Thinking about Key Details

As the first cluster of standards for both literature and informational text fall under the umbrella of key ideas and details, it is clear that they are important concepts. But what exactly are the key details students should adhere to? In literature, the elements of narratives are delineated for primary grades, along with questioning. However, aren’t the details students need to highlight relative to the task? If students are trying to unpack the characters, then perhaps the most significant details would be different from those that depict the setting. And while significant plot points should reveal elements of the character, they may not give a complete picture. This got me thinking about how to teach key details so that we understand the gist of what we read, but also have clarity in dissecting different elements of what we read. Although the standards do not mention minor details, students must also be able to distinguish between the details that represent the crux of what they are examining and the cursory details that enhance the story. Perhaps we can examine stories with a whole-part-whole approach. What are the key details that disclose the plot? What details illuminate the characters? What details paint the setting? Which details support the theme? Were these details related to the plot, characters, setting, or all? Can we pull from those key details to determine the theme? Which details are key to answering text-dependent questions? Perhaps through our process of close reading, we can read for each purpose, map out the important details for each area, and then analyze how they cross over. Perhaps then, we could all develop more clarity! Below is an idea of how to organize a class chart examining these different elements. Of course, there are still key details to think about for informational text, but I will save that for another day!

Examining Key Details

Title of Story:

Focus	Plot/Events	Setting	Characters	Theme	Questions
Key Details

Understanding Genre

Common Core explicitly outlines different, yet overlapping standards for both literature and informational text. This is a significant change in focus, demanding us to evaluate how the two differ, how they overlap, and what types of text we are being called to use. The literature standards within Common Core relate to fictional works. Traditionally, we have spent a heavy emphasis on narrative stories. However, the multiple standards explicitly outline the use of poetry . The focus of using complex text allows us to open the doors to a variety of literature that will demand students to inspect the content and structure in depth. Fictional literature may include narratives, poems, letters, dramas, plays, and essays. Literature that is nonfiction is addressed in the informational text standards, and may include biographies, recipes, how-to books, facts books and so forth. Artwork and illustrations should also be examined as they can reveal information or a story.

Therefore, while we are teaching standards for literature and informational text that mirror each other, we must also be cognizant of strategically teaching the genres as they require different mindsets for reading. As shown in the table below, these genres have different text structures and features, which overlap and need to be made explicit for students. Although the literature and informational text standards are similar in many ways, the way students approach reading should depend on the type of text they are reading. A narrative is a story. A poem is a written piece with a sense of musicality and entrenched with literary devices. Dramas and plays involve conflict and are created with a performance in mind. Expository text tells information. Generally the primary purpose of a narrative is to entertain, the purpose of poetry is to describe, the purpose of a drama or play is to entertain, and the primary purpose of expository is to inform. Therefore, it is critical that educators explicitly teach students how to identify the genre they are reading and keep track of information based on that text’s structures and features.

Analysis of Genres

Genre	Literature: Narratives	Literature: Poetry	Literature: Drama/Plays	Informational Text: Expository
Definition	Story	A piece written with a sense of musicality	A story that is intended for performing that focuses on character dialogue & conflict	Non-fiction, informational text used to explain, describe, or inform
General Author’s Purpose	Entertain	Describe	Entertain	Inform
Structure	Beginning, Middle, End Paragraphs	Stanzas Can take on a shape	Beginning, Middle, End Dialogue	Description Sequence Compare/Contrast Cause/Effect Question/Answer Paragraphs
Features	Story Elements	Line Breaks, White Space	Story Elements	Topic & Supporting Details
Descriptive Literary Tools	Poetry features literary tools, however, they can be used in all types of Fictional Literature. These tools include rhythm, rhyme, repetition, alliteration, onomatopoeia, similes, metaphors, sensory images etc			Generally not used

Why Change?

