Advanced search

Read teacher Amanda Frater's thoughts on what she achieved in the session and an analysis of the teacher-student interaction by literacy expert Peter Johnston. Peter (Ph.D. University of Illinois) is Professor of Education and Chair of the Reading Department at State University of New York at Albany. His position as an advocate for teachers and students developed from his early career teaching primary school in New Zealand. His many publications include Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning (Stenhouse 2004), Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment (Stenhouse 1997), andRunning Records: A Self-Tutoring Guide (Stenhouse 2000).

Amanda Frater's reflections
I think modelling and thinking aloud in the whole-class shared writing sessions was powerful for the students as I was the one doing the thinking and revealing how I was making language choices. Students participated in this process helped them to make the links between oral and written language and extended their vocabulary.

My recent shift in thinking was the realisation that I needed to break the learning into manageable chunks: quality versus quantity. It is important for the learning to be manageable so that the students keep control of the task and the learning and don't feel that they must write, say, a whole page. This was particularly important for the target students. Therefore I worked with these students in phases,identifying descriptive vocabulary and then composing a sentence. It helped Eric to maintain control of his writing, and I was pleased about this. 

I also realised the importance of helping students to clarify their thinking before focusing on the selection of important language choices. The broad focus for their learning was to understand how writers construct text. That 'grey bit in the middle' is the hardest for teachers. You can identify next steps, but knowing how to get there is the major challenge. I had assumed that, once they got their ideas, they could write them down. But I saw that while the discussion had been good, it wasn't reflected in their subsequent writing. I realized that they needed a bridge first, to express their ideas and record them, then to construct the ideas into sentence form.

Eric required lots of prompting and careful, directed questions to help him focus his thinking. I was trying to help him identify the best choices and uncover his reasons behind those language choices.

At the beginning we were probably going around in circles a bit so I was reminding him of the word choices he made in the previous lesson, where he had described the sounds and stated that being at his Grandmother's place made him feel safe. However, he was continuing to feed in a whole string of new ideas and he would have kept going. I knew he needed to refocus as he still hadn't really established why his Grandmother's place was special to him. In the previous lesson, he had highlighted the sound of the hail on the roof. I felt it would be helpful for him to imagine himself there, so he could really think about what it was like being inside and hearing the hail on the roof, and be able to express his feelings. That's why I helped him make the connection. 

He still wasn't able to express exactly why he felt safe there, nor was he able to articulate the significance of the hail, so I modelled how I thought I would feel inside when it was hailing. He picked up quickly on my thinking aloud and linked the idea of feeling safe to what we had previously constructed as a group and recorded on the chart. Without my realising it, he was trying all the time to link what I was asking him to visualise to what was already described in his writing on the chart. He then described what it could be like if he was outside as a way of providing a reason for his choice of words 'safe and comfortable'. 

At the end I asked the whole group to respond as readers to Eric's writing, as making language choices that would give the reader a strong image was our learning intention. In retrospect, it may have been better to focus the question on language choices rather than on generating new ideas, which took Eric onto yet another new idea. However, Thomas' question and the way he picked up on the visual support - adding in 'and comfortable' on the chart would have triggered his thinking -was probably of value too. 

Peter Johnson's comments
Teacher:What I want you to do now, Eric, is think about why is this place special to you? How do you feel when you are sitting in the lounge listening to these sounds?
I find that articulating why something is special to me can be a difficult task. I wonder how much access Eric has to why his grandma's house feels special. I wonder whether 'what makes being at your grandma's special to you' might turn Eric's attention to the events and experiences rather than the logic. Once he has assembled these he might be able to show rather than tell why it is special to him.
Turning attention to Eric's feelings and putting him in the situation is a good way to explore the specifics. Amanda says 'these sounds' which indicates there has been more conversation before this about details of his grandma's house. 

Eric: I feel, like, happy.

Teacher: Why do you feel happy?

