Connect with Dr. Jennifer Miller-Ray

About Dr. Miller-Ray

Tag: Reading

  • Reflective Teaching ~ Exploring My Makerspace Literacy Research Approaches and Classroom Practice

    Currently, I teach six graduate education courses at Sul Ross State University, which is a small rural university serving 898 graduate students and a little over 2,000 undergraduate students. The institution is a Hispanic serving institution, serving low income students (Jenkins, et al., 2017). I am working with many rural schools in the Big Bend area to include Presidio ISD. Presidio ISD is a STEM school, and serves a population of 1,350 students to include demographics of 96.6 % Hispanic students and 93.4% economically disadvantaged students (2015). Presdio ISD is located on the Rio Grande river, located on the Texas-Mexican border. In addition, I am working with Maathon ISD, which is a rural district serving over 70 students to include a demographic population of 67 % Hispanics and 87 % economically disadvantaged students (2015). I am also working with several districts in the Trans-Pecos area.

    My learning goals this academic year is to grow as an educator and continue improving my Ph.D. research initiatives at the University of North Texas investigating makerspace literacy environments that centers around a project-based learning 4 career STEAM model targeting elementary and middle school programs.  My knowledge regarding the reading process has definitely changed and improved this semester. Perhaps the most significant change includes reevaluating my approach to really center on balanced literacy approaches that really think about transactional theory in action during professional development and instructional design approaches. Transactional theory centers on “how readers respond to the books that engage them and how these experiences can be enacted in classrooms” (Galda, 2013, p. 6). Transactional theory is rooted in Vygotsky’s social constructivism and principles of language and cognition, “which centers of teaching reading and writing highlighting creation of environments and activities in which students are motivated and encouraged to draw on their own resources to make live meanings” (Rosenblatt, 2013, p. 148).

    infinity_1_orig

    What will I eliminate in the future? I will eliminate some of the STEM quantitative measures I have used in the past. These instruments were only used to show interest and attitude toward STEM and never measured the impact on the overall impact of literacy. Previously, I would give this instrument before and after a STEM makerspace camp or at the beginning of a semester and at the end of a semester to gauge interest. I utilized the makerspace project-based learning model and only measured the impact of interest. The model did incorporate reading prior to the makerspace PBL and a written reflection after the experience. The pre and posttest utilized in two published studies found statistically significant findings but failed to measure the impact on reading and literacy.  The learner would take the STEM Semantic pre-test, read text from their content area, participate in a KWLH 21st century learning activity, participate in a makerspace project-based learning activity using challenge cards mapped to curriculum, and reflect via writing about the experience. At the end, learners would take another post-test, the STEM Semantic survey. I have not really considered the empirical design approaches to include journaling during the entire makerspace process and/or video recordings to include in portfolios in research approaches. In the past, I have used only quantitative measures to gauge student or teacher interest and confidence levels pre and post over a period of time. While the instruments we used at the University of North Texas are widely accepted as strong and valid instruments, I now realize that a mixed method approach to include journaling throughout the experience and video interviews and reflections would add further depth to capture the impact of the STEAM makerspace challenge cards before and after literacy events. In addition, I feel this would really add to the field of sociolinguistic issues discussed this semester. I now have a stronger understanding on how to leverage native language and family cultural heritages in the makerspace model to not only improve literacy in English Language Learners but also to value the funds of knowledge to this process.

    How can this approach help increase literacy opportunities for English Language Learners? First, I need to strengthen the collaborative dialogue, which I feel is strong in the KWLH activity. However, I can improve the scaffolding of my model to include previewing a picture book, vocabulary discussion, incorporating a story map, repeat reading of the story, compete the KWHL activity, and then encourage discourse after the makerspace activity. In addition, I can encourage video procedures and or reflections throughout the makerspace process. This will provide a visualization component that others may find beneficial and highlight the impact of the activity. Repeating readings can be used to measure fluency. The makerspace PBL activity using the challenge card concept could also include visualization to incorporate sociolinguistics highlighted in this course.

    Tan, Barton, & Schenkel (2018) describe the impact of “meaningful and prolonged engagement toward focused complex projects through making experiences and found that children’s rich funds of knowledge anchored in children’s existing social networks provide community enthnography as a pedagogical approach (p. 77). Bringing in the “community wisdom” through makerspace activities brought about rich conversations that can really leverage experiences connected to curriculum in their own community (Tan, Barton, & Schenkel, 2018, p. 81). Range & Schmidt (2014) highlight the importance of schools and community organizations to tap into prior knowledge in makerspace activities and suggest that “students drive the process of designing projects and soliciting makerspace community for help” (p. 8). While I agree this is true, I still think many students need facilitation of such projects through a focus that may connect to core curriculum content, showing that topics can be extended to real world scenarios relevant to their community.

