Sheryl Honig article

A Framework for Supporting Scientific Language in Primary Grades Sheryl L. Honig


The framework provided in this article for viewing students’ science writing offers teachers the opportunity to assess and support scientific language acquisition.
Language and thought are so closely related that it is almost impossible to consider one without the other (Vygotsky, 1934/1986). Like many students, I first learned how to classify trees when I was introduced to a network of named categories and distinctions. My access to knowledge about trees wound through language that included words like deciduous, coniferous, simple, compound, and petiole; this language functioned to compare categories and describe attributes of trees. My learning in this case was mediated by words; the language of biology de- termined how I organized my thinking about biology.

To engage in the socially constructed, theoreti- cal, scientific culture, I had to be taught specialized vocabulary to go with my hands-on experience of collecting and examining specimens. In turn, this vo- cabulary was couched in language that was general- ized and abstract, which is characteristic of academic scientific language. Fluency with this language—the ability to flexibly read and write it—was necessary for me to excel in academic science settings. Science is constructed by particular routines of language, and students access scientific ideas through language; after all, people in academic settings routinely use theoretical language to mediate scientific concepts. Thus, students’ success in the domain of science is necessarily linked to their fluency with this special- ized discourse (Gee, 2004; Lemke, 1990).

The Reading Teacher, 64(1), pp. 23–32 DOI:10.1598/RT.64.1.3
In this article, I present a framework for evaluat- ing the written scientific discourse of second- and third-grade students. Out of necessity, this framework consists of concepts that are mediated by terms and named categories that may be new to the reader. This introduction to the language of such a framework may influence the way you understand students’ at- tempts to write in science and the way you support them in that endeavor.

Fluency in the Domain-Specific Language of Science
When students come to school, they are already flu- ent in many discourses: the language of play, the lan- guage of family festivals, the language of eating, and so forth. In the classroom, students are confronted with new, academic discourses. Academic scientific discourse represents a distinct way of knowing and thinking (Gee 2004; Halliday & Martin, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & MacGillicuddy, 1996), and therefore a particular language for conveying ideas to others (Goldman & Bisanz, 2002; Halliday & Martin, 1993).
Specifically, research has shown that academic scientific texts express scientific ideas that are ca- nonical and theoretical in nature, referring to gen- eral classes of objects rather than particular ones, and these texts tend to emphasize relationships of classification and logical connections among gen- eral terms and processes (Lemke, 1990). Unlike nar- rative or everyday discourses, academic scientific discourse is characterized by elements such as topic presentations, descriptions of attributes, character- istic events, category comparisons, experimental

Scientific Discourse in Integrated Science/Literacy Instruction:
An Example
In language-rich classroom com- munities in which teachers integrate reading and writing with hands-on
science activities, students readily take up the scien- tific discourse in which they are immersed. In one case (Honig 2007, in press), two teachers and their respective multiage (grades 2 and 3) classes cocon- structed a scientific discourse that functioned to communicate data-level ideas (referring to concrete objects at hand) as well as theoretical ideas (refer- ring to general principles and general classes of ob- jects). Students and teachers communicated such ideas through linguistic elements such as descrip- tion of attributes, characteristic events, results, and explanation. Students were immersed in a classroom context that included extensive dialogue around hands-on activities, reading of informational science trade books, and various writing activities.

In this literacy-rich context, students participated in various forms of scientific writing: They quickly jotted notes following a hands-on activity; they wrote sticky note summaries of main ideas following small-group reading of an informational book; they coconstructed class charts summarizing scientific concepts; they filled out experiment sheets (scientif- ic method sheets) documenting hypotheses, results, and conclusions of a hands-on activity; they drew concept maps; they constructed graphic organizers; they individually wrote end-of-unit books; and they collaborated with peers to produce end-of-unit re- search reports.
Scientific writing was highly scaffolded in this con- text by the teachers. Teachers’ directions, modeling, and comments during discussion included explicit examples of what to write about (“You have to an- swer the question.”), what words to use (“You would probably want to say ‘I think....’”), how to consider the audience (“You don’t want the reader to think this is boring.”), and why to write (“So that you will remem- ber.”). In most cases, writing activities were preceded