Reading is the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among the reader’s existing knowledge, the information suggested by the written language, and the context of the reading situation. (Michigan State Board of Education, 2002)

When you reflect upon your childhood reading instruction, what stands out? Was it memorable? Exciting? Meaningful? Did you love to read and devour books? Did you know how to grapple with difficult text? Did anyone show you how to get deeper into the text? Did you spend time exploring the depth and wonders of stories? Unfortunately for me, the answer to all these questions was no. I don’t recall reading being challenging or purposeful beyond the task at hand. I remember independent reading tasks where we plowed our way through the SRA leveled text box. We started at a specific color of story, read the stories and answered the questions, and when we got enough right, then we moved on to the next color. This was of course self-corrected with an answer key, self-monitored, and self-reported. I remember getting stuck on brown, and being frustrated that I was on a level while others were passing me. I also remember eventually cheating to move on. I didn’t have the comprehension strategies to help me when things got tough, but I did have an answer key. I also remember that we did have reading groups, and I was stuck in the middle one and couldn’t get out. I always felt I belonged in the highest group, but didn’t have a way of moving.

I am sharing this story because I often hear people lament about change. “Why do we need to change education? It worked for me.” And while yes, I am technically a success story because I did stay in school and become an educator myself, I disliked school growing up. I loved my teachers, but counted down the years until I would be finished. Ironically, I have now learned that I will never be finished. Now I do love learning, but when I was a child, school was not about learning, but rather about finishing. I was not a critical thinker, and it was not demanded of me. If I regurgitated what was taught, then I was awarded good grades. I never thought about reading comprehension until I became a teacher. Reading is so internal, it is just what you do, or so I thought.

So much research has come out about reading in the past 20 years, which has often been lost in implementation in the last 10 years due to scripted lessons. Many teachers across America have been forced into following set programs in published textbooks, rather than examining the needs of the students in their classrooms. These texts, such as Open Court, give little time to differentiation, reading aloud, or access to higher level texts. Instead of student learning being the focus of each reading lesson, the script created by someone far outside the classroom dictates what should be taught. Clearly this is counterintuitive to what teaching should be. The strongest supported reading program by the government, Reading First, is another example of a highly scripted program. These types of programs were developed based on the recommendations of a highly researched based practices found in the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) Report from 2000. Scripted lessons became the result of the NRP, although many flaws have since emerged from the summary of the findings within the report (Yearian, 2011). Since implementation of Reading First in thousands of classrooms, it has been found that while phonics skills improved, comprehension did not. (Gamse et al., 2008).

With the adoption of Common Core Standards, there is a much needed refocusing back on reading comprehension. Teachers are encouraged to examine their students’ needs within school sites and develop instruction that will be most meaningful for those students. For many teachers, this will be a huge shift from the current culture and practices within their schools and districts. While you may or may not agree with how Common Core came about, and how it was written, it seems to me that some change could really do us good.

References

Gamse, B.C., Jacob, R.T, Horst, M., Boulay, B., and Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First Impact Study Final Report Executive Summary (NCEE 2009-4139). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Yearian, S. J. (2011). Empowerment of Teachers and Students through Innovative Literacy Practices. (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3474300).

What is Number Sense?

Early in my teaching, I was able to identify when students struggled with numbers. I didn’t have the sophistication or necessary tools to pinpoint exactly where the problem originated, or the gaps that needed filling, but it was glaringly obvious as children dragged their way through math, seeming to fall further behind daily, that something was not right. Because I didn’t have the understanding of mathematics and how children think, my only support for these children was grasping at straws. More practice and more games didn’t improve their number sense, but made the parents, children, and me feel like were trying, and perhaps making some marginal improvement.

Over the years, I have had conversations with many teachers about number sense and place value. What does it mean? What does it look like? What can children do and say when they understand numbers? What do we do when children struggle with numbers? As it turns out, this is a complex topic, that many feel ill-equipped to answer, and researchers struggle to find a common definition. Many teachers rely on the place value skills enumerated in textbooks and older standards. But, does that really mean a child understands numbers? If you teach a child how to compare, order, and round numbers, does this mean they have mastered number sense?

There are a variety of definitions of number sense in the field of mathematics. NCTM (2012) defines number sense as follows:

“Number sense refers to a person’s general understanding of number and operations along with the ability to use this understanding in flexible ways to make mathematical judgments and to develop useful strategies for solving complex problems (Burton, 1993; Reys, 1991). Researchers note that number sense develops gradually, and varies as a result of exploring numbers, visualizing them in a variety of contexts, and relating them in ways that are not limited by traditional algorithms (Howden, 1989).”

