Your Lesson Ain't Goin to Heaven or Hollywood: Overcoming Create and Delete

For a while, I was not able to write about what I was learning in education. There were rumors and fears that I was writing about teachers I served. When I did write about teachers I served, I used their names. Yet, perception is a beast y'all. While I never, ever wrote ugly things about people and their mistakes, the censorship happened. For a while, I played around with a pseudonym. Ela R. Goodnight good speak for me in anonymity. I even bought a fake wig and some funky glasses to compliment her 1980's wardrobe that for some reason is still in my closet from when I started teaching. Yet, it never seemed right to put the words out there. 

Until today. 

Heather, Bria, Zack, Sam, and I were talking about how we help teachers with their lessons in a way that would free up some time and provide mentorship models of effective instruction. It reminded me of what ole Ela had to say back in the early days of the pandemic. 

A friend (Bettye) stopped by for lunch. On the way to The Burrow in Claude  (I was craving one of their pulled pork omelettes) she berated herself for the difficulty she is having in completing her online blended learning course. "Claire, my teaching partner,  just busted through all the assignments, but I want mine to be really good. And they just aren't. And it's taking me forever." 

"Honey," I replied over the top of my dollar store shades. "Don't you know your lessons aren't goin' to heaven? Heck, they aren't even going to town." She looked at me funny, but I am funny lookin'. 

Consume, Critique, Produce

My friend was missing a very important point here related to Dr. John O'Flavahaven's work at the University of Maryland. O'Flavahaven's Consume, Critique, Produce model is very effective when we look at how we design lessons that give mentor texts and examples of the products we wish for kids to produce or processes they can emulate. But the way my friend was thinking about it was kinda like putting a saddle on a cow. Or lipstick on a pig. You can, but why?

True. We consume a lot of media. Professionally produced, curated, airbrushed stuff of virtual confection and perfection. Yet: Why would we ever expect that perfection from ourselves and our lessons? Why, that's not even the purpose of our lessons. Just like nobody actually looks like those cover models, nobody's lessons look like Dead Poets Society. (Nor Bad Teacher either, just sayin'.) 

Creating virtual opportunities and lessons for kids really isn't about creating perfect, curated videos that could win Emmy Awards. Teachers don't need to be worried about delivering their 30 second acceptance speeches before the music swells and they are escorted offstage. Face to face, online, or blended mixes of all of it aren't about the fake, yet polished nature of media. Teaching is about your moment with a child that moves their thinking and knowing to a new place of participation and contribution. 

Overcoming Create and Delete

Here's some thoughts to reframe what you are doing with virtual learning and stop yourself from perseverating over the create and delete cycle.  

1. If you were teaching a lesson face to face, you'd have to reread, rephrase, and repeat words when they don't come out right. You'd walk over to where you thought you left that stack of papers and forget that you laid them on a kid's desk. Someone would inevitably interrupt the class with an announcement about who needed to come check out in the office. You'd make a mistake or some kid would do something you didn't expect or want. (Like the time Johnny picked his nose and wiped it on the inside of his turtleneck sweater.) There is no way to press delete and start the whole class over. Nor would you. You'd just monitor, adjust, and move on. You are a human in the live, sometimes unscripted (although carefully planned) impromptu of arena of classroom instruction. 

When you are making a recording, monitor, adjust, and move on. Click save and upload that sucker. Ain't  nobody got time for 15 retakes before yearbook, cheer practice, and bus duty. 

2. For some reason, people seem to think that video is going to be useful next year. I have horrifying memories of playing videos recorded in the late 60's and early 70's for my 90's babies. They couldn't get past the polyester prints and beehives to focus on the content. They were making fun of the setting and context rather than learning. 

Furthermore, our pedagogy and content need updating and refining as much as our wardrobe. When you teach the lesson next year - even if you are recording it - hopefully you have learned a thing or two since then. Hopefully, you've realized some stuff you need to address because of who your kids are this year. Put that old video in an archive for posterity and move on with what this class needs this year. Besides, you probably have a new haircut, glasses, and a few more wrinkles since then. Move on and re-record.

