I chose to do a literacy related
LRNG playlist (
https://www.lrng.org/creativity-labs/playlist/the-power-of-the-read-aloud
)
that I titled,
The
Power of the Read Aloud.
This
playlist is targeted to high school students or early college students who want
to learn more about teaching reading.
Often high schools will offer one course about teaching with an option
for students to do ‘cadet teaching’—where they leave school to visit an
elementary classroom a few times a week. One course and a minimal field
experience aren’t going to be enough for someone who is really interested in
teaching.
Therefore, I saw a need for
this playlist to fill the void for young, aspiring literacy teachers.
I taught kindergarten, reading recovery,
literacy coached, and currently, I teach literacy methods classes at Indiana
University.
I am always growing and
learning with the field of literacy, so I enjoyed creating this playlist for
others who want to learn more about the topic of reading aloud to
children.
Many of the literacy methods classes that I teach at IU are
prescriptive. In the ‘Methods of Teaching Reading’ courses, instructors teach
the topic of ‘reading aloud’ by having pre-service teachers read excepts from Jim
Trelease’s book, The Read Aloud Handbook
(2013). After reading the book, pre-service teachers practice doing a read
aloud; following the layout presented in the book. While the picture books that the students
choose vary, the lessons are very similar, oftentimes because the are formatted
they lack creativity and interactions with the audience. As an Assistant
Instructor, I don’t feel that I have the power to change the curricula, that is
why making a ‘Read Aloud’ LRNG playlist was so much fun. I was able to take
much of what we learned about constructionism and apply it to my LRNG playlist.
Constructionism tends to be understood as learning through
constructing one’s own knowledge. Kafai
(2006) asserts that constructionism challenges us to reconsider our notions of
learning and teaching (page 36). Instruction
planned with a constructionist theory in mind takes a “distributed view of
instruction, one where learning and teaching are constructed in interactions as
students work on design and discussion of learning artifacts (Kafai, page 36).” In a constructionist model the teachers role
with their learners follows an apprenticeship model. This can be traced back to early work
kindergarten, where Froebel proposed
that a teacher should act as a guide rather than a lecturer (As cited in
Brosterman, 1997). This meant that in designing my playlist I needed to
‘rethink’ things to remove direct instruction, replacing it with personally meaningful
learning that included choice, open exploration, active engagement, value for
student perception, tinkering, making through a cycle of imaging, creating,
playing, and sharing.
As I planned for my LRNG playlist, I tried to keep the
student and their interest driven learning at the center and use myself as a
guide for their learning. I hoped to
provide options for different ways to show their learning and different
approaches to observe or interact within each XP. For example; when learning about strategies
for a good read aloud I recommended that learners visit a live story-time,
watch an online story-time, visit a classroom, or watch a preschool parent read
with a child. My hope was that learners would see how interactive reading
aloud truly is, and begin to see the potential in combining reading time with
song, drama, storytelling, and discussion. In a more traditional literacy methods curriculum,
the students would have read about what makes a good read aloud in a textbook. (Boring
and un-engaging!) This playlist let students ‘discover’ traits of a good read
aloud for themselves.
In a more instructionist tradition, teachers might attempt
to control learning by working toward a very specific set of acceptable goals. Because these goals (chosen by the teacher or
mandated) may not be interesting to the students they likely won’t be
invested—causing lack on engagement. Teachers
that teach in this transmission tradition might ask students to complete “tasks”
that they believe will prove that their students are “on task”. These tasks are
often worksheets to prove that students did their reading. In a constructionist tradition, students take
on more responsibility for design of their learning and therefore engagement
goes up significantly. In Inventing
Kindergarten (1997), Brosterman highlights an early ideal from Froebel, “exuberant
curiosity is children’s most important learning asset.” Constructionism taps into this exuberant
curiosity.
At the start of my planning phase for the LRNG project it
felt difficult for me to approach the task of teaching how to value and use
read alouds in a constructionist way. At
first, I felt compelled that the learners needed to be “pre-loaded” with the
rationale and research that supports reading aloud. When I could no longer
reconcile pre-loading with exuberant curiosity, I let go of it and began to get
creative, that is when the project became fun!
My playlist includes XP’s that guide learners from building
background knowledge to creating their own interactive read aloud. The XPs include: building background,
observation of a read aloud, choosing a book and making a plan for reading,
bringing stories to life through a making project, enjoyment of a fun read
aloud by Patricia Polacco, and finally a capstone project where students put
together all of their learning to create an interactive and fun read aloud with
their chosen book.
The beginnings of constructionism can be seen in the early
tenants of Pestalozzi ‘s theories (1803, as cited in Brosterman, page 20) which
run through many core design principles for Scratch, project based learning
designs, connected learning, and making. In designing my LRNG project, I
attempted to uphold many constructionist design principles in order to maintain
a “mindset of creativity and innovation.” (Peppler & Bender, 2013)
1.