    In conclusion, this course has helped me to really improve my understanding on how to better design literacy instructional design approaches to incorporate a large focus that centers on the transactions of the reader, text, language, culture, authentic making design process, writing, and reflection. I hope to revamp my approaches to really center on how such creative processes might not only engage interest in STEM but also build to improve cognition approaches toward multiple literacies in a mobile makerspace research environment that investigates reader response theory, or transactional theory

    Galda, L. g. (2013). Learning From Children Reading Books: Transactional Theory and the Teaching of Literature. Journal Of Children’s Literature, 39(2), 5-13.

    Jenkins, R. W., Stedman, S. W., Teusher, D. D., DeLaGarza, H. R., Acosta, A., Anwar, S. J., Paredes, R. A. (2017). Texas Public Higher Education Almanac.

    Marathon ISD, (2015) Retrieved April 13, 2018 from https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/marathon-isd/marathon-isd/.

    Presidio ISD. (2015). Retrieved April 13, 2018, from https://schools.texastribune.org/districts/presidio-isd/.

    Range, E., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Explore, plan, create: Developing a makerspace for your school community. School Library Monthly, 30(7), 8-10.

    Rosenblatt, L. Transactional theory of reading and writing. In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Tan, E., Barton, A. C., & Schenkel, K. (2018). Equity and the Maker Movement. Science and Children, 55(7), 76-81.

     

     

     

  • Round as a Tortilla Makerspace STEAM Literacy Event

    Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (2011) describes the importance of education programs leveraging a child’s fund of knowledge through connecting with families and involving a holistic approach toward learning activities and learning environments. Makerspaces can serve as a quality environment to facilitate activities to incorporate balanced literacy approaches to meet the needs of diverse learners. Range & Schmidt (2014) suggests “successful makerspaces, particularly in education environments, balance practicality with creativity and collaboration to serve the needs of the school community” (p. 8). Tan, Barton, & Schnekel (2018) highlight that “children’s funds of knowledge were recruited by engaging them in community ethnography, which informs of the making design process” (p. 77) via a makerspace environment. The purpose of this activity is to align a purposeful makerspace activity to topics explored in Pre-K and kindergarten using the book by Thong & Parra (2015), Round as a Tortilla.

     

    Repeated Reading Strategy

    Day One

    1. The teacher will introduce the, Round is a Tortilla, to their students. The teacher will show the front cover, back cover and conduct a picture walk.  Remember to read the story enthusiastically, and with expression.
    2. After reading, ask why questions to allow time for students to make inferences and to measure understanding of story events.
    3. Begin the a KWHL: What do we know? What do we want to know? How will we find out? What have we learned? How will we find out?

    Send home a Round as  Tortillia Makespace STEAM Event letter to invite parents to the school library and to participate in making items from the story. Include 4 challenge card ideas in the letter with a link to the video. Invite the makerspace community. Your librarian should be able to help you facilitate this process.

    Day Two

    The teacher will conduct the second read-aloud to enrich reading comprehension and provide further engagement opportunities through a book talk, and highlight vocabulary.

    1. Add more frequent questions.
    2. Ask children questions to think beyond the story with completing a KWHL, What have we learned?
    3. Introduce 4 STEAM Makerspace Challenge Cards and Makerspace activities. Here are some ideas. Encourage students to make their own challenge card but remind students that cards should connect to elements found in the story.
      1. Journalist: Be a storyteller and make a story about shapes in your community.
      2. Scientist: Be a scientist and investigate the process of making masa and round tortillas. Be a computer scientist: Make a game with squares and other shapes.
      3. Artist: Make a weave of shapes to use as a rectangular flag as represented in the story. Make an oval necklace.
      4. Engineer: Engineer a sail for a boat that you make.

    Day Three:  Makerspace STEAM event in the library. Students will make items that represent elements in the story with their parents and makerspace community.

    Repeat the reading of the story. After the activity, ask the children, What have you learned?

    This activity connects to Moll’s ideas of knowledge as it involves the child’s entire community in the literacy process. Children can learn how their culture connects to classroom topics through the art of making. Elders can help children learn how to weave, code, build, and apply STEAM principals through everyday activities.

