Common Core Shifts: Theories and Research in Literacy
Three Instructional Shifts in English Language Arts The greatest challenges within the newly designed Common Core State Standards are related to the three instructional shifts in English Language Arts. The first shift focuses on students building knowledge through content - rich informational texts, thus emphasizing the importance of students learning from what they read. The second shift relates to students providing evidence from the text in their reading and writing, thus highlighting the significance of students providing text dependent answers. The third and final shift defines the importance of students interacting with complex texts and the academic vocabulary within the text.
As a student in the course Theories and Research in Literacy, I had the opportunity to delve into the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and increase my understanding of the rigorous and relevant standards. As a lifelong learner, it was my goal to combine my understanding of the three instructional shifts in the Common Core Curriculum for English Language Arts with my understanding of literacy theories and models to design and implement a literacy lesson that was rigorous and relevant for my students. Further, it was my hope to design and implement a literacy lesson that would actively engage my students in the reading of informational texts.
Literacy Theories and the Common Core State Standards: A Correlation Prior to my experience as a student in Theories and Research in Literacy, I had never considered the significance of the Reader Response Theory in relation to my literacy instruction. However, it is now clear to me that the Reader Response Theory correlates with my belief in the Schema Theory. According to Louise Rosenblatt, "all readers have individualized reading experiences because each reader has a unique background schemata," that contributes to their understanding of a text (Tracey and Morrow, 2012, p. 65). Because each child enters my classroom with a unique schemata, I must recognize that their reading experience will be individualized and unique as well. Another key component of the Reader Response Theory is the two distinctive responses that students have to text: efferent and aesthetic. As an elementary educator, it is critical for me to understand that "the purposes for reading informational texts and reading literature are very different, and thus the responses that I elicit from my students must be very different as well (Tracey and Morrow, 2012, p. 66). When implementing a lesson focused on informational text, I have learned how to elicit efferent, or fact based responses from my students. In my Common Core Connections lesson, I focused on promoting efferent responses from my students because they were reading a complex informational text, and thus reading to learn. For example, while reading the text Giant Pandas by Kira Freed, I asked my students "What characteristics of a baby panda make it vulnerable to predators?" and "What was the author's purpose for writing the section titled Food and Feeding?" The answers that my students provided illustrated that they were able to read for meaning and explain their understanding with evidence from the text. More importantly, the questions that I created and the answers that my students gave allowed me to clarify my understanding of the two distinct responses that students have to texts.
How Did I Actively Engage My Students in Reading Informational Text? Although it was challenging, I was able to actively engage my students in reading informational text by focusing my instruction on the three instructional shifts in English Language Arts. Specifically, I was able to build my students knowledge through reading content - rich informational text. Further, I was able to teach my students how to actively construct meaning from the text as well as how to read texts for different purposes. For example, my students were able to "read carefully and produce evidence in their verbal and written responses," that demonstrated their understanding of the content (Fisher and Frey, 2012, p.70). Finally, I was able to actively engage my students in the reading of two increasingly complex informational texts that contributed to their knowledge and understanding of the content.
Common Core Connections Two - Tiered Lesson Plan: RI.2.1, RI.2.5, RI.2.8, RI.2.10, SL.2.2