In this blog, I’m revisiting the three texts used in the previous posts in the Framing Our Reading series with a focus on using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary and concepts from text. Amanda, Juanita and I are each using a different graphic organizer to analyze the terms: ‘chemoreceptors’ found in the article Artificial Sweeteners: Friends or Foes? , ‘repel’ found in the article Why Metals Have A Blast in Water and ‘oxidation’ found in the article Rewritable Paper: Prints with Light not Ink. I am modeling these vocabulary words using a Semantic Map graphic organizer. McLaughlin (p. 58) suggests using Semantic Maps as a tool to “activate prior knowledge, introduce content-specific vocabulary, and organize information about a topic”.

For this exercise, I solicited the help of my 6th grade daughter to brainstorm from a perspective not already familiar with the text and not tainted with 30 years of prior knowledge. Coincidentally, the background she lacked in the content was remedied tenfold in with her familiarity with this strategy.

We began by brainstorming a list of words and phrases that we related to the target word based on our prior  knowledge before referring to the text for additional details. Then we grouped the items from our list into categories. We found that for each word we had some similar categories such as: definition, opposites, and examples seen here in our map for ‘repel’.

The process was not immediately obvious to me, and I found myself grasping for more structure in the brainstorming and categorizing aspect. I think it would be helpful for some students (particularly, those who tend to be trigger shy like myself) to have some predefined categories as suggestions to guide their brainstorming.

My old school sensibilities are still tugging me towards lists and outlines, but when we finally created the visual structure of the Semantic Map and began filling in the results of our brainstorm, it immediately became easier to populate it with more information.

In my first attempt at creating a map, my daughter suggested that I was making it “too complicated”. I’m not sure if it was because of the disparity in our experience with the word (which would be something to consider when using this in groups) or because I was struggling to find more generic categories. While it makes sense to me, you can see in our map for oxidation the pattern is a little more ambiguous than  for repel and chemoreceptors.

I like the Semantic Map as a quick tool to organize information. My daughter seemed to grasp the process easily enough to explain it me, so I see it being very useful for those kids who benefit from the visual organization. Buehls’ Word Family Tree (pg. 221) has a similar purpose and I actually prefer the depth and structure of that tool, but this one is definitely more convenient and time efficient in the classroom. There are also similarities between this and the Magnet Words strategy discussed in part 3, but again the Semantic Map provides the advantage of being a free form (potentially impromptu) device to implement when, as a teacher, you become aware that more focused attention is needed on particular vocabulary or concepts.

Check out what Juanita did with these words using the word root/prefix/suffix chart, and how Amanda approached them with the vocabulary self-collection strategy.

References:

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

Marr, I. (2012, February 1). Artificial Sweeteners: Friends or Foes? Retrieved from https://learn.thinkcerca.com/student_assignments/1715015/lesson_steps/1

McLaughlin, M. (2015). Content Area Reading: Teaching and Learning for College and Career Readiness. (2nd ed., pp. 63-64). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Ornes, S. (2015). Why metals have a blast in water. Retrieved from: https://student.societyforscience.org/article/why-metals-have-blast-water?mode=topic&context=6

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.

Explore this text using the KWL strategy modeled by Juanita and the Bookmark Technique modeled by Amanda.

References:

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

The connection stems strategy helps students make personal connections to the text being processed. The comprehension strategy is used to help the reader connect the focus text to themselves, the world, and other text.

The strategy can be used with both informational text and narrative type texts. It can be used at any stage (eg. pre-reading, during post-reading) during the reading activity.

The McLaughlin text (p. 63) lists these suggested connection stems:

• That reminds me of
• I remember when
• I have a connection
• An experience I have had that was similar to that
• I felt like that person when
• If I were that person, I would

Below, I have modeled my use of this strategy in reading our groups text, Artificial Sweeteners: Friends or Foes?

My connection stems:

I have a connection with this text, because I stopped drinking soda to reduce my sugar consumption. Para 1

I remember when we burned Doritos and measured the temperature increase in water to calculate calories in Chemistry class. Para 2

That reminds me of when I wanted to lose weight and started eating more “low fat” foods. Para 3

I were those people, I would feel very grateful to not have become ill or died from such a careless mistake. Para 4-5

An experience I have had that was similar to that is when I was eating a vegetarian diet I would experiment with different plant based proteins (eg. beans, nuts) to attempt to satiate my cravings for meat. Para 6-9

I felt like that person when I tasted the artificial sweeteners undesirable chemical aftertaste. Para 10

I have a connection with this because I like to maintain a more natural diet. Para 11

I remember when I read an article citing the same chemicals is artificial sweeteners being used as pesticides. Para 12

Explore this text using the Prereading Plan strategy modeled by Juanita and the Power Notes strategy modeled by Amanda.

References:

Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning (4th ed., pp. 155-157). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Marr, I. (2012, February 1). Artificial Sweeteners: Friends or Foes? Retrieved from https://learn.thinkcerca.com/student_assignments/1715015/lesson_steps/1

McLaughlin, M. (2015). Content Area Reading: Teaching and Learning for College and Career Readiness. (2nd ed., pp. 63-64). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.