McInstosh, Reys, and Reys (1992) defined number sense as “a propensity for and ability to use numbers and quantitative methods as a means of communicating, processing and interpreting information. It results in an expectation that numbers are useful and that mathematics has a certain regularity (makes sense).” They further delineated their definition with the clear framework detailing number sense below, with the understanding that overlap occurs.

Number Sense

Key Components	Student Understandings
Knowledge and facility of numbers	A sense of orderliness of numbers (place value,and relationships and ordering between and among number types)Multiple representations for numbers (symbolic, equivalencies, decomposing, and comparisons) Sense of relative and absolute magnitude of numbers (comparing to physical and mathematical referent) System of benchmarks (mathematical and personal)
Knowledge and facility with operations	The effect of operations (whole numbers, fractions, decimals)Mathematical properties Relationship between operations
Applying knowledge of and facility with numbers and operations to computational settings	Relationship between problem context and computation (exact vs. approximate)Awareness that multiple strategies exist (invent, apply, and select strategies, determining efficiency) Inclination to utilize an efficient representation and/or method Inclination to review data and result for sensibility (reasonableness)

Framework for Number Sense (McIntosh et al. 1992)

McIntosh et al. make it clear that number sense is not just about knowing what to do, but rather, must be entrenched in what makes sense. Thinking must be involved at all levels of working with numbers, and therefore, numbers and procedures cannot be taught in isolation. This framework very much supports the goals of Common Core.

The goals within Common Core, NCTM, and McInstosh et al. are further supported by the goals of mathematical proficiency as defined by The National Research Council. The Council determined five interwoven and interdependent strands of mathematical proficiency. In their report, Adding It Up Helping Children Learn Mathematics (2001), they clarify the importance of depth, clarity, precision, flexibility, and reflection in student thinking as delineated by the strands below:

• conceptual understanding—comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations, and relations
• procedural fluency—skill in carrying out procedures
 flexibly, accurately, efficiently, and appropriately
• strategic competence—ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical problems
• adaptive reasoning—capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation, and justification
• productive disposition—habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy.

If we reflect upon how number sense is defined, then what does number sense look like? Students with strong number sense can subitize easily, understand magnitude (relative size of numbers), have established cardinality, can strategically decompose (break down numbers) to make computation easier, understand the importance of ten within our number system, understand number relationships, and have proportional reasoning. They determine the efficiency of their strategies, the reasonableness of their answers, and understand the application and context within which operations are used. These concepts cannot be taught in one lesson or unit. They are ongoing experiences students need as part of their math education throughout the grade levels. When students emerge from classrooms focused on these concepts, they come to understand that math is about relationships, not memorization, and flexibility rather than rigid rules.

Therefore, number sense entails far more than the traditional chapter on place value. Proficiency cannot be measured by a skill set, or regurgitation of memorized procedures and rules. Students need dynamic experiences with numbers. They need to be able to dive into the depth of numbers, explore their uses, their flexibility, their application, their differences, their nuances, and their reason. And, while numbers are both abstract and concrete, they need to be seen as something that makes sense. Ultimately, learning mathematics must be with understanding. When we present math as a series of rules and explain to children how to follow a procedure step-by-step, we have actually robbed them of the opportunity to develop both number sense and mathematical proficiency. As this is how our system is designed, many children receive passing grades throughout school, only to falter later on, finding there is no solid foundation to support more advanced mathematics.  Common Core is calling us to change our practices so that children emerge from the classroom as mathematical thinkers that demonstrate the ability to adapt to the ever-changing world awaiting them, rather than as mini-calculators with an isolated set of memorized skills.

Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up : helping children learn mathematics / Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council ; Jeremy Kilpatrick, Jane Swafford, and Bradford Findell, editors. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, c2001.

Mcintosh, A., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1992). A Proposed Framework for Examining Basic Number Sense. For The Learning Of Mathematics, (3), 2.

NCTM (2012). Illuminations. Cited on December 30, 2012 from http://illuminations.nctm.org/Reflections_preK-2.html.