3. Point two connects me to another idea. My poor other made the mistake of asking me whether or not after 30 years I was gonna get this teaching stuff figured out and stop staying late at school lugging that canvas bag home. Like, when was I going to stop re-creating the wheel. Incredibly, he was still breathing and able to remark: "You'd think by now that someone  would have made a program where the kids could just go online and do the work." 

There will NEVER be a script or video or a program that is good enough to cover the complexities and nuances of teaching humans year after year. Teaching is a reactive and interactive science that requires the decision making art of a well-prepared, sophisticated, and compassionate teacher. Especially when the teaching goes virtual.

Heaven Bound

Bettye, none of your lessons belong in Hollywood. But the effort, heart, and messy humanity behind it is the only school thing headed for heaven.

Hugs, Pitti-Pats, and Arpeggios of Laughter, 

Ela R. Goodnight

Writing Like an Insider: Identifying as a Scholar

This morning, Dr. Lesley addressed the Llano Estacado Writing Alliance about Joining a Discourse Community as a Scholarly Writer. While that floats my boat personally, her ideas made me think about the writers I will encounter in the fall. Here are some ideas that I want to preserve and communicate. 

• Teachers of writing should write. I will be finding my voice as a writer. This will feed my instruction and support for students and teachers. 
• Writing Fluency is more complex than reading fluency. (Lesley, 2021 presentation)

 Hmmm. Here's the definition that Dr. Lesley shared with us:

Writing Fluency: The ability to produce written language rapidly, appropriately, cognitively, and coherently (Latif, 2013)

Students need to become aware of the components of their writing fluency. Our instructional activities should be explicit about the goals and the ways in which we achieve writing fluency. We want our students to begin writing after diffusing the prompt or assignment, not from a disjointed stream of consciousness, but from a capacity that considers deep meaning and the genre characteristics and conventions that will accurately and effectively deliver the message to their audience. They need to know how to get that kind of writing fluency going automatically. 

• Each writing even it a unique rhetorical event (Lesley, 2021 presentation).  

That's why it feels like you are starting over each time. That's why there is no formula. The rhetorical situation will always be different. Do we let kids know that this is true for everyone and every writing task? Do they know the struggle is normal and they are not alone? 

• Writing is inquiry (Lesley, 2021 presentation).  

YAAAAS. It is always new. We are always rethinking and rewriting - learning all the while. Writing is thinking made visible in ink, graphite, or binary code. 

• We learn to write and investigate our thinking through writing (Lesley, 2021 presentation).

How do you learn to do something? You get in there and do it. You learn about the something and a lot more about yourself. 

•  Scholarly Voice: scholarly voice is about contextualizing the research, situating the study and the researcher personally (Lesley, 2021 presentation). 

We write so they can see our face and hear our voice and know our personality. The way we write exposes our thinking and our personality. Do the kids know it doesn't have to be stilted or boring? 

• Introspective writing helps students move into a creative space where they are free to play with language, capture descriptive details, elaborate on the seemingly insignificant and juxtapose disparate ideas against each other. Introspection allows the writer's self to be present in all facets of the writing act (Lesley, in press). 

Wow. That's writing like an insider. So here's my questions to guide instruction in the fall. 

1. How do we help kids write like an insider for particular genres if we don't teach them how to read a text for how it is structured and the techniques the writer is using? How do we teach them to dissect a text not just for comprehension, but for CREATION for their own purposes? I need to create lessons and opportunities for this work...to go beyond comprehension to CRAFT. Our Texas ELAR standards have two Knowledge and Skills statements for craft. One is to analyze craft. The other is to USE craft for their own meaningful products and performances. 

2. How do we help kids write like an insider if they never read the kind of stuff we are asking them to write? We need more mentor texts that kids have written. 

New Spin on Blueprinting: Plotting the Future at Walkon's

 Three Teachers Talk recently wrote about the architectural approach to prewriting at a tried and "still" true method. Honestly, since I first experienced it in the Abydos Writing Institute, it is the best method to collect and store memories that can be used for writing of all genres, not just the introspective. 