PAUSE AND PONDER
■■ How can you promote multimodal engagement with content area language?
■■ What kinds of texts would support multimodal engagement with content area language?
language. Facts
Although scientific discourse may be new and challenging to some students, it is not the case that young students are unable to learn informational discourses, nor is it the case that they find such dis- course to be off-putting. Research shows that young students respond to and take up informational dis- courses quite readily when socially supported in those discourses (Pappas, 1993); however, many students do not come to school with this fluency. Further, the intense focus on decoding in primary curricula has relegated instruction in informational literacies to a marginal role in classroom schedules.
Fluency in a specialized language such as sci- entific discourse involves receptive knowledge and expressive knowledge of linguistic patterns and words. Receptive knowledge refers to students’ ability to understand, to some extent, the word when they hear or read it. Expressive knowledge refers to the students’ ability to use the term in speech or writing to communicate scientific ideas. Often in classroom instruction, receptive knowledge receives more in- structional focus than does expressive knowledge. For one thing, there is more focus on reading and comprehending than on talking and writing. In addi- tion, it is a more complex endeavor to measure (test) expressive knowledge than receptive knowledge. Typically assessment of language is limited to mea- suring students’ ability to define vocabulary terms or to select a correct definition from four distracters, and such assessment does not directly address students’ ability to use particular vocabulary to communicate ideas. The focus of this article is on the measurement and support of students’ expressive fluency with sci- entific discourse, their ability to use the specialized


24 The Reading Teacher Vol. 64, No. 1 September 2010
by sessions of group sharing in which class charts of writing ideas were coconstructed by teacher and stu- dents. Students were intentionally immersed in multi- modal aspects of the language of science.
Students in these classrooms participated in a hands-on demonstration in which they created a vortex by spinning tea leaves in a vase of water. This demonstration was intended to serve as a metaphor that could explain the constant storm, or the Great Red Spot, on Jupiter’s surface. Classroom discussion included data-level discourse about the spinning tea leaves as well as theoretical discourse about the connection to the theoretical spinning particles on Jupiter’s surface. Following the discussion, stu- dents were asked to write and illustrate what they had learned about Jupiter’s constant storm. Students worked alone and finished in about 20 minutes.
In the next section I provide examples of stu- dents’ artifacts. I begin by discussing the kinds of ideas the students expressed. Using Pappas’s (2006) framework of global elements for expository text, I found evidence of several types of ideas that students expressed in their writing.


In addition to the ideas expressed by students, I also describe the linguistic (i.e., tense, general versus particular nouns) and lexical (i.e., use of specialized vocabulary) nature of their work. As stated previous- ly, scientific language is domain-specific; therefore, to assess and support students’ acquisition of this language, a framework is needed that authentically reflects its domain-specific nature.

Examples of Students’ Texts: Types of Ideas, Grammar, and Vocabulary In this section, I provide five examples from the texts of 36 students, and I discuss them according to a
Table 1 Types of Ideas Represented in Students’ Texts

Description Grade N Results of attributes
framework that accounts for the scientific ideas rep- resented in students’ written texts, and the linguistic nature of students’ attempts (see Table 1).
Grammatical and Lexical Nature of Results. Six students wrote about the results of the hands-on tea-leaf activity by using data-level scientific dis- course, characterized by past tense verbs (e.g., when we spun), particular nouns (e.g., the tea flakes), and some specialized vocabulary (e.g., vortex) to de- scribe the actual science event in which they par- ticipated. Here is an example of what one student wrote:

When we spun the tea flakes and water it caused a vor- tex and it looked like a tornado.
Grammatical and Lexical Nature of Description of Attributes. Eleven students wrote description of attributes by using present or timeless tense (e.g., it is a), nouns that refer to decontextualized or theoretical entities (e.g., constant storm), and some specialized vocabulary (e.g., vortex) to describe the attributes of Jupiter, a theoretical entity. Here is an example of a written description of attributes:
I learned about the red spot on Jupiter. It is a constant storm. The gas swirls around and makes a vortex.
Grammatical and Lexical Nature of Results Linked to Characteristic Events. Thirteen students explicitly linked results of the hands-on activity to characteristic events on a theoretical Jupiter by using a combination of registers: (a) data-level discourse, characterized by past tense, particular nouns, and some specialized vocabulary to describe the tea- leaf event in which they participated and (b) theo- retical discourse, characterized by timeless tense, the use of theoretical (not observable) nouns and some
Results linked to characteristic Explanation
events Explanation and question
2 19 5 5 6 2 1
3 17 1 6 7 3 0 Total 36 6 11 13 5 1


A Framework for Supporting Scientific Language in Primary Grades 25
specialized vocabulary to describe what theoreti- cally happens on Jupiter. In addition, these students typically used phrases such as this is just like or this represents to describe the link between the hands-on activity and theoretical Jupiter. Here is an example of written results linked to characteristic events:
When we twirled the pencil in the water and tea leaves it started to make a tornado which is a vortex. The vor- tex sucked the tea leaves. The swirling gases is what makes the storm on Jupiter.


Grammatical and Lexical Nature of Explanation.
Five students wrote explanations by using timeless tense verbs, nouns that represent abstract entities, and some specialized vocabulary to explain a theo- retical idea. Students typically used conjunctions such as because to construct explanations of cause and effect relationships. Here are two examples of a written explanation:
On Jupiter the gases caused a swirling vortex and sucked up particles causing a constant storm.
Do you want to know what that red spot is on Jupiter? Well I’ll tell you. The red spot is a constant storm. The constant storm has never stopped since a man from earth saw it. “I don’t know why it hasn’t gone away so please don’t ask me.” I saw how the storm forms with this awesome activity. The storm forms because all of the dust connects because of the gas swirling to make a vortex.


Grammatical and Lexical Nature of Explanation Linked to Further Question. One student wrote an explanation linked to a further question by using timeless tense, general nouns, and some specialized vocabulary to explain and wonder about a theoreti- cal idea. Here is an example of a written explanation linked to a further question:
Today in science we did an experiment to see what is happening on Jupiter’s red spot. We found out that the red spot is actually a vortex that I’m wondering if it re- ally does black hole things like suck things into it, bend light, and minimize things that go into it.
A Closer Look at Grade, Ideas Expressed, and Vocabulary Usage
In summary, the students writing about Jupiter’s Great Red Spot functioned to express four distinct types of meanings, or ideas—(1) results, (2) description of at- tributes of Jupiter, (3) results linked to characteristic
events on Jupiter, and (4) explanation of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. The teachers’ goal was for students to understand the constant storm on Jupiter and “how it works,” so they rated students’ artifacts in a way that favored links between the classroom activity and the constant storm or explanations of the constant storm. Therefore, the ideas represented in students artifacts were graded according to this order, from lowest to highest: (1) results (in which students wrote about what happened to the tea-leaf vortex), (2) de- scription of attributes of Jupiter (in which students reported that there is a vortex on Jupiter’s surface), (3) results and characteristic events of the storm on Jupiter (in which students wrote about the tea-leaf vortex and reported that this is what is happening on Jupiter), and (4) explanation (in which students ex- plained the cause of the constant storm).


