Writing to Learn and Dedicated Reading Time
Researchers have argued that writing is thinking (Dean, 2006), yet members of the LLT reported that students at Western did very little writing. For much of the conversation about writing, the LLT focused on the role of the English teachers. The two English teachers on the committee pushed back, saying that writing had to be a requirement in all classes. The debate about writing continued among members of the LLT without a decision. Following the lunch break, we asked members of the team to summarize in writing the arguments presented thus far for and against writing as a school-wide initiative. We asked them to talk with a partner from a different content area about what they had written. During the debriefing session, we clarified that writing to learn was not process writing and that teachers were not expected MBT Shoe to grade the papers for spelling, grammar, or mechanics. Instead, they could use their students’ writing as a way to check for understanding and to plan instruction. The LLT did eventually reach consensus about writing to learn and recommended that students write to learn every day in every class.
The final component of the plan was dedicated reading time. The current school schedule at the time of our visit provided an optional time for reading that could alternatively be used as a study hall or homework center. Members of the LLT reported that the majority of teachers allowed students to read, do their homework, or talk quietly during this time. In acknowledging the importance of reading volume (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003), the committee members decided that students should “just read” for 20 minutes of every school day (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). These four instructional routines were identified by the literacy leadership team from a host of possible ways for engaging secondary students in content literacy work. Given the block schedule at Western, teachers participated weekly in a 60-minute professional development session during their preparation periods. Historically, these sessions focused on small learning communities, test preparation, guidance and counseling, and the like. The LLT requested that at least three of the four meetings per month be dedicated to the literacy plan.
Given our commute to the school, we could not be the primary providers of weekly professional development. Instead, the literacy peer coach would have to coordinate the sessions, and members of the LLT would MBT Shoes engage their colleagues. We developed a schedule of topics for the remainder of the school year, and members of the LLT signed up to lead the sessions. As part of the plan, teachers would be compensated for observing one another teach during their prep periods. These peer observations were voluntary, and teachers could be paid once per month for peer observations. The literacy coach would also conduct feedback sessions aligned with the literacy plan, and we established a classroom observation and coaching schedule for times that one of us would be on campus. The LLT understood that job-embedded training, teacher-led professional development, and collegial conversations about teaching and learning, as well as coaching and feedback, were required if these school-wide instructional routines were going to become permanent features of the school (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Processing your request, Please wait....