Then I went to Walkon's Sports Bistreaux. Being a food snob, I had shunned the place, shuddering at the thought of poorly prepared bar food. But the Boudin Balls were a welcome surprise. But... as we were seated, the waitress set down these napkins: 

And she told us the story of how Brandon and Jack sketched out their dream as their team flew home after playing at the University of Tennessee. They blueprinted their dream, y'all. And the other side of the napkin was an invitation to prewrite...to plan something new...to dream and sketch the plan. 

Cheers to you and your dreams. I'm headed back to Walkons for another serving of those fried rice and pork balls. You think they will give me a package of those napkins to use with the kids? 

Cheers to you and your dreams. 

Deliberate, Effortful Strategies under Conscious Control become Skills under Automatic Control

Judy Wallis: And what we hope is these deliberate, effortful strategies under conscious control become skills under automatic control. 

 I'm always honored when Judy Wallis reads and considers my efforts. She always seems to dive into the basis and research underneath what I'm experiencing. And when she references an article, I know that it is something worth serious consideration. 

My friend Bama Coward used to say: A strategy is not something you do with a pencil. As usual, Judy has the research at her fingertips. Clarifying Differences Between Reading Skills and Reading Strategies is a must read for practitioners of critical and transformative ELAR pedagogy. Afflerback, Pearson, and Paris nail important considerations about how we initially teach and what our goals are for helping kids internalize and use those strategies in ways that become automatic skills in their comprehension and composing processes. Where are my kids on the continuum of strategies and skilled reading? 

A Convo about Getting Results: How we Get to the Answer Matters Most

Cheryl texted me her STAAR results. We’d been talking about the previous post. 

Cheryl: English I - 66% Approaches, 50% Meets, 12% Masters

English II - 70% Approaches, 57% Meets, 11% Masters

Our. Kids. KILLED. It!!!! I believe for English I students (before retests and including retested students in

the spring it was 79% Approaches, 62% Meets, 12% Masters. Only my kids, no re-testers:

82% Approaches, 64% Meets, 14% Masters. And I don’t know the final tally with re-testers that may

have passed. 2021 was my first administration at this campus since we didn’t admin in 2020.

 

Shona - So this means…

Before Cheryl’s Strategies	Cheryl’s Class	Change
2019 Approaches State        68% District     65% Campus   65% 2019 Meets State        50% District     53% Campus   53% 2019 Masters State       11% District    11% Campus  11%	2021 Approaches State               66% District             Cheryl’s Class 82% 2021 Meets State               50% District              Cheryl’s Class 64% 2021 Masters State                12% District               Cheryl’s Class  14%	20% gain 14% gain 2% gain

Shona: Holy cow, Cheryl! What did you do during COVID to get such results?

I know that I always rely on you to further the prototypes that we design based on the needs

we are seeing. But I didn’t expect such a gain the first year. 

Cheryl: That’s a great question. This year was really the culmination of things I’ve learned over the last

5 years (mostly from you!) that I was finally able to put into practice all at once.

Some foundational things I think are a starting point for this conversation: 

• Understanding the new TEKS helped me understand the depth at which our students needed to understand texts. And the types of texts they needed to read--and how they should be constantly making connections within and across texts of various genres. Even though we changed topics many times in the class, students often commented that our class seemed like one giant thematic yarn ball--and I think any good reader/ writer probably feels the same way about everything they read and write. That was a sign I was on the right path. 

• Reading/ Writing/ Speaking/ Listening/ Thinking as a constant cycle in our class. We were always doing all 5 around a text, around our own writing, around sharing, around talking as a starting place for all of the above. 

These two pieces became the foundation for everything else. I think some people reading this probably

want to know what textbook we used or what workshop I went to that made me successful in 6 hours

or less, but this is a culture we have to create in our classes, and it’s not easy. We (usually) have to

fight trends in instruction that may not have encouraged real thinking and fight the idea that there is

some sort of “formula” to the right answer or the best essay. It’s an organic process.

And if a teacher isn’t committed to that type of paradigm shift (s)he won’t be successful. 

Shona: Wow. That’s a lot to unpack. I have always felt that you absorb things over time and then put

them back together in a way that works for your teaching style and the kids in front of you that year.