Eric: Um, because, there Im just, like, by myself, with my Grandma. Its like. I get to, like, think what to do, what I can do, like, the next day or something?
I wonder what would happen here if Amanda asked Eric to say more about that.

Teacher: Yesterday, or the day before I remember you saying to me that you felt quite safe. Why do you feel safe?
This positions Eric as an important person. His teacher actually listens to him and remembers what he has to say.
Normally I think 'Why?' is a useful prompt because it helps kids think through the logic of events. I am less sure of its value here because it might be asking the child to unpack something he has no access to, like asking why someone likes chocolate.

Eric: Um, because I go there a lot. I feel better there. I feel comfortable there.

Teacher: Oh, I like that word 'comfortable'. So, Eric, you've told me that when you go to your grandmother's you feel safe and comfortable. I'm going to circle those words. Can you tell the group why you feel safe and comfortable at your grandmother's?
This comment turns the children's attention to words and the idea of savouring them and choosing interesting ones. I am intrigued by the fact that the word 'comfortable' turns up a couple of other times in the transcripts, perhaps because the kids' attention is turned toward that word rather than to words more generally. I wonder how to expand to that larger view of words. Perhaps showing why we like a particular word (images, mouth feel, etc.) and by pointing to words like this often?
The question is useful in that it leaves open the possibility that he says that he can't.
Again, saying why can be difficult to articulate.

Eric: Because I go there a lot and, um, I feel safe there, like, I feel good.

Teacher: OK, can you imagine yourself sitting in your grandmother's house on a day where it's hailing. Does the hail somehow make you feel safe and comfortable?
This directs his attention to imagine himself into the situation. It should be good for getting to specifics.
Just being in his grandma's house makes him feel safe and comfortable. The hail changes the course of this conversation away from Eric's grandma's house and his experience and moves it towards danger and so forth for the next 16 turns.

Eric: Yeah. 

Teacher: Why?
Again, 'why do you feel this way?' is often a hard question.

Eric: 'Cause, um, I don't know'.

Teacher: When I'm inside and I can hear the rain or the hail on the roof, it does feel safe because you'll know - you know that you're inside, and you're not outside where you can get really wet, and you're in quite a warm environment.
I think this is a useful way of bringing Amanda's experience alongside Eric's. (I, personally, love this feeling of comfort too -especially the hail or rain on the tin roof.) I think the usefulness is in showing that you have the same sort of feelings but with other situations.
The language shifts from I to you. This should still be an 'I' story so that it doesn't impose it on Eric but simply offers a connection.

Eric: Because if I was outside I might get hurt, because if it drops, like, really hard like, um, as it gets heavier.
Eric has taken on explaining the hail experience rather than his grandmother's place experience.

Teacher: OK.

Eric:It, like, cause it's like ice cubes are kind of big, and they could hit you if they fall from a far, from a high distance, maybe it could hurt you.

Teacher: So you're introducing this idea of danger.
This language keeps the authority with Eric -even though it is not Eric who introduced this idea of danger. Notice how readily he picks up ownership of it in these next lines. The other kids, like Thomas, have bought into it too.

Eric: Yeah! 

Teacher: So when you're in your grandmother's house you have that?

Eric: Yeah, so it's safer inside, that's how.

Thomas: And it's not so dangerous.

Teacher: OK.

Eric: Yeah.

Teacher: So, could we say you're away from danger?
Asking permission to use particular words to represent the experience and including it not as Eric's choice but as a group activity -which it is -encourages the group to be included in this decision (though the transcript doesn't show whether this happens). It also keeps the writing choice conditional. It would be good here to offer a choice of words so that they have to make a decision regarding the value of a specific choice. 
The choice of 'we' offers support to Eric in making the decision, but also takes some of his authority away. But this may be appropriate in this case since, with the addition of the hail, it is no longer exactly his story.

Eric: Yeah.

