I would love to see this as a controlled experiment: What if we traded the three hours total of small group centers rotations for reading and math for 1.5 hours of PE games/recess + 1.5 hours of direct instruction in phonics and math?
You could instantly cut the teachers’ class size in half by sending half the kids out to play, supervised by the omnipresent para-professionals for the first period, and then switching for the second half!
I have been thinking a lot about the structure of reading lessons and what contributes most to successful learning. In his book, "How We Learn"*, Stanislas Dehaene, a cognitive psychologist and neuroscientist, describes the BIG four contributors. He calls them "The Four Pillars of Learning":
1. Attention
2. Active Engagement
3. Error Feedback
4. Consolidation
Noise certainly disrupts all four of these pillars! But it's not just about noise.
We know from research that mastering complex skills like reading and writing requires a lot of PRACTICE. The amount of practice provided is sometimes referred to as "dosage". Dosage is typically measured in lesson frequency and duration. Lesson frequency and duration are a really bad proxies for the amount of practice.
But suppose instead of measuring it in lesson frequency and duration, suppose dosage was measured in response opportunities, similar to shots attempted in a basketball game. Directed to specific students, response opportunities facilitate attention and active engagement, provide opportunities for error feedback, and are the raw material for consolidation in memory.
It's interesting to think about how a teacher might best facilitate response opportunities and manage "The Four Pillars of Learning" using different methods of classroom organization. For example, how might the "pillars" work in small group "stations" compared to in a whole-class lesson with the teacher reading aloud and leading discussion?
I am a retired educator with experience ranging from preschoolers with multiple disabilities to teaching preservice teachers at the university level. Looking back, I've probably tried most systems of teaching reading. Today, I still struggle to identify a more successful and sensible way to teach children to read. I wonder, with the assistance of technology, if we could individualize the instruction of basic reading. There will always be a few children who do not fit into any reading group or system. Most systems have values. If we could take the best of each and form a new whole, we might find some answers.
I would love to see this as a controlled experiment: What if we traded the three hours total of small group centers rotations for reading and math for 1.5 hours of PE games/recess + 1.5 hours of direct instruction in phonics and math?
You could instantly cut the teachers’ class size in half by sending half the kids out to play, supervised by the omnipresent para-professionals for the first period, and then switching for the second half!
So many good points in this article!
I have been thinking a lot about the structure of reading lessons and what contributes most to successful learning. In his book, "How We Learn"*, Stanislas Dehaene, a cognitive psychologist and neuroscientist, describes the BIG four contributors. He calls them "The Four Pillars of Learning":
1. Attention
2. Active Engagement
3. Error Feedback
4. Consolidation
Noise certainly disrupts all four of these pillars! But it's not just about noise.
We know from research that mastering complex skills like reading and writing requires a lot of PRACTICE. The amount of practice provided is sometimes referred to as "dosage". Dosage is typically measured in lesson frequency and duration. Lesson frequency and duration are a really bad proxies for the amount of practice.
But suppose instead of measuring it in lesson frequency and duration, suppose dosage was measured in response opportunities, similar to shots attempted in a basketball game. Directed to specific students, response opportunities facilitate attention and active engagement, provide opportunities for error feedback, and are the raw material for consolidation in memory.
It's interesting to think about how a teacher might best facilitate response opportunities and manage "The Four Pillars of Learning" using different methods of classroom organization. For example, how might the "pillars" work in small group "stations" compared to in a whole-class lesson with the teacher reading aloud and leading discussion?
* https://cogscisci.wordpress.com/2021/08/22/cogscisci-book-review-how-we-learn-the-new-science-of-education-and-the-brain-by-stanislas-dehaene/
I am a retired educator with experience ranging from preschoolers with multiple disabilities to teaching preservice teachers at the university level. Looking back, I've probably tried most systems of teaching reading. Today, I still struggle to identify a more successful and sensible way to teach children to read. I wonder, with the assistance of technology, if we could individualize the instruction of basic reading. There will always be a few children who do not fit into any reading group or system. Most systems have values. If we could take the best of each and form a new whole, we might find some answers.