Among these 36 second and third graders, a student’s grade level was not significantly related to the scientific nature of the writing in terms of ideas, vocabulary density, or vocabulary range. This sug- gests that a student’s ability to appropriate scientific discourse in writing may be amenable to social in- fluences. Further, a closer look at the vocabulary used in various artifacts reveals that the range and density of specialized vocabulary in a student’s text were more related to the type of idea a student wrote about than the grade level (see Tables 2 and 3). Both second and third graders who wrote descrip- tions of attributes of Jupiter used more specialized vocabulary than did students who wrote results, and students who wrote an explanation used more spe- cialized vocabulary than did students who wrote a description of attributes. Therefore, there may be a link between a student’s ability to use domain- specific vocabulary and the ability to express par- ticular kinds of scientific ideas.
A Framework for Assessing Students’ Scientific Language Scientific discourse represents a distinct language and, as such, is relevant to students’ academic suc- cess. To understand how students develop fluency in the domain-specific discourses of science, a frame- work is needed for evaluating students’ attempts to comprehend and produce domain-specific lan- guage. It may not be sufficient to evaluate science writing according to widely used characteristics such
26 The Reading Teacher Vol. 64, No. 1 September 2010
Table 2 Average Range (Distinct Words) of Specialized Vocabulary in Students’ Written Texts
Results linked Description to characteristic Explanation
Grade N Results of attributes events Explanation and question
2 19 1.7 3.6 4.0 7.5 7.0 3 17 1.0 2.4 5.0 7.4 NA
Total 36 1.5 3.3 4.5 7.4
Note. Correlation between Idea Type and Range: Pearson’s r = .735, p < .01.
Table 3 Average Density (Percentage) of Specialized Vocabulary in Students’ Written Texts
7.0
Explanation and question
Grade N
219
317 Total 36