Teacher: If I was reading your piece of writing, I'd be wondering, if you said that you were safe and comfortable at your grandmother's house, I'd want to find out why and you just gave me the reason. You said the reason you feel that way is that you're escaping from danger. 
The conditional at the beginning is a way to introduce an imaginary reader. It allows overriding the fact that Amanda now knows this stuff and no longer needs it as a reader. However, when possible, I think the personal response  - when I read this, I think - is more powerful because it draws on and builds a relationship of authority.
I'd want to find out- builds the connection between readers - expectations and needs, and writers' choices.
Repeating and attributing ('you said') again builds authority. I suspect, though, that this won't ring fully true for Eric.

Teacher:So, as a group looking at this piece of writing, what other questions do you have for Eric about being at his grandmother's house? Have you got a question, Thomas?
This opening phrase establishes as given that the group has a collective identity and that the group is attending to the piece of writing. It is given and therefore not really able to be contested.
The question invites the group to explore Eric's experience of being at his grandmother's house which is the real topic.

Thomas:Yeah, um, you know how he says that he feels comfortable, and that it's familiar to him? Um, does he often go there cause he wants to be with his Nana, or does he just go there cause he finds it real special?
What an interesting question. Thomas is asking him whether the specialness is about the place or about his grandmother. Notice how he is directing the question not to Eric, but to the teacher who must then give permission to Eric to answer the question. He then responds to Amanda, not Thomas.

Teacher: OK, do you have an answer to that?

Eric: Um, yes, I feel it's to visit my Nana and give her some company, because she lives by herself.

Teacher: OK.

Eric: So, yeah, and it feels - it's special to me going there.

Teacher:OK, so we're starting to find out some more ideas. I might put down that you're giving your grandmother company, because I think that's an important idea. Good question, Thomas.
This does open the possibility of bad questions which will deter some kids from asking them in case they offer a bad one. An alternative would be to explain how the question helped Eric with his writing.

Read teacher Amanda Frater's thoughts on what she achieved in the session and an analysis of the teacher-student interaction by literacy expert Peter Johnston. Peter (Ph.D. University of Illinois) is Professor of Education and Chair of the Reading Department at State University of New York at Albany. His position as an advocate for teachers and students developed from his early career teaching primary school in New Zealand. His many publications include Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning (Stenhouse 2004), Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment (Stenhouse 1997), andRunning Records: A Self-Tutoring Guide (Stenhouse 2000).

Amanda Frater's reflections:
I think modelling and thinking aloud in the whole-class shared writing sessions was powerful for the students as I was the one doing the thinking and revealing how I was making language choices. Students participated in this process helped them to make the links between oral and written language and extended their vocabulary.

My recent shift in thinking was the realisation that I needed to break the learning into manageable chunks: quality versus quantity. It is important for the learning to be manageable so that the students keep control of the task and the learning and don't feel that they must write, say, a whole page. This was particularly important for the target students. Therefore I worked with these students in phases, identifying descriptive vocabulary and then composing a sentence. It helped Eric to maintain control of his writing, and I was pleased about this. 

I also realised the importance of helping students to clarify their thinking before focusing on the selection of important language choices. The broad focus for their learning was to understand how writers construct text. That 'grey bit in the middle' is the hardest for teachers. You can identify next steps, but knowing how to get there is the major challenge. I had assumed that, once they got their ideas, they could write them down. But I saw that while the discussion had been good, it wasn't reflected in their subsequent writing. I realised that they needed a bridge -first, to express their ideas and record them, then to construct the ideas into sentence form.

In previous lessons we'd practised composing sentences. However, I noticed that it was still difficult for the students to orally construct a complete sentence when feeding back from their think, pair, share. I then provided support by modelling a way of starting the sentence which was quickly transferred by Jamie into a complete sentence. The sentence built on Eric's vocabulary choices and also reflected the conversation of Eric and Thomas. It was important for all in the group to recognise this. 

I wanted Eric to have ownership of the writing. This can be difficult when a group is developing the writing of one student together. That is why I pulled the focus back to Eric as the writer and he did take the ownership back.