Text Structures and Features

When I was growing up, there was little thought to the type of text we were reading. I followed assignments, read the stories in the primer, and answered questions. It did not occur to me that we should read differently for different types of text. To be honest, this thought did not occur to me until I became a teacher, and more specifically, when I first taught third grade. I remember doing a STAR practice test the week before doomsday (the actual STAR test), and my students performed horribly on an informational passage. The questions seemed really difficult unless you read the passage for the structure of expository text. Once you pulled out the supporting details each paragraph detailed about the topic, the answers were clear. This required the reader to identify the type of text, understand how the text was organized, examine the relationships within and among the paragraphs, and then relate them to the questions being asked. From then on out, I made understanding genres part of my reading instruction along with learning to distinguish among them, and determining what types of organizers would help the reader unpack the text. Common Core has clearly identified the need for students to understand diverse genres and their elements. This emphasis seems very appropriate to me given my experiences with working with students. While the fact that we have two separate categories of standards to elucidate the importance of explicitly teaching types of text, today I want to look at standard 5.

Craft and Structure: College and Career Readiness Anchor Standard 5:

Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole. (CCSS)

Students are expected to know how different types of texts are organized, distinguish among types of genres, and determine how the separate parts relate to the whole. When examining standard 5 for grades K-5 for literature, the types of texts mentioned include stories, poems, dramas, and prose. Traditionally, these categories were easily distinguished by stories/prose being in paragraph format, poems being written in stanzas, and dramas including a speaker before the sentence. Modern writers certainly blur these lines and can make classifying text more challenging. However, for the elementary classroom, teachers can easily select text that keeps these categories clear to build basic building blocks. The venn diagram  examines some of the basic features that distinguish poetry and narratives. Dramas are similar to narratives except that the organization is related to the speaker rather than paragraph format and that white space may be used to signify the change in characters.

Standard five for informational texts specifically examines text features and structures. Students are expected to differentiate among the different types of texts as early as kindergarten. Throughout the grade levels, students increasingly become more responsible for understanding the structure of texts, the significance of their impact on the development of the text, and the dissection of the relationships between parts, wholes, and the text progression. The set of differentiated task cards to the left support instruction and independent practice of expository text features for primary grades. These skills are essential building blocks since students in fourth and fifth grades need to be able to identify the type of text organization or structure– i.e. cause and effect, problem/solution, comparison, etc). Although some literature standards do not examine the relationship between narratives to expository text, this distinction is later made in the informational texts standards. Therefore, it is critical that students understand the features and structures that distinguish different types of texts from a basic to more complex level throughout the grades.

So how does standard 5 impact our instruction in the classroom? Students need to analyze texts from an early age, identify features that genres have in common. Primary teachers may begin the year by having students sort books as they read them aloud, then delve into the library and examine how the books can be sorted by genre. Text identification should become part of every story that is read. Perhaps instead of scaffolding the story before reading, the class can examine the text structures and features to determine what they are reading for. What type of organizer would work to keep track of our thinking about a text? What can we expect to find in the text? Thinking about comprehension strategy instruction, this relates to predictions. Rather than just predicting events, readers can predict the type of text they will be reading. Readers of all grade levels will benefit from examining texts closely to understand and determine the features and structures to improve comprehension. And, as with all vocabulary, the language of the discipline needs to be part of their every day discussions so that it becomes how they articulate their ideas.

What does understanding look like?

In education, determining what understanding looks like is one of our biggest quandaries.  We examine learning goals from multiple perspectives, and with our given resources, often fall short. Learning is complex, and therefore, understanding is too. It is much easier to determine proficiency in skills and rote tasks. Often we accept mastery of skills to be synonymous with understanding, and this is where I would contest is one of our greatest shortfalls in education. It is far easier to see if a child gets the answers right or wrong, than if the child understands the how and why. When I first began my journey into the teaching profession, I was asked to take a proficiency test in math to determine if I was current enough in my skills to bypass a more current math methods course. It was the first time anyone ever asked me to explain why and how an algorithm for regrouping worked. I thought it was really strange at the time. My whole life, I never questioned the “whys” of math. Of course, I am a rule follower, so I did very well. I did not need to understand, I just had to keep to the rules. My husband is my opposite. The rules never made sense and he had his own way of thinking about numbers that did not fit into the rules. Therefore, he did not do well in his mathematics courses. Guess who is the better mathematician? It wasn’t until I stopped “teaching” my students and started listening to how they thought that I truly began to understand mathematics. And, learning to teach in a way where I was the real learner has proven to be a far more complex and rewarding methodology than any textbook I have seen.