Students’ Scientific Language
Once teachers have established a framework for evaluating their students’ attempts at written fluency
in scientific discourse, teachers will gain awareness of their students’ needs and progress in acquisition of this domain-specific language. Then, and most important, teachers can promote this language by providing multiple, multimodal instructional expe- riences. Teachers can provide opportunities for stu- dents to engage in scientific discourse by immersing them in the language of science, modeling the lan- guage, providing authentic purposes that encourage students to take responsibility for their engagement, providing feedback, practice, and opportunities for approximations. In fact, these characteristics of scaf- folded instruction reflect a prominent model of vo- cabulary learning (Nagy & Scott, 2000).
According to this model, knowledge of particu- lar words is incremental, and deepens over multiple exposures to texts, teacher modeling, and classroom discussion. Word knowledge is also multimodal, and involves use of the word in writing, speaking, doing, listening, and reading. Word knowledge is interrelated, so knowledge of a seed coat influences our knowledge of seeds. Word knowledge is het- erogeneous, so knowing the meaning of pollinate
4.0% 21.0% 12.8% 40.5% 21.0% 3.0% 10.7% 15.4% 32.0% NA 4.0% 15.0% 14.0% 34.0% 22.0%
A Framework for Supporting Scientific Language in Primary Grades 27
Table 4 State Standards and Corresponding I Can... Statements
State standard
12A: Know and apply concepts that explain how living things function, adapt, and change.
12B: Know and apply concepts that explain how living things interact with each other and the environment.
Table 5 Rubric for Evaluating Scientific Writing About Plants
I can... statements
■ I can describe attributes of seed plants. ■ I can describe characteristic events in the life cycle of
a seed plant. ■ I can compare and contrast different types of seed
plants. ■ I can compare and contrast plants with other living
things.
■ I can explain the life cycle of a seed plant. ■ I can explain how plants fit into the food chain. ■ I can explain how seed plants contribute to their
ecosystem.
Meets Exceeds
When writing informational text on plants
Describes attributes of plants
Describes characteristic events
Compares categories
Explains the life cycle of the seed plant
Explains role in ecosystem
Uses specialized vocabulary
Working on
■ Minimal quantity ■ Inconsistently accurate ■ Needs teacher
assistance
■ Minimal quantity ■ Inconsistently accurate ■ Needs teacher
assistance
■ Minimal quantity ■ Inconsistently accurate ■ Needs teacher
assistance
■ Adequate quantity ■ Mostly accurate ■ Minimal teacher
assistance
■ Adequate quantity ■ Mostly accurate ■ Minimal teacher
assistance
■ Adequate quantity ■ Mostly accurate ■ Minimal teacher
assistance
■ Thorough explication ■ Mostly accurate ■ Independent
■ Thorough explication ■ Mostly accurate ■ Independent
■ Thorough explication ■ Mostly accurate ■ Independent
■ Thorough explication, extending to other theories and phenomena
■ Thorough explication, extending to other theories and phenomena
■ Specialized vocabulary is frequently and accurately used
■ Articulates isolated parts ■ Articulates main points of life cycle of life cycle and explains the links between points
■ Articulates isolated parts ■ Articulates main of ecosystem points of ecosystem
and explains the links between points
■ Specialized vocabulary is ■ Specialized vocabulary rarely used accurately is occasionally used
accurately
is inherently different than knowing the meaning knowledge are supported by exposure to vocabu- of stamen. Finally, word knowledge is polysemous, lary via multiple texts and settings, graphic organiz- so the individual words can be used flexibly to take ers, and word sorts. Figure 1 provides examples of on multiple shades of meaning. The aspects of inter- scaffolded instructional applications that reflect this relatedness, heterogeneity, and polysemy of word model of vocabulary knowledge.
28 The Reading Teacher Vol. 64, No. 1 September 2010
Figure 1 Instructional Activities That Support Word Knowledge and Language Development
Word Knowledge Is Complex
It is incremental
It is multimodal
It is interrelated
It is heterogeneous
It is polysemous
Immersion Supports This Complex Process
Scaffolding Supports This Complex Process
Multiple Hands-On Activities With Discussion
Multiple Informational Books
Varied Settings for Informational Book Reading
Multiple Writing Activities
Print/Image-Rich Enviroment
Read-Aloud With K-W-L
Read-Aloud With Vocab Explanation
Partner Reading
Partner Journaling
Group Drama
Graphic Organizers and Word Sorts
Independent Reading/Writing
A Framework for Supporting Scientific Language in Primary Grades 29
Language Enriched Science Instruction: The Life Cycle of a Seed Plant
The following instructional activities were used by Lisa, a teacher of second graders, in a unit on the life of a seed plant. These activities involve explicit word explanations as well as multimodal use of scientific vocabulary in the expression of scientific ideas such as description of attributes, category comparison, and so forth. In these activities, students had abun- dant multimodal opportunities to engage in both theoretical and data-level language, using domain- specific vocabulary. Importantly, such instruction il- lustrates the intentional focus on the domain-specific nature of academic scientific language found in in- formational books.
Vocabulary Visits. Using vocabulary visits (Blachowicz & Obrochta, 2005), Lisa displayed a large poster that included multiple images of plants. Students brainstormed domain-specific vocabulary unique to the images. In other words, students were encouraged to include words like seed and pollen rather than everyday words like green or big. Lisa wrote the words they suggested on individual sticky notes, and the students chose a logical placement of the sticky note on the chart. As work continued, sticky notes were rearranged and grouped according to semantic links the students made. Throughout the unit, this poster was revisited, added to, and reorga- nized as needed. After the unit, the poster remained on display as an artifact of this domain to which stu- dents added throughout the year.
