would probably take 3 min, but would give a pretty clear indication of the general level of class understanding, but only if you used targeted questioning. You have to know who to ask that is least likely to understanding, most likely, and equally as likely. This requires you to know your class, but that is a post for another day (Attachment Theory etc) 
4. Change the emotion behind being incorrect. "Being wrong is embarrassing. It grates. It is to be avoided at all costs!" at least that is how I felt as a student. It wasn't until university that I realized I learned more with I got something wrong then when I got it right (sometimes by accident) The class (and maybe school) mentality has to shift. "Growth mindset" gets thrown around a lot. But that is what is called for by this book. 
5. Standardize your written CFU. Create a template to put your questions in, and have students write the answers in the same location with their work in another, laid out in a particular manner. This allows you to circulate and quickly understand what students understand and what they don't. Furthermore, he suggests you should have these problems all worked out in advance along with likely areas of misunderstanding. When you circulate, he suggests you write down the names of those students that had those misunderstandings. This along with the culture of "wrong is good" can help to shape your class discussions or single out students for more help at lunch/after school.
   
   I feel like # 5 is the tip that would help me the most in my Math classes, but I haven't taught them enough to anticipate the misunderstandings. That is where planning with a more experienced teacher would be great, unfortunately there is vanishingly little time in the school year to do things like that. I find this to be the most heart breaking because it is where "what is good for kids" does not seem  possible to me (sparing giving up my every waking moment) 

1- Using "academic language" is the only way to ensure students speak the language of academia and their points are taken seriously. Saying " the thing does stuff and that shows that process" will convince nobody of anything