  • Considering Cognitive Science and Instructional Design on Reading

    Considering Cognitive Science and Instructional Design on Reading

    Personal learning theories on how children and adults best learn are often deeply rooted in past experiences, knowledge, and personal convictions (Ackermann, 2001). We had the unique opportunity to actually hear our great scholar’s explain questions of why and how to address learning as a science. Good (2011) was correct to point out the importance of teachers understanding the cognitive science and theories behind the learning process. This is essential toward improving the instructional design that Skinner speaks of in the video. Learning theories related to how children learn have existed since ancient times. Traditional behavioral learning theories stress the importance of the instructor. Knowledge is transmitted from the mind of the teacher, through lectures and words, imprinted to the student. Learning in a behaviorist’s perspective is a passive experience centered on memorization. Active learning theories evolved from traditional approaches. Piaget’s “Constructivism” continues to have far reaching implications to many modern theories. Constructivism centers on the thought that “knowledge is constructed within the learner’s mind on the basis of existing knowledge and new experiences” (Mavridis, Al Rashdi, Al Ketbi, Al Ketbi, & Marar, 2009). It was wonderful to view Piaget explain his own theories in the video Piaget on Piaget.

    What do I believe about the science of learning?

    Cognitive development and deep understanding are the foci of constructivism rather than emphasizing behaviors and skills (Fosnot & Perry, 1996).  Social Constructivism, an extension of Piaget’s learning theory, stresses that learning is a meaningful and collaborative process employing a variety of perspectives (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Papert’s “Constructionism is a learning theory that adopts constructivist views, but also holds that learning happens most effectively when people are active in making objects to share in the real world” (Mavridis et al., 2009). Constructionism is a learning theory that considers the design as part of the building process. Constructionism allows learners to “dive into unknown situations,” introducing new perspectives (Ackerman, 2001). Constructionism principles outlined by Burbaite, Stuikys, and Damasevicius (2013) provide a framework to approaching e-learning environments.Prior knowledge impacts learning and knowledge is constructed, connecting to constructivist learning theory.Learning and knowledge occurs through the design of meaningful and authentic projects, creating an internal desire to learn.Learning is a process centering on integration of concepts from different realms of knowledge.Building and manipulating objects engage learners to connect and explore the world.Reflection on a learner’s form of understanding is a key component to learning. The above principals center on Papert’s ideas that “learning by making” is effective, allowing learners to construct, or elaborate, thereby providing richness and deeper learning experiences (Papert & Harel, 1991).Constructionist environments support “active learning” approaches in which learners are engaged in building their own public objects or artifacts. Active learning emphasizes cognitive processes occurring during the actual construction of the object. The public nature of the final object or artifact is also understood to be important (Beynon & Roe, 2004). The “maker movement emphasizes learning through direct experiences, hands-on projects, inventions, and is based on a constructionist learning theory even if members and advocates of the movement are unaware of the theory” (Stager, 2013). Papert (2000) advocates that Piaget’s belief of all learning takes place in discovery is accurate. However, Papert extends this idea to suggest that setting learners “to the task of re-empowering the ideas of being learned is also a step toward re-empowering the idea of learning by discovery” (p. 723). Papert (1999) underscores the importance of Piaget’s theory of constructivism and the nature of knowledge.How does this theory assist with understanding toward reading and cognitive processing?To be honest this is the area of improvement that I am working on. I have a strong cognitive science background, but Vaden (2013) presents us with a strong argument as to why teachers need to understand “neurological functioning of struggling readers” (p. 174) Brain science is fascinating and knowing how to address cognitive and behavioral skills during instruction can prove to be invaluable to any educator. For instance, strategies associated with word recognition should center around linking symbols with sounds, as research has linked “fluency to associating symbols with sounds” (Vaden, 20130, p. 181). It is exciting to learn that exposure to quality instructional design can profoundly increase reading comprehension.
    How does this theory assist with understanding toward reading and cognitive processing?To be honest this is the area of improvement that I am working on. I have a strong cognitive science background, but Vaden (2013) presents us with a strong argument as to why teachers need to understand “neurological functioning of struggling readers” (p. 174) Brain science is fascinating and knowing how to address cognitive and behavioral skills during instruction can prove to be invaluable to any educator. For instance, strategies associated with word recognition should center around linking symbols with sounds, as research has linked “fluency to associating symbols with sounds” (Vaden, 20130, p. 181). It is exciting to learn that exposure to quality instructional design can profoundly increase reading comprehension. How can we provide this type of quality instructional experience? I believe we need to improve teaching education programs that address learning as a science, require quality professional development programs, and improve our instructional approaches to target issues and personalize intervention.

     

    Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.

    Beynon, M., & Roe, C. (2004). Computer support for constructionism in context. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004.

    Burbaite, R., Stuikys, V., & Damasevicius, R. (2013, July). Educational robots as collaborative learning objects for teaching Computer Science. In System Science and Engineering (ICSSE), 2013 International Conference on (pp. 211-216). IEEE.

    Edley, N. (2001). Unravelling Social Constructionism. Theory & Psychology, 11(3), 433–441.

    Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 8-33.

    Good, K. (2013). Intersections of educational psychology and the teaching of reading:  connections in the classroom. In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Mavridis, N., Al Rashdi, A., Al Ketbi, M., Al Ketbi, S., & Marar, A. (2009, December). Exploring behaviors & collaborative mapping through Mindstorms robots: A case study in applied social constructionism at senior-project level. In Innovations in Information Technology, 2009. IIT’09. International Conference on (pp. 284-288). IEEE.

    Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1-11.

    Papert, S. (1999). Papert on piaget. Número especial “The Century’s Greatest Minds,” Time, 29, 105.

    Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720–729.

    Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Foundations of Instructional Design. In, Instructional Design.

    Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s Prison Fab Lab : Implications for the maker movement and education design, 487–490.

    Vanden, S. R. (2013) The brain and reading. In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • Academic Vocabulary Tech Strategies Taking STEAM

    I wanted to share some resources that I came across from my literature review this weekend that addresses a topic that all teachers are working with this school year. I found the information very useful and thought I would pass it along.

    Some key resources and ideas:

    1. Learn from Visual Display of Word Relationships with Text. Many of you are already using http://www.wordle.net/ or http://www.tagxedo.com/.

    Questions that you can use in with the tools could be the following:  How do these words go together? Why do you think the Wordle designer chose this shape of word cloud? What superordinate terms reflect the main ideas? Creating with art can inspire kids to learn more and give the lesson a meaningful purpose. Besides printing the Wordle for peers and the school to enjoy, you can also embed in a class blog, share via social media, or insert in a PowerPoint.

    Another free word cloud tool is WordSift, http://www.wordsift.com/

    2. Take a Digital Vocab Field Trip: TrackStar allows you to collect a series of websites and annotate them so you that students can follow the online journey. Literary field trips are also popping up in Google earth.

    3. Games: There are many vocabulary games that you can utilize with your smart board. http://www.vocabulary.co.il/ , http://www.sheppardsoftware.com, http://www.vocabulary.com/

    4. Have students use media to express vocabulary knowledge. Many teachers practiced this during STEAM camp. Animoto, Prezi, SlideShare, Keynote, PowerPoint are all easy ways to foster creativity and build academic vocabulary. One easy way to create academic flash cards or photos is to save an individual slide in PowerPoint as a picture.

    5. Take advantage of online word reference tools that are also teaching tools. I use this every day and find that it is a wonderful way to increase your own vocabulary.  Check out SAT Vocabulary Word Videos.

    Try www.visualthesaurus.com, which  includes a Behind the Dictionary and Teachers at Work feature.

    Dictionary.com is a another resource that we have downloaded as an app on many devices.

    6. Develop Strategic Digital Readers with On-Demand” Vocabulary Help. One way to facilitate this is to support reading and world learning with just in time vocabulary reference support. I have a very long list of these tools if you are interested.

    7. Use Language Translators to Provide Just in Time help for ELs. Yahoo! Kids dictionary supports 90 languages and includes a translator, and students need to know how to utilize this option. The value of a translator is that it supports learning words as they occur naturally in authentic texts and allow students to view bilingual versions of a text side by side so they can use their first language knowledge to develop their English vocabulary. Babelfish, Google translator, Bing Translator are not always perfect but they are a great start.

    8. Increase Reading Volume by Reading Digital Text: Reading current events is a great way to tap into digital reading. Time for Kids, Weekly Reader, National Geographic Kids, National Geographic Kids’ blogs, Science News for Kids are some current event resources.

    9. Text To speech tools and audio books: Anything viewed in Safari can be read to an audience aloud.

    10. Combine Vocabulary Learning to Social Service

    Students desire to to create, participate in global communities, and utilize web 2.o and social media environments. Free Rice, is a great way to give students the opportunity to give back to the planet and extend their learning experience to a greater cause.

    GratefulGram  is a tool that I think can help facilitate the same ideology.

    Take Action: Analyze your current vocabulary instruction and the needs of you students. What current low tech task might be replaced or embraced with an eVoc strategy that uses multimedia? Are there gaps in your students’ vocabulary learning skills that can be supported with a digital tool? Be sure to include time for sharing students’ new knowledge about words, strategies for using digital tools and media, and their creative products. Remember, we have computers in an offsite curriculum center where we can showcase student work. View your integration of technology and vocabulary as an opportunity for exploration and inquiry. How might you share what you are learning with other teachers? Do not forget how much fun words can be, especially when evoked in a digital content.

     

     

    Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2011). eVoc Strategies: 10 Ways to Use Technology to Build Vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 306-317. doi:10.1598/RT.64.5.1