I see that the two major things you mention are about your understanding of the TEKS and your use of

the domains of literacy. A third might be missed - the paradigm shift you experienced to a more

constructivist approach to instruction in cognitive literacy processes as opposed to a text based

approach that is in our instructional historical dna. LOL. 

Cheryl: Yes, I think what you mention is a huge key. It took me a long while to realize this,

but it doesn’t matter WHAT we read, it matters what we do with what we read.

Please know that of course it matters what we read, but too many people are focused on teaching texts

and not focused at all on how to connect them or what to do with them. Of course I had a plan,

I had things I wanted my students to read for certain reasons or to connect in certain ways,

but some of my plans happened, and some of them didn’t. Sometimes I would scrap something

so we could spend more time on another thing or so we could add in something related to what

they wanted to know more about. We can talk about “student centered classrooms” all day long,

but unless we are ready to follow their lead in interests, pacing, and unpacking, we aren’t going to

see them engage to the level of depth required in these new standards. AGAIN: Of course I had texts

and tasks planned, and NO, they didn’t always like it (at first), but as we built a culture and classroom

together, we could move some things more into their lane. 

Shona: So, really, I’m curious about what you taught about diffusing the passages that matched this

organic view of instruction and still caused gains for the students. I know you were using the fact tracker...but how did you roll it out, adapt it. What sense of it did the kids take on? How did their take change the process as you taught it? 

Cheryl: I start the year with a philosophy that has really helped me understand texts more deeply and we roll

out baby steps. I don’t get to the full fact tracker until the 2nd semester because in the first semester,

our focus is on developing the new paradigm. 

In the first two weeks of the semester, I introduce 2 concepts: 

• Everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) is an argument. 

• & Some things are Story 

• (and all the genres can flow from here). 

As we look at everything being an argument, I introduce the main elements of argument and we look for those in various genres. We quickly boil this down to “what’s the point?” or “what are they getting at?” --in genres like poetry, drama, fiction, etc. this often presents as one or more themes. Although it takes them a while to get good at it, I’ve taught them probably the most difficult skill we’ll work on all year and a process to identify it from Day 1. 

Shona: This makes a lot of sense to me. Some of the questions I use with this part are: What’s it about? Why does it matter? Or when I’m feeling snarky, I ask: who cares? 

Cheryl: When we get to Story, we look at the elements of a story: Characters, setting, conflict, plot, resolution.

We start with basically a 5th-8th grade review of things they should have learned along the way

(this builds confidence) (and it only takes about 1 class period), then I give them a text set that

includes various genres. (Song, poetry, drama, news, short story, etc.) and have them work with a

partner or group to tell whether each is a story and why/ or why not. (They are all stories.)

Shona: Aw, I see what you are doing here. Nice.

Cheryl:  (Not every poem is a story, but the ones I include, are). As a class, we go through the works

and identify the elements of story in each one and at the end  of each piece we ask ourselves two

questions that we will carry through the entire year: 

1. What happened? (plot, or your quick clue this isn’t a story) 

2. What’s the point? (theme, claim, main idea THERE IS ALWAYS AT LEAST ONE POINT). 

This hits on our TEKS in a million ways, but one of the best ways is that this is a self-monitoring tool.

If a student can’t answer these two questions, they need to re-read and try again. 

Shona: YES. We use summarization and theme finding as a tool to monitor our comprehension

instead of a product to be evaluated. Changes how they use the strategy to become assessment

capable and aware of their own cognition/comprehension. That’s why Learning on Display focuses on

reasoning THROUGH reading and writing. Reading and Writing are the tools for our thoughts and

response to ideas. 

Cheryl: Note here, that their answers don’t have to be correct here. In fact, at first, they are usually wildly wrong.

After we read a text and answer these questions, I ALWAYS have them stop and pair/ share.

This allows them to correct or confirm their ideas (OMG, LOOK→ another TEKS!) 

Shona: I’m impressed with this allowance to be wrong. Too often we are the ones that identify that for kids.

Let’s let them marinate in error and wade out of it through their reading and writing reasoning processes.

Until we are comfortable with allowing them to identify their own errors, we are doing the thinking work for

them when we tell them that they are wrong. And we steal the joy of discovering what is correct. 

