Interactive Read Alouds...like a heartbeat?

Just got back from Boston...
(training October 16, 17, 18)

During a discussion about interactive read alouds, one classmate described them as "the heartbeat of literacy instruction." What wonderful wording...

Now I'm pondering the meaning...

First, consider the question: how might the read aloud qualify as the "heartbeat"? Well, it's the common text that students and a teacher experience together, it's coupled with shared class conversation, and it also provides opportunities for teachers to model a think aloud for the class. Those characteristics seem to align it with powerful positioning in a classroom.

The text must be well-chosen material. It must be engaging - to both the teacher (who exhibits enthusiasm towards the read aloud) and students (who must find it intriguing enough to want to focus on it). Without these "musts," it would fall flat on engaging students, the teacher, or both. (Bet we've all experienced the dreadful class where material - perceived as irrelevant - is meticulously poured over - ugh!) Learning might take on a "negative increase" under such circumstances. ~sorry to dwell on the negative for a second~

Therefore, I am going to agree with my Lesley colleague; the pulse of relevant, shared, engaging material can be the "heartbeat" of a classroom lesson.

To extend the metaphor, consider this pulse infusing the rest of a lesson. The engaging text and discussion of a read aloud will influence students' next thoughts, comments, and writing, and the teacher's thinking aloud will provide moments of meta-cognition that will deepen any lesson.

I am sure I haven't yet articulated all the benefits of this methodology, but I am beginning to see its powerful instructional potential.

How Many Data Points Does It Take To Figure Out A Teenager???

Worked quite intensely in the past two weeks analyzing numbers/data on students. (Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a true numbers, girl), but I'm on this intense new learning curve...

The frustration at times is in the inconsistency of data. Sometimes students look to be achieving quite well, and then the next assessment/data point shows they are really low. The follow-up question has become - did they take the test seriously? I'm beginning to believe that May data is not a real good indicator of a student's ability. At that point they are so "schooled" out and over assessed that I think some just "tank" that assessment. Stinkers!

A new catch-phrase around the high school...are they a "can't do it or won't do it" kid?

So, you keep adding data points, and you believe some points more than others.

It's messy, it's new, but it's still more than we've ever done to apply data to students' next instructional steps.

I can now look back and see all the seeds planted long ago that got our school to this point (kudos to Chad and Nancy)! I can also see an intriguing new direction for learning at RLHS.

At the end, some kids have been targeted, and quality specific instruction is beginning. Meeting with Guided Reading teachers on Thursday... probably will be the focus of my next blog. : )

That or next week's training in Boston... watch out Irene Fountas - we're comin' to learn from ya!