Peter Johnson's comments
Teacher: What I want you to do now is, you're going to turn to a partner and you're going to come up with a sentence that will describe how Eric feels at his grandmother's house. OK. You're going to say it out loud and give it back to me and we'll write it as a sentence together. Off you go.
Student discussion

Teacher: What was your sentence, Danica?

Danica: That he feels safe, cause, oh.

Teacher: As a sentence? 'I feel safe' could be one way of starting it.
'Could be' is a way to contribute to a conversation while keeping the topic open. It recognises a possibility as one option rather than as the solution. Of course this depends on the tone of voice and the expected relationships between teacher and students.'Could be' can imply this is an option but not the option I had in mind. This does not seem to be the case here.

Jamie:I feel safe because I'm inside away from danger.

Teacher: What was it? "I feel safe?'
The teacher here is writing down what Jamie is saying, conferring substantial authority.

Jamie: 'because I'm inside away from danger.

Teacher: Let' read that. 'The sound gets louder as the hail gets heavier.' So, already in that first sentence Eric's building up this picture of it getting very, very heavy. 'I feel safe because I'm inside away from danger.' Could we add something else, what other feeling did he have with the word 'safe'?
Eric is established as the author and Amanda is attributing agency to him.

Eric: Um, comfortable?
Eric remembers the specific word, partly, I guess, because the teacher pointed to it at the outset.

Teacher: OK. So where could we put the word 'comfortable' in?
This focuses the choice to be made on one decision in the writing process. The word 'could' invites multiple possibilities - very different from 'should' or 'Where does it go?'

Child: Maybe after -where the other sentence stopped, maybe you could have something similar? So the reader can, like, know what it's, like, what's happening?
Tentativeness markers like 'maybe' mark the suggestion as a draft to be picked up by others. This can be picked up from teacher's language. But note also the uncertainty in the child's voice -the questioning inflection, as if, 'Is that right?'
Eric has made the connection between writers' choices and their consequences for readers.

Teacher: OK, so Eric has decided, and he's the writer, that he wants to add in 'I feel safe and comfortable because I am inside and away from danger'. As readers, what has Eric just done? What do you think, Thomas?
Eric is asserted to be the author, the one making composition decisions. (In his mind, Eric might or might not go along with this.) This is an identity invitation.
Saying 'as readers' provides an invitation to take up the stance of readers responding to the author's choices.
Asking Thomas what he thinks softens the previous sentence a bit, making it not so much a matter of Thomas getting the right answer.

Thomas: Um, cause by putting 'I feel safe and comfortable' like, if, without that, like, if you were reading it and you didn't know that he felt comfortable, it could be, like, he just feels, like, that he's just getting away from the danger and he - you don't really know if he feels comfortable inside. But adding 'comfortable' you know that he actually feels comfortable being inside.
'By putting [X]' he  [accomplishes Y] This is a statement conferring agency upon Eric and the process of authoring.

Teacher: OK, I like your thinking. That was really good. By adding in 'comfortable', not only is he safe in this place, he's really relaxed and he likes to be inside and there is this real feeling of 'I'm at ease being in this place'.
'I like your thinking' focuses attention on the thinking rather than a correct answer.
The response 'that was really good' is unnecessary and runs the risk of undoing the previous sentence with unfocused public praise. It opens the possibility of someone saying something 'really bad.'
Amanda's concluding words offer another potential phrasing and word choice by extending what Thomas says.

Read teacher Amanda Frater's thoughts on what she achieved in the session and an analysis of the teacher-student interaction by literacy expert Peter Johnston. Peter (Ph.D. University of Illinois) is Professor of Education and Chair of the Reading Department at State University of New York at Albany. His position as an advocate for teachers and students developed from his early career teaching primary school in New Zealand. His many publications include Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning (Stenhouse 2004), Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment (Stenhouse 1997), and Running Records: A Self-Tutoring Guide (Stenhouse 2000).