Read-Aloud of Informational Trade Books and K-W-L. A K-W-L activity (Ogle, 1986)—in which students first record what they know and what they want to know about plants—before Lisa’s read-aloud offered opportunities for students to say, hear, and see scientific language. Lisa modified this activity by grouping the student ideas on the chart according to type (i.e., description of attributes and so forth). As read-aloud progressed, students also added new domain-specific words to the vocabulary visit poster, and Lisa offered explanations of the words. After reading, students shared ideas that they learned from the text to complete the K-W-L activity. These ideas were grouped in the L section of the chart according to type as was done with what the students knew and what they wanted to know.
Hands-On Activities. Multiple hands-on activities with seeds and plants included the following: (a) placing seeds inside plastic baggies with wet paper towels and observing seed coats splitting and root growth, (b) planting seeds inside clear cups so that roots were visible for observation, and (c) planting grass to observe the grass going to seed. During such activities, Lisa encouraged partners to share their ob- servations aloud so that students would use data-lev- el language and specialized vocabulary to describe the growth of their plants.
Journal Writing. Journal entries provided a place for recording data-level language about hands-on ac- tivities as well as theoretical language about ideas from books that Lisa or the students read. Journal writing was always preceded by partner talk and pre- planning for the purpose of providing oral rehearsal of ideas. Journal entries were read to partners for fur- ther engagement with scientific discourse.
Partner Reading of Multiple Trade Books. The availability of multiple informational trade books promoted multiple exposures to technical vocabu- lary and offered choice to students. Selection of such books included consideration of the presence of scientific discourse. Although narrative texts can be included, Lisa chose a wide variety of books (47 titles) that expressed scientific language to support such language acquisition. Lisa provided books’ reading levels as a guide, but did not restrict students’ choices. Early in the unit, pairs of students enjoyed browsing many books, scanning them for interesting information. As the unit progressed, students were encouraged to focus on one or two books per ses- sion. As students read alongside their partners, they stopped to share interesting information. Table 6 il- lustrates the way these instructional activities were organized in a unit.
Conclusion
Fluency in scientific discourse is necessary for success in school science. Success in school sci- ence leads to opportunities for careers in science. Students come to school fluent in many discourses; indeed, some come to school fluent in information- al language. There is, certainly, a robust effort in primary classrooms to build narrative discourse— frameworks exist that highlight beginning, middle,
30 The Reading Teacher Vol. 64, No. 1 September 2010
Table 6 Four Days From Unit, “Life Cycle of the Seed Plant”
Day Instructional activity
Language focus
■ Domain-specific vocabulary
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
■ Domain-specific vocabulary
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Data-level language:
Observation of results
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Data-level language:
Observation of results
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
■ Domain-specific vocabulary ■ Theoretical language:
Description of attributes Characteristic events Category comparison Explanation
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Vocabulary visit
■ Display plant poster with multiple images ■ Brainstorm vocabulary words that reflect images ■ Teacher write each word on sticky note ■ Students place sticky notes on poster ■ As work continues, sticky notes may be grouped according to
semantic links
Read-aloud: Informational trade book 1
■ Record prior knowledge onto a K-W-L chart ■ Set purpose for reading with K-W-L chart ■ As teacher reads, students listen for more words to add to the
poster ■ Teacher provides explanation of words
Response to literature
■ As students share learned information for K-W-L chart, teacher records each response by organizing responses as description of attributes, characteristic function, or explanation.
Vocabulary visit
■ Distribute sticky notes ■ Students sort them onto poster
Seed planting
■ Discussion during hands-on activity
Journal writing
■ With a partner, plan journal entry about seed planting ■ Write journal entry and read to partner
Read-aloud: Informational trade book 2
■ Record prior knowledge onto a K-W-L chart ■ Set purpose for reading with K-W-L chart ■ As teacher reads, students listen for more words to add to the
poster ■ Teacher provides explanation of words
Read-aloud: Informational trade book 3
■ Record prior knowledge onto a K-W-L chart ■ Set purpose for reading with K-W-L chart ■ As teacher reads, students listen for more words to add to the
poster ■ Teacher provides explanation of words
Partner reading: Informational trade books
■ Students select from multilevel informational trade books and explore books with partners
Journal writing
■ With a partner, plan journal entry about text read ■ Write journal entry and read to partner
A Framework for Supporting Scientific Language in Primary Grades 31
and end as well as setting, characters, conflict, and resolution (Pappas, 1993).
Informational discourses must be better support- ed in the primary grades, especially since the decon- textualized and theoretical language of science texts becomes increasingly central in mediating scientific knowledge in intermediate and middle school years. Research has shown that informational text is not too difficult nor too off-putting for young students and that they acquire languages in which they are socially supported (Moss, Leone, & Dipillo, 1997; Pappas, 1993; Smolkin & Donovan, 2001). The frame- work provided in this article for viewing students’ science writing essentially offers teachers a language for the assessment and support of students’ scientific language acquisition. Its value lies in the potential for educators to use such a framework to support the full participation of all students in the field of science.


