Reflection and Moving Forward
Regarding revisions to this lesson: more so than any of the other lessons that I taught, I was generally pleased with the structure and outcomes of the lesson, and I would definitely consider teaching it again without major alterations. The most important changes I would make would be to my own approach – particularly, how I would deal with “incorrect” or “unhelpful” answers (my thinking on this is largely discussed in the Lesson Analysis section). I would also adapt the graphic organizer – the version I used included a section for quotes, which I modeled but never actually pressed the students to use (they didn’t use it). Instead, I would make that section a space for them to write book names and page numbers so they could return to it later. There could also be a space for them to write any additional interesting or surprising things that they might want to share with the class.
As a follow-up to this lesson, I think it would be interesting to return to the original lesson (pre-revision) plan and its focus on generating thoughtful, researchable questions. I think I would begin by asking the students to generate questions, and I would write them on a (larger) whiteboard, divided into two columns; I wouldn’t explain it at first, but one column would be questions with simple answers (e.g. “What do whales eat?”) and the other would be columns with complex answers (e.g. “Are humans part of food chains?”). After recording a handful of questions, I would draw attention to the division and explain my categories. If they have written mostly or exclusively “simple” questions, then I could challenge them to come up with some more complex questions (I would have some questions prepared to supplement student questions if they struggle, or to help students expand their own simple questions into complex ones).
We could then go back over the list of questions and, based on students’ experiences with the texts, mark the questions which students think we’d be most likely to be able to answer with these books (note: this assumes that this is happening very soon, if not immediately, after the previous lesson, so the students will still have a strong familiarity with the available texts). Each pair could then discuss and choose one simple question and one complex question to try to answer. Students would then have partner work, like before, but this time they would have access to all the books.
Subsequent lessons could attack the strategy of “reading with questions” in a more diverse set of ways. I could do a read-aloud for students, in which they have to practice generating and answering questions before, during, and after. As students become more comfortable with this, we could extend into using texts to answer opinion questions. As an introductory lesson, students could be given an opinion question regarding a book before it is read (e.g., “Is Mrs. Fictionalcharacter a good teacher?”) and then divided into two teams, with each team assigned an opinion (yes/no). During a read-aloud of the book, teams would be responsible for pointing out evidence for their arguments. At the end, they would have to discuss and write arguments (state opinion & give three pieces of evidence) for their opinions. Eventually, the unit could progress to a point where students are constructing arguments based on independent readings, and without assigned opinions.
As a follow-up to this lesson, I think it would be interesting to return to the original lesson (pre-revision) plan and its focus on generating thoughtful, researchable questions. I think I would begin by asking the students to generate questions, and I would write them on a (larger) whiteboard, divided into two columns; I wouldn’t explain it at first, but one column would be questions with simple answers (e.g. “What do whales eat?”) and the other would be columns with complex answers (e.g. “Are humans part of food chains?”). After recording a handful of questions, I would draw attention to the division and explain my categories. If they have written mostly or exclusively “simple” questions, then I could challenge them to come up with some more complex questions (I would have some questions prepared to supplement student questions if they struggle, or to help students expand their own simple questions into complex ones).
We could then go back over the list of questions and, based on students’ experiences with the texts, mark the questions which students think we’d be most likely to be able to answer with these books (note: this assumes that this is happening very soon, if not immediately, after the previous lesson, so the students will still have a strong familiarity with the available texts). Each pair could then discuss and choose one simple question and one complex question to try to answer. Students would then have partner work, like before, but this time they would have access to all the books.
Subsequent lessons could attack the strategy of “reading with questions” in a more diverse set of ways. I could do a read-aloud for students, in which they have to practice generating and answering questions before, during, and after. As students become more comfortable with this, we could extend into using texts to answer opinion questions. As an introductory lesson, students could be given an opinion question regarding a book before it is read (e.g., “Is Mrs. Fictionalcharacter a good teacher?”) and then divided into two teams, with each team assigned an opinion (yes/no). During a read-aloud of the book, teams would be responsible for pointing out evidence for their arguments. At the end, they would have to discuss and write arguments (state opinion & give three pieces of evidence) for their opinions. Eventually, the unit could progress to a point where students are constructing arguments based on independent readings, and without assigned opinions.