PAR Lesson Plan

1. Your lesson plan topic: Recycling:: Using Michael Recycle Meets Litterbug Doug

2. Grade level for the lesson: Kindergarten

3. Detailed Objectives:

 

• TSWBAT identify objects that can be reused, recycled, and conserved
• TSWBAT create a foldable and draw a reused, recycled, and conserved object under each topic
• TSWBAT brainstorm ways that objects can be reused to create something new
• TSWBAT identify the consequences of not reusing, reycling, and conserving
• TSWBAT present their 3R folable to their table partner

Direct SOL Being Taught:

K.11           The student will investigate and understand that materials can be reused, recycled, and conserved. Key concepts include

a)  materials and objects can be used over and over again;

b)  everyday materials can be recycled; and

c)  water and energy conservation at home and in school helps ensure resources are available for future use.

Corresponding SOLs:

K.1             The student will demonstrate an understanding of scientific reasoning, logic, and the nature of science by planning and conducting investigations in which

a)  basic characteristics or properties of objects are identified by direct observation;

b)  observations are made from multiple positions to achieve different perspectives;

g)  a question is developed and predictions are made from one or more observations;

h)   observations are recorded;

K.10           The student will investigate and understand that change occurs over time and rates may be fast or slow. Key concepts include

a)  natural and human-made things may change over time; and

b)  changes can be observed and measured.

 

4. Written purpose: The purpose of this exercise is for students to observe the ways that materials can be reused, recycled, and conserved (reduced) through reading and real-life examples

Strategies/Activities:

• Anticipation Guide
• Prelearning Concept Check
• Picture walk of book 
• One strategy must be vocabulary!!!   

Preparation:

• Anticipation Guide (include T/F statements for TS to answer prior to reading)
• Prelearning Concept Check (list terms such as reduce, reuse, recycle & have the students put a check or minus relating to how familiar they are with the terms) ((THIS WOULD BE THE VOCAB SECTION))

Assistance:

• QTA relating to Michael Recycle and inferences from the book
• Mystery clue game: giving clues about “Litterbug Doug” and how “Michael Recycle” helps Doug learn how to recycle and why it’s important.
• DR-TA for WIKA???

Reflection:

Rallytable: TSW be asked: What is one way that we can recyle, reuse, or reduce something in our classroom?

*I am using this strategy because it will help the students to make a connection between the text and their personal lives. After reading the text, they'll be able to give examples of things from the book that they find in their own lives.

Think-Pair-Share: TSW how would you feel if we had a Litterbug Doug in our community? What are some things you could do to help Litterbug Doug understand the importance of recyling?

*I am using this strategy because it will help the students to gain ideas from other students and it will enable them to have a more thoughtful discussion after reading.

Evaluation:

• Create a foldable divided into 3 sections: recycle, reuse, reduce. Under each flap, they need to draw an example.

 

Learning Blog 3

I found chapter 4 of our reading, about the Assistance Phase of the PAR framework, to be a bit challenging for me to understand. I was getting confused about how each strategy truly fit into the PAR framework. Then, I realized that a lot of the strategies overlap in PAR and many of the strategies even include all aspects of PAR (such as the DR-TA). That being known, I still found it difficult to get through this chapter and understand each technique thoroughly. I found it hard to think of ways that I could adapt some of these strategies into my primary level classroom.

It was mentioned on page 81 that students felt more engaged and comfortable with a text after they spent class time reading it and discussing it with peers; however, the authors found that many reading materials were not conducive to provide this type of reading environment. I found this interesting because even if a text does not support this type of interaction, a teacher can still mold and interpret the text to fit her classroom learning styles in order for all of the students to comprehend successfully.

Page 83 mentioned the MARSI which is something that I had never heard about and had to look at the marginal glosses to understand better. One of the questions I had regarding this is what I could do if my students cannot read the questions or understand them? Is there another inventory that could be used for the lower grades (I’m thinking K & 1^st)? I understand why it is given and it seems like it would give a teacher great insight on learning the problem areas for her students’ comprehension.

Constructivism was another term brought up throughout the chapter and I’m not sure if I fully understand the concept. It seems as if it applies to readers/learners who are actively participating in their learning; not doing things out of rote memory.