Amanda Fraters reflections
I think modelling and thinking aloud in the whole-class shared writing sessions was powerful for the students as I was the one doing the thinking and revealing how I was making language choices. Students' participated in this process helped them to make the links between oral and written language and extended their vocabulary.

My recent shift in thinking was the realisation that I needed to break the learning into manageable chunks: quality versus quantity. It is important for the learning to be manageable so that the students keep control of the task and the learning and don't feel that they must write, say, a whole page. This was particularly important for the target students. Therefore I worked with these students in phases, identifying descriptive vocabulary and then composing a sentence. It helped Eric to maintain control of his writing, and I was pleased about this. 

I also realised the importance of helping students to clarify their thinking before focusing on the selection of important language choices. The broad focus for their learning was to understand how writers construct text. That 'grey bit in the middle' is the hardest for teachers. You can identify next steps, but knowing how to get there is the major challenge. I had assumed that, once they got their ideas, they could write them down. But I saw that while the discussion had been good, it wasn't reflected in their subsequent writing. I realised that they needed a bridge - first, to express their ideas and record them, then to construct the ideas into sentence form.

In one-to-one conversations, it's important to help students feel comfortable to discuss their writing, as their writing is personal to them. This was in my mind as I sat down to work with Eliesa. In working with him, I've found that asking him to read his text aloud helps him hear the language and process the message. Also, he is the writer and this is a way of showing that I value his ownership. I can give immediate and specific feedback on his word choices as a reader, and can deliberately relate what he is doing to the learning intention.

I chose to focus on the interaction around the palace because I wanted Eliesa to see how, with careful selection of a few words, he could make an image stronger for the reader. I suggested that together we needed to work out where to add in the new text as I could see that he was finding it difficult to focus in on one detail. I was signalling, as I often do in such circumstances, that we would solve the problem together and he didn't have to do it alone. On reflection, I think that the difficulty that Eliesa exhibited was due to my asking him for a sentence and then suggesting that he add words 'the king' to an existing sentence. I think this confused him.

I used the language of our learning intention in our conversation. This was important because it helped to focus Eliesa on the purpose for the writing and the expected learning. 

Peter Johnston's comments
Teacher: Can you remind me what you're writing about, Eliesa?
Amanda does not immediately ask to see or hear what has been written, which would be attending to the performance rather than to Eliesa and what he has to say. She inquires about what Eliesa is writing about. This opens a conversation that positions Eliesa as a respected person with interesting things to say. It also makes it possible for Eliesa to hear himself tell another draft of what he is writing. The contrast between what he now says and what he has written opens a space for him to revise without teacher direction - leaving him in control of the composition. 'Remind me' is different from 'Tell me' because it recognises that Amanda has encountered Eliesa's piece before and it is her frailty that makes her not fully remember it rather than her not attending to Eliesa's important composition.
Amanda consistently speaks to individual children using their first names. This does invite the feeling that they are someone, recognised and respected. It seems trivial but it shouldn't be taken for granted. Rereading the conversation without these names has a very different feel. 

Eliesa: Um, my special place was, um, my Dad's van.

Teacher: OK, and what makes it special to you?
I wonder whether asking a more open question might get more detail and then this more focused question would be able to capitalise on the detail. Suppose the prompt were simply 'Tell me about it.'

Eliesa: Um, because, it's away from my brothers and my sister like arguing, like, singing songs that are out of tune, and my parents asking for, like, make them cup of teas and also cleaning up.

Teacher: OK, so it's a place you can go and escape to.
Offering a possible summarising statement. It is offered in a way that shows Amanda is attending closely to what Eliesa is saying. Eliesa shows that he takes it this way in his validating 'Yeah.'

Eliesa: Yeah.

Teacher: So, when you're in that place, does anybody know that you're there?
This is a question of genuine interest, which extends their relationship of respect.

Eliesa: Um, no, only my cat.

Teacher: So you're only there with your cat.
And again.

Eliesa: Yeah.