To be
meaningful, all human activity must be self generated; therefore, the
traditional education methods of rote memorization and mechanical drill are
psychologically unsound. In
connected learning there are three crucial contexts for learning. One of them is that learning should be
interest powered. Ito et. al. (2013)
explain that “when a subject is personally interesting and relevant, learners
achieve much higher-order learning outcomes.” (page. 12) There is nothing that
resembles rote memorization in my playlist; all learning comes from watching,
observing, reading, imaging, making, creating, and reflecting. When designing
Scratch, Resnick et. al. (2009) established three design principles, one of
them was to make learning more meaningful.
They explain that people learn best when working on personally
meaningful projects that can be personalized and that offer diverse projects.
LRNG is really a great example of this.
My personal playlist offers diverse entry points into each XP and because
there aren’t preset goals the learner can differentiate what they create and
what they choose to focus on. In connected learning I think this tenet ties in
with the call for learning that is “interest driven”.
2.
Perception,
developed by means of number, form, and finally language is the fundamental
source of all learning. All of my XP’s involve one’s own perception or
reflection to different read aloud experiences.
There are not pre-set answers to questions, rather my XP’s suggest reflections--
with are based on learners own perceptions. Students decide what they perceive
as important to focus on. The playlist
guides them to experiences but it is up to them to determine what is valuable
for them.
3.
Children
learn through active engagement. Traditionally, the perceived nature of a
read aloud is that it is a sedentary literacy activity. We picture children
sitting still and quietly while the teacher reads the book. The XP’s in my playlist suggest this isn’t the
case. In reality a read aloud should be
messy, full of discussion, activity and wonder.
The read aloud XPs my LRNG learners complete will all be interactive and
include drama, making, singing, puppetry, acting, motions, retelling,
interactive discussions. In each XP, the
suggested submissions for provide active responses with options that include,
video, photos, discussions, and written submissions. The final capstone project
provides multiple opportunities for active engagement, iterative processing, and suggests that learners connect dramatic play, voices, and
puppets to tell their stories in more active and embodied ways.
4.
“Tinkerers
understand how to improvise, adapt and iterate, so they are never stuck on old
plans.” (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013, page166) Resnick & Rosenbaum
write that success in the future will depend not on what learners know or how
much they know, but on their ability to think and act creatively. I tried to build my project so that students
could experience tinkering and making. As I started to work on this LRNG playlist,
it became clear to me that the very building of my playlist involved a lot
tinkering on my part. I wanted my XP
learners to experience tinkerability as they worked toward a final capstone as
well. So, I consulted Resnick and
Rosenbaum’s 3 core principles for guiding design that include immediate
feedback, fluid experimentations and open exploration.
“The tinkering process is
inherently iterative.” (Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013, page 176) This is exactly what I hope learners will
experience with my read aloud playlist.
They begin with a simple book to read and through experimenting, observing,
revising, and refining they will end up building a final read aloud capstone
project that involves bringing the book to life with discussion points, drama
or acting, voices, and physical actions. This doesn’t just “happen”, it is
through the iterative process that they develop a repertoire of strategies to
bring books to life for young children. In designing for tinkerability I also tried
to provide opportunity for learners to have open exploration by giving choices
for learning, for example, learners can extend their learning by reading,
visiting read aloud venues, or just exploring online read alouds. They have some choice in their path for
exploration.
5.
Learning design should follow the kindergarten
approach to learning. Resnick explains
that this includes a cycle of imagining, creating, playing, sharing, and
reflecting. For my LRNG playlist learners this is the cycle that I tried to
replicate for their learning. Throughout
the playlist they are asked to imagine, create, play, share and reflect. In one XP they create their own characters or
manipulative to help tell their story.
The kindergarten process was part of the design of this XP as students
observe and reserach ways teachers dramatize stories for students, then
learners take a turn and think of a way
to bring their own story to life (imagine), next they make their story
manipulatives from materials they have around the house (create), they try
working their creations into their book readings (play) and finally (after lots
of practice and refining) they put it
all together and present their read aloud to a child or audience of some type
and through video (share). Throughout the XPs they are called on to reflect.
Constructionism is a wonderful
theory to use in designing learning. As
I personally reflect on the creation of this final project, it becomes clear
that by having us make LRNG playlists we were able to go through the constructionist
process of learning--ourselves! The design of this final project was clearly in
keeping with the theme of the class. The
project was interest driven and therefore meaningful, involved lots of
tinkering, kept me actively engaged, and followed the kindergarten approach to
learning (imagine, create, play, share, reflect) all in a connected
environment. I hope that my LRNG
learners feel as engaged in my project as I did. It is freeing to let go and let kids learn in
ways that keep engagement high. What an
exciting prospect for all my future designs.
Link to LRNG playlist: The Power
of the Read Aloud
Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing
kindergarten
Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen,
K., ... & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for
research and design. Digital Media and Learning
Kafai, Y. B. (2006).Constructionism.
In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.) Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences. Cambridge MA:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-46.
Peppler, K. & Bender, S.
(2013).Maker movement spreads innovation one project
at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), pp. 22-27.
Resnick, M., (2007): All I really
Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned
(By Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten. ACM Creativity & Cognition conference.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E.
(2013).Designing for Tinkerability
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N.,
Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., …& Kafai,
Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications
of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
Trelease, J., (2013) The Read Aloud Handbook.
.