There was an example on pages 86 &87 about constructivist learning regarding a little boy reading about an “oil lamp.” He did not know how to say the words and the teacher did not give him the correct pronunciation. It was said that after the reading, the teacher asked comprehension questions and one of the questions was how they used light in the cabin. The boy had a “light bulb” moment and realized that was the “oil lamp” referred to in the story. I’m not sure if I 100% agree with this technique. Wouldn’t this oil lamp vocabulary been spoken of during the P section of the PAR lesson? It seems like oil lamp would have been discussed when working with the students on their prior knowledge. In my opinion, there seems to be a disconnect here between the preparation phase and the assistance phase. I understand that the student was able to create his own conclusion by piecing together the clues, but it still seems like this should’ve been addressed in the preparation phase.

When the authors were explaining the DR-TA strategy on page 89 it was said that, “In fiction, the predictions themselves show whether the students are adequately comprehending the story.” I didn’t really understand this point because aren’t predictions made prior to reading the story? How can they be a reflection of comprehension if the story has been read yet?

Even though this was a challenging chapter for me to get through (perhaps it’s summer fever?!) I was still able to see some of the strategies that I could use in my classroom and implement in my PAR lesson plan assignment. I liked reading about the Jot Chart and QAR. I feel like the QAR strategy is very helpful for the students to become their own thinkers and be in control of what they learn and justify their reasonings.

Lesson Plan Assignment :: Preparation

There are a few ideas I have for incorporating the Preparation aspect for my PAR Lesson Plan Assignment to assess the students' prior knowledge:

- What-I-Know Activity (p. 64)
- Prelearning Concept Check (p. 61)
- Graphic Organizers (p. 68)
- Anticipation/Prediction Guides (p. 71)

Analogies for Chapter 3 :: Preparing

Taken from book: Preparing students to read is similar to preparing for a basketball game. The most amount of time is spent practicing and learning plays, whereas the least amount of time is spent playing the game. The time spent practicing and learning the plays is similar to learning decoding skills and fluency.






Taken from table group: Preparing students to read is similar to preparing to bake. It takes time to gather ingredients and learn the recipe rather than putting it in the oven to bake. Gathering the ingredients and learning the recipe is similar to taking picture walks and discussing predictions about the text.

Learning Blog 2

 

I found chapter three to be informative in understanding the importance of the preparation phase of the PAR lesson plan framework. In the beginning of the chapter, the author sets the stage by giving the reader facts from research conducted on literacy skills. I found it interesting, though not surprising, to read that, according to NAEP scores, 33% of 4^th graders and 25% of 8^th graders were reading below the basic level. I didn’t find this surprising because at my school there has been a huge push to increase literacy skills beginning in the lower grades. The upper-level elementary teachers have been finding that the students they are receiving lack the basic comprehension skills to read a text successfully.

It was also surprising to read on page 53 that “African American and Afro/Indo-Trini adolescents valued reading more than whites or adolescents of other ethnic groups.” On Wednesday I had spoken to our old reading specialist about the epidemic of boys and literacy. She said that it’s even worse among African American boys because of the lack of interest and the lack of books being published to their interest areas. I would be interested in reading more on how the authors gained this research.

The analogy between the basketball game and the preparation phase was helpful for me to understand the importance of the preparation phase in the PAR lesson plan. It was said that the actual playing of the game takes up the least amount of time; it’s the preparation that takes up the greatest amount of time. This will be helpful for me in my own classroom when preparing lessons. Now that I know this, I will spend more time in the prep phase of plan rather than on the assessment or the independent practice phases.

As a teacher, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on the fluency of my readers and how well they can comprehend a given text. The book, on page 58, said that “No matter how well-written a material is; if readers do not possess background knowledge or interest in the reading material, they will find it hard to read.” Unfortunately I haven’t given this idea a whole lot of thought previously. I assumed that if they can read the text, they can understand it. I’ve learned that their schema plays a very important role in how well they truly comprehend the material.

I was relieved to see that the authors addressed the issues that arise when dealing with prior knowledge. If a student has incorrect prior knowledge or limited prior knowledge, this can lead to gaps in their understanding. By directing the prior knowledge and using all of the ideas listed in the book, this will aid the students in correcting those two problem areas.

The 10 preparation activities presented in the book were helpful for me to see what I can use in my classroom and the ones that I am already using. The ones I am already using, I’ve found the reading helpful in allowing me to see ways that I can tweak my instruction. Two that I would like to use more of in my room is the anticipation guide and the prelearning concept check. These are two that I feel would be easy for my 6 & 7 year olds to understand and benefit from. Some that I use quite frequently is the graphic organizers and KWL charts. One that I am still unsure about and have questions for is the factstorming activity. I would like to learn more about this strategy.

