|Text Citation or Link||Rationale for Choosing||Text Frame(s)||Strategies Used and Resource|
|Guided Thinking Example||Rewritable Paper: Prints with light, not ink||Demonstrates application of scientific principles in developing new technologies. Springboard for lessons on redox reactions.||Cause/Effect
|Anticipation Guide (Buehl, pg. 59)|
Students using the anticipation guides strategy are tasked to consider what they already know (or think they know) about a topic, then find evidence in the focus text to either support or reject their assertions. This strategy can be used to scaffold complex texts, and it can be used with various media types.
The anticipation guides strategy requires some front end preparation from the teacher to prepare the actual ‘guide’. The teacher must identify the concepts that the student should focus on in the text. The teacher, also, must have a grasp of the students’ prior knowledge about the concepts and the topic presented. The anticipation guide is constructed using this knowledge to develop a series of statements used to guide students in thinking about their current knowledge or beliefs.
In this example, the focus text is highlighting the development of a new technology, rewritable paper. The text makes important connections to basic scientific principles including the concept of redox reactions. Using the format described by Buehl, I created this Anticipation Guide for Rewritable Paper.
Since in this example I am both the creator and the user of the tool, I think my perspective on the efficacy of this strategy may be a little contrived. Nonetheless, I see this strategy as a valuable tool for supporting literacy growth. The strategy has a broad focus that can facilitate engagement and support frontloading or prior knowledge. It requires students to evaluate their own beliefs and present thinking and either confirm or reassess their understanding with evidenced-based arguments. The guide itself, also, helps to focus the reader on the concepts or information most relevant to their educational needs at that time.
In my Anticipation Guide for Rewritable Paper with responses, you can see that I engaged with the literacy task by evaluating my present knowledge and beliefs (checking the statements I think might be supported by scientific evidence). I then chose portions of the text to defend or rebut the statements, which forced me to self-assess my original assertions. For example, had I checked a statement that was then revealed to be rejected by the author, I would have had to process that new evidence and re-evaluate my beliefs.
Finally, by choosing to focus on the general concepts of ‘redox reactions’ and ‘scientific principles’, as the reader I was able to filter through (without getting bogged down with) the narrower science concepts such as the titanium dioxide nano-crystals, the UV light catalysts or the various other chemical reactions eluded to in the text relating to this new technology. This I found to be particularly valuable in that educators could provide flexible scaffolding with alternate anticipation guides tailored specifically to the needs of their students. A more advanced guide could be developed by modifying the focus to the specific reactions taking place in this technology dealing with catalysts or properties of the involved molecules.
Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kowalski, K. (2015). Rewritable paper: Prints with light, not ink. Retrieved from https://student.societyforscience.org/article/rewritable-paper-prints-light-not- ink?mode=topic&context=104