For a nicer looking version of this article: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=122&sid=63a81416-a86a-42a8-862e-f9b5a4e5c04d%40sessionmgr111

A story impression

Before a reading, the teacher will pick up ten to fifteen vocabulary terms that may be a little challenging, and give the list to the students. The students will then be assigned to write a story containing the words, predicting what might happen with these words in the story they are prepared to read. Students can share these predictions aloud in the class, and often it could end up being very funny and very enjoyable.

Rewrite an ending!

This a very simple, but very possibly enjoyable, writing exercise. Students can pick out a story from any previous class or even in the current class for the writing in which they did not enjoy a particular ending. They could even pick out a film if no literature comes to mind, and they can rewrite the ending. I know as a kid I would always read books or watch movies and dislike the ending. This creates a way for students to not only be creative, but make an ending they find more enjoyable as well.

Summary Relay

Students will be assigned a reading the previous night to this class session. When class begins, students will split into large groups. They will then be assigned to write one sentence each in thirty seconds, and then must quickly pass a paper with their sentence to the next person in their group. The activity will end once every person goes once or twice (depending on the size of the text assigned). Students will then read aloud their summaries to the class.

Critiques

A critique is different from a summary, insofar as it analyzes the writing of a previous reading more than merely writing what was discussed in the story. Critiquing also differs in that it points out the strong points and weaknesses in a writing, thus making the critiquer a more objective and active reader. A critique should address the below (borrowed from this wonderful website:


what is the one most important point of the paper?
arguments for why the work is notable or novel or neither,
if the problem the paper tackles is important and or not,
if the proposed solution is potentially useful or not,
are the assumptions clearly specified and are they reasonable and practically valid,
point out additional contexts where the same idea or technology could be applied, relate the work to another paper that you find during your literature search,
have the proposed ideas been evaluated in some form, how, and how thorough is that evaluation,
identify a list of possible future research tasks to make the proposed work even better, develop a different solution strategy, or to drop some of the given assumptions, and so on.

Crawford slip writing

With a large group such as a classroom, there are always going to be many ideas present. As a result, the Crawford slip writing strategy can come in handy. Any number of prompts can be acceptable for this type of strategy. Some might be: how to be a successful high school student, what to expect in college, or in what ways might we improve school allocated funding.

Below is an excerpt borrowed from this website:


Each person is given a stack or note-pad of at least 25 small slips of paper (e.g. A6 paper). The pads are often pre-prepared to consist of idea-jogging graphics, or in the case of larger groups, the time and activity of handling the pads in Step 5 becomes crucial, so the pad needs to be designed so that the ideas can be separated and sorted easily.
At appropriate points in the general proceedings, problem statements are read out to the group using any of the well established procedures such as: ‘How to…’ or ‘In what ways might we…’. The search is generally for ideas for solutions, however in some instances you may want to get ideas for alternative problem statements, or related issues, etc.
Participants are told to write ideas of the required kind one per sheet, in any order. Displayed images or words to the whole meeting to act as triggers, or organising participants to work in twos or threes (e.g. with others sitting near them), can help with stimulating ideas.
When writing has begun to slow down (usually 5 – 10 minutes) the note-pads are collected.
If rapid feedback is being attempted, the booklets are immediately divided up between the members of a team of helpers and sorted in agreed ways – e.g. by frequency of occurrence and/or feasibility. If a greater degree of sophisticated categorisation is required, then the categories will probably have to be pre-determined (e.g. from an earlier pilot), so that each team member can work to the same categories. In the case of a very large meeting, presenting early feedback as examples drawn from a limited random sample of booklets may be the best option. Feedback during the same meeting is difficult to achieve. However, for an event lasting several days (such as a conference) quite complex feedback throughout the duration of the conference is plausible if the logistics are well planned. Rapid feedback from a large exercise can be quite a coup de theatre if organised successfully.
After the early feedback, analysis and evaluation can continue at a steadier pace to identify the most useful ideas and develop them into practicable proposals.
Finally, a feedback report dispatched to participants is often valuable.

Comic strip

(related to Heather Petrella's mini lesson)

Students will be paired in groups and each group will receive a different comic strip with blank bubbles. Students will have to come up with their own words to put into the bubbles based on the content provided to them (essentially, the images in the comics). Not only can this be a fun activity, but it also forces students to relate images to words, and to carefully construct a meaningful story in a short amount of space and time.