I appreciated this chapter because it gave many real classroom examples and helped me to learn new ways to incorporate preparation activities in my room.

Learning Blog 1

I really enjoyed reading Chapter 2 of our book, Reading to Learn in the Content Areas. I appreciated the authors’ emphasis on the affective domain, calling attention to a child’s feelings and emotions and the roles that they play in a child’s learning. It was mentioned in the chapter that teachers “…concentrate solely on student achievement…as the criteria for success,” (p. 30). I must say that from my perspective, I disagree with this point. In my classroom, I really put a strong emphasis on the way my student’s feel, what they’re interested in, and their growth of self-esteem. I’m sure, however, that there are teachers that do rate their students’ academic success from the test scores and data they receive from assessments; case in point, the current SOL testing taking place in our area. I have seen the immense pressure on the 3-5 teachers whose student success is rated on the feedback from the tests. In this regard, I think it would be very beneficial for not just student achievement to be included when looking at school funding, but also the growths in the affective domain area for students. For instance, even schools that do not meet AYP or do not have a certain SOL pass rate but have strong growths in the affective domain, should be considered as a successful school.

This chapter also touched on the “brain-based learning” method. This is something that I’ve looked into to use in my classroom. I would have enjoyed this section being expanded more and having a bit of “real-life” classroom examples. That being said, I benefited from the 6 findings of brain-based learning (p. 40). From the little I’ve found on this topic previously, I’ve applied the concept of students interacting with the things they are learning about. I incorporate a lot of the “Kagan” methods in my room which allow my students to feed ideas off of each other and interact with different questioning techniques so that they find ownership in their learning. At our school we’re also encouraged to incorporate the higher-level questioning from Bloom’s Taxonomy. I’ve found that those questioning techniques are conducive to brain-based learning as well.

I was slightly surprised to read that there is somewhat an “epidemic” among boys and literacy. I would be very interested in reading and researching more about this topic. What I would want to know is when this trend begins. Right now, my highest readers are boys and they’re very interested in getting started in chapter books and wanting to read more.

I’ve found this chapter to be very informative and helpful! I’m looking forward to possibly researching one of these topics for my I-Search paper.  

Review of Chapter 1

All reviews come from the book: I. Richardson, J.S., Morgan, R.F., & Fleener, C. 2012. Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

First, I have benefited from reading this first chapter by coming to a more solid foundation concerning the term “literacy.” It is often thrown around in the circle of professionals I come in contact with daily; however, I have found that the term means different things to different people. Here, I have read that literacy encompasses vocabulary, comprehension, and study skills. It has a strong focus on becoming critical thinkers and essentially “learning how to learn.”

Something that caught my interest was the PDK poll taken in 2009 which found that most people cited feel as if schools are becoming less effective. However, Berliner, a psychologist, feels as if schools in the United States are far better off than they once were and that the problems existing in the schools today are a result of poverty, dysfunctional families, and poor health care (p. 4). One area of critique here is for the author to include Berliner’s reasoning as to how these three problems affect student learning. As an educator in an urban school district, I can see both sides of this thought. During my first year of teaching, I was struck by the teachers who clearly did not want to be in the teaching environment. On the other hand, I was encouraged by those who had been pushing hard to children for over 20 years. I have also felt the frustration of feeling all alone, solely responsible for a student’s learning because of the dysfunction in a family unit. I have come to understand that despite a student’s home-life or situation, I need to do all I can for the 8 hours that they are in my care.

I have been encouraged by the strategies listed in the “12 Principles for Effective Content Teachers” and I feel as if these will be beneficial for me to apply in my classroom. One principal that will affect me and my classroom teaching, one that I have not given much thought to, much to my shame, is principle #4: “Most language users are equipped with more than one version of their language.” While I only teach first grade and their language is still very moldable or pliable, I have expected them to come to the textbook reading able to understand the flow and syntax of the sentences. I have failed to see that most of the sentences and story lines are more than likely not written in their “local discourse.” The way I can apply this to my classroom is to come to a more complete understanding of my students’ out-of-school language by learning their personal experiences and prior knowledge (Principle #1).