Cheryl: You are absolutely right. But this, too, can be a huge struggle to build into the course, culturally.

My students have often been conditioned to believe they MUST have the right answer and at first find

themselves too paralyzed to provide any response at all or completely obsessed with being right--

which prevents them from learning at all. Believe it or not, at least initially, I generally have the best

progress and growth with my lowest level students. They are usually so fed up with school at all that

they are the most willing to throw anything out there. My honors students are usually most frustrated

with this process. 

Shona: YAAAAS. It was HARD to sit by Micah and agree with all his incorrect reasoning.

But it was a critical moment for HIM. I took a stance as a collaborator and thought-partner

with him instead of the corrector. This allowed me to ask...wait a minute...

I thought we proved all those wrong! Why isn’t D correct? This stance preserved his dignity,

but also didn’t stop his thinking. He was the one that ultimately decided how to revise his thinking

and reject what he initially thought was right. 

Cheryl: Yes. My students have to learn early on not to mark any answer I agree with! Haha!

I’ll agree with whatever they say, no matter what! They have to be bold enough to think it out and

question each other’s thoughts. 

Shona: I found that in my research as well. They have to be willing to reject the teacher’s ideas and go

forward with their own ideas and reasoning processes. It’s our job to allow it. 

Cheryl: And model it. I do a lot of modeling and thinking aloud. I also sometimes have to have a

conversation with my classes (for the benefit of my students who are quick to answer everything).

This is about the process. Yes, the answer matters, but how we get to the answer matters most. 

Shona: I had to go back and bold that statement. 

Cheryl: And while some people have these internal conversations and debates in their heads in a

matter of seconds-- many, if not most, of my students need to hear these conversations so they can

develop these models for themselves. And, truly, this takes time. It’s a repetitive process that we

build into EVERY text we read. As the process becomes quicker and I can see my students are getting it,

I’ll layer in the next steps to build depth. 

Shona: Agreed. That’s why I felt like I needed to model the convo in the previous blog post.

I don’t think the TEKS really are specific in how we reject answers we originally thought were right.

That stuff still needs to be taught - the thinking of how to make an inference and self-monitor to make

sure it’s right. The questions on STAAR really are aligned to TEKS, but I’m not sure we are really

teaching the implied THINKING TEKS that allow us to show mastery of the individual TEKS.

It’s like a hidden curriculum that really exposes the rigor more than anything I have seen out there.

We need to do more thinking about HOW we THINK. 

Cheryl: That leads into how I layer depth\ into our reading and writing. We have to teach our students how

to think about the texts. From here we rebuild their ideas of annotation. Most of my freshmen come

to be thinking they have to summarize every paragraph… but annotation is a lot more than that.

And we don’t always annotate everything. It’s a tool to help our thinking.

We use the summarization annotation to paraphrase or summarize difficult (usually non-fiction) texts.

Sometimes our annotations are questions (because good readers ask questions!)

Sometimes we write or label what we notice, we write our understanding, make predictions,

make notes of our confusion to bring to the discussion later. 

Shona: Once that annotation and internal talk become automatic, I let my kids let go of the annotations and

trackers until they need them for a point of struggle. 

Cheryl: Answering our two questions (WH, WTP?) and using annotations as a tool are the first ways

I build writing into the course. We read, and as we read, we cycle through these small writings about

our texts. 

Bonus Lesson Plans Cheryl and Shona Suggest: Using tools like the C3WP from the National Writing Project, we also learn to effectively identify and use

text evidence. https://sites.google.com/nwp.org/c3wp/home

Cheryl: I also love to teach Gretchen Bernabei’s kernel essays and tie some of the “Text Structures From the Masters” into our units. This really helps the students see text structure

and tie it to purpose. (Not PIE--haha, another soapbox I’ve picked up from you!) 

Shona: Yeah - don’t get me started on PIE. I think we’ve given folks enough to think about today.

And you need to go fold the laundry and I need to go cook supper. :) 

Cheryl: Thank you for this. I absolutely enjoyed it. If you are reading this and don’t already know,

Shona is THE BEST. <3 

Shona: We are the best when we are thinking together. Love ya.