Teacher: OK. Did you start writing about how it felt to be in this place?
Turning attention now to where Eliesa is in the process of recording his experience so he can talk about the writing itself. 

Eliesa: Yeah.

Teacher: Do you want to read that to me? I think it was down here somewhere, wasn't it?
This indirect request is intended to soften the direction. This doesn't work for all cultural groups. Some hear this literally. 
The second question shows familiarity with his piece and shows that she pays attention to what he does, so he has to, too. 

Eliesa: (reads) 'I like it because it's comfortable, peaceful, and nobody can know me. It just feels like I'm in a small palace.'

Teacher: OK. Why did you choose to say that it was like being in a small palace? What did you want the reader to know from that?
'Choose to,' emphasises the authorial agency.
The next question further emphasises the agency by focusing on the expected consequences of the author's action.

Eliesa: Oh, like, like it's just me and, like, it feels like that I just want, like a small kingdom, and,  when you're, like, king, you have your palace and it's just you living in there.

Teacher: Oh, so you're this king inside the van!
This is a reflective restatement that extends Eliesa's palace metaphor, at once offering new language possibilities and building respect by showing close attention to what Eliesa has to say. 

Eliesa: Yeah.

Teacher: So, as a reader I want to hear about you being this king, OK, because that's such a great image for me and I can start to understand why that place would be very special to you. So, together we need to work out a way of being able to add that, um, image into your writing. Where do you think that would fit?
The first sentence turns attention back to the writing by identifying herself as a reader. Amanda shows interest in Eliesa's pursuing her extension of his metaphor and shows a connection between her interest as a reader and Eliesa's choice of words. This sentence also brings the connection back to the topic -the purpose of the piece. 
The words 'together we' insist on a collaborative view of the writing. They offer support -'you're not alone in this' - but at the cost of individual agency. Adding the image to Eliesa's writing takes for granted that Eliesa does want to add this to his writing. It does not offer him a choice. 
The last sentence offers him a choice, but not to leave it out. 

Eliesa: Um, after the palace and just tell them why I feel like being in a palace?

Teacher: OK. Can you think of a sentence now that would back that idea up?
This keeps the momentum going, not allowing the opportunity to not include it. 

Eliesa: Like, um because...

Teacher: I think down here, 'It just feels like I'm in a small palace'.'It just -you could add something in here about being the king. What do you think?... Could I give you a suggestion? It just feels like I'm a king. Have a go at adding that in.
This section is very forceful. Following the invitations to think of a sentence and where to put it Eliesa has no time to do so, no opportunity to reject the idea. Although Amanda asks permission, to make a suggestion -both important politeness conventions to maintain Eliesa's authority- however, there is the insistence that he write the suggestion. 

Eliesa: (writes, then reads) - ' a very small palace.'

Teacher: OK, so to your sentence we added, 'It just feels like I'm a king'. Why do you think it was important for the reader that you added in the words of 'the king?'
This divides up authorship. The first piece is Eliesa's, the second piece is composed by Amanda and Eliesa.
The question asserts that it was important for the reader to know that Eliesa feels like a king. It does not allow Eliesa to contest the presumed importance because it is given information. The only part in question is why it is important.

Eliesa: Because I feel like a king, and probably in palaces you mostly have a king in them.
The 'probably' and 'mostly' suggest some caution on Eliesa's part.

Teacher: OK, so you want your reader to know that you're the ruler of this van?
This is an assertion by Amanda of Eliesa's goals. He may not agree, in which case it would undermine his ownership of the writing.

Eliesa: Yeah!

Teacher: OK. And I can see that now as the reader. That's made the image a lot stronger for me.
Builds a strong connection between reader and writing strategy, emphasising what happens in readers' heads.

Eliesa: Yeah.

Teacher: That's a cool piece of writing.
This is a 'close the conversation' statement. It is unspecific praise, which can have a down-side. Since it doesn't show what is cool about the piece of writing, it doesn't allow the author to later view his work through specific qualities himself. He has to go back to the teacher to see if this new piece is cool, too.