Teaching content-rich lessons

I recently read this in a blog post by Doug Lemov.

One of the challenges of Hirsch or Christodoulou if you’re a teacher is that many of the requisite actions–a curriculum that prizes and emphasizes knowledge development in a systematic way, are beyond the purview of the individual teacher. Those tend to be school- or district-level decisions. So how do I take individual action?

This is an important question with no easy answer. Lemov is completely right to note that what you teach is often a school, district or (in England) a government and exam board decision. This is particularly the case for exam classes. Individual teachers have very little freedom to decide what to teach in years 6 and in year 10-11.

So, if you are individual teacher looking to make your lessons more knowledge-rich, what can you do? Are there any simple tactics that you can slot into lessons and texts that you have to teach? Here is one suggestion for English: focus on explicit vocabulary instruction.

Often, explicit vocabulary instruction can seem pointless. For me, when I began teaching, the biggest problem seemed to be that there were so many words that my pupils needed to know. Even if I devoted all my lesson time to the explicit instruction of vocab, I couldn’t have taught them all. Self-evidently, there were adults with large vocabularies who hadn’t been taught all these words explicitly. That led me on to the following assumption: the best thing to do was to expose pupils to text so that they could pick up valuable vocab as they went along. However, this strategy didn’t seem to work either. First, pupils would struggle to pick words up from context. Second, even if they did manage to pick the meaning of the word up from context, they’d forget it when we came across it a few weeks later.

Fortunately, there was a brilliant book out there which made sense of all these problems. It is Bringing Words to Life by Beck, McKeown and Kucan. It has the answers to all the problems I’ve raised above, and it offers a series of fun and challenging activities that you can use to teach vocab. These methods are the ones used to teach vocabulary in the US Core Knowledge Language Arts pilot.

Here are Beck, McKeown and Kucan’s responses to the problems I outlined above.

Problem one: My pupils need to know so many words! I can’t possibly teach them all!
Beck et al. note that we don’t need to teach pupils every single word out there. They divide words into three tiers. Tier One are basic words that occur in everyday life. Pupils know these anyway. These are words like warm, dog, tired, party, walk.
Tier Three words are subject-specific and highly specialised. Pupils typically won’t know these words, and they won’t typically meet them outside subject specific contexts. Examples: filibuster, pantheon, epidermis.

Tier Two words are words that occur across a range of domains, are characteristic of written texts and occur less frequently in oral language. These are words like contradict, circumstances, precede, auspicious, fervent. Beck et al. argue that we should focus vocab instruction on this category of words because understanding them will have the most impact. How many of these words are there? Beck et al. draw on research by Nagy and Anderson to suggest there are 7,000 Tier Two word families. If you teach 400 words a year from kindergarten to 9th grade (year 1 – year 10) you can make a significant contribution to a pupils’ vocabulary.

Problem two: Why can’t pupils just pick up the words they need to know by reading texts?
It’s hard to learn words from naturally occurring written contexts. They identify four types of context in which words occur: misdirective contexts, in which the context gives you the wrong idea; nondirective, in which the context gives you few clues as to the word’s meaning; general contexts, which allow you to put it in a general category; and directive contexts, which do lead you to the correct meaning. In naturally occurring contexts, only a proportion will be directive contexts that will help you learn the word. The other contexts will either not help you to learn the words, or – worse – they will give you the wrong idea about the word. Beck et al. also reference the famous Miller and Gildea paper on the difficulty of learning words from dictionary definitions.  Finally, I would add that there is a broader cognitive load issue here – if you struggle to decode, or if you come across a sentence with difficult syntax or lots of unfamiliar words, then it will be difficult to learn what the word means from context, even if the context might appear to be directional.

Problem three: OK then, what activities can I use?
They recommend finding Tier Two words in class readers, and then, when you’ve read the chapter in which the words occur, doing some specific work on those words. They recommend that instead of using dictionary definitions, you use longer definitions that could be more accurately described as explanations, and that you present pupils with the word being used in different contexts.

Here’s how Beck et al. recommend you can get from a dictionary definition to a more useful explanatory definition.

Illusion – dictionary definition: appearance or feeling that misleads because it is not real.
This is a good example of a vague definition. An ‘appearance that misleads’ is rather hard to make sense of. Might it be something that looks good but isn’t – like a stale piece of cake? Or considering ‘feeling’ – how does a feeling mislead? How is a feeling not real? The core of illusion is something that looks real but isn’t, or appears to be something but isn’t there at all. Those ideas could be put together in a definition such as ‘something that looks like one thing but is really something else or is not there at all.’

And here is one suggestion for an activity – this activity is called Example/non-example.

If I say something sounds precarious, say ‘precarious’. If not, don’t say anything. Students should be asked why they responded as they did.
Walking over a rickety bridge that spans a deep canyon.
Exploring a new tall school building.
Standing on a tall ladder on one foot.

So, if you are a teacher who has little freedom over the texts and content you can teach, but some freedom over how you can approach these texts, one thing you can do is to find the Tier Two words in your set text and create activities like the above to help teach them. I would also recommend that you buy Bringing Words to Life because as well as fully explaining all these issues, it has lots of really excellent classroom activities.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Teaching content-rich lessons

  1. Christine Counsell

    Doug’s concern strikes a chord with me as experienced history teacher and history teacher educator who has now seen practice, weak and strong, in hundreds of history departments. Your response, Daisy, is very useful, I am sure, to teachers of English. It points to the valuable (albeit necessarily limited) agency that knowledge-concerned teachers can still have, even in school cultures or structures that are not friendly to systematic, rigorous subject knowledge growth. At the same time, it underlines the depth and seriousness of the structural problem. To secure the full benefits of the system you propose one needs to treat it as a system. Its effectiveness would surely increase exponentially if (for example) I knew, with confidence, the Tier Two words that my pupils had tackled last year with another teacher and especially if we had all worked as a team to identify which words we wanted to teach… and when, and how, and why.

    In history, the problem is severe for further reasons. Many history teachers that I have trained, worked with or bumped into e-mail me in utter frustration about this problem of their agency finally hitting the buffers of structural constraint. I could produce a (very long!) anthology of such e-mails. To take a very obvious example, if I want to raise Year 9’s game in their understanding of how Britain’s political system developed in the 19th century, of how and why the franchise extended, of turning points, struggles and so on, of some of the debates about distinctions (or otherwise) between Britain and other countries, I’m pretty stuck if I can’t teach them at all in Year 9 and have to squash all that material back into Year 8, together with everything else required at Key Stage 3. Indeed, never mind ‘raising their game’, I’ll struggle to make sure they have any awareness at all of the 1832 Reform Act or the Chartists. Forget Gladstone and Disraeli. No chance. But I’m even more stuck if my department is forced to use its meagre time in Year 7 and Year 8 only in a few isolated modules, especially when the ultimate diet looks something like this (here I select, combine and disguise from a random selection of a couple of academy websites – i.e. settings where there is no compulsion to follow the NC): Year 7: a unit on Elizabeth 1, and a unit on ‘our town’. Year 8: a unit on ’empire’ and a unit on ‘World War II’. Even if by some miracle I manage to persuade SLT to give us a tiny bit more time so that I can fit 19th century politics in somewhere, pupils will barge into it with both hands tied behind their backs because, without the foggiest idea of what happened in the 17th and 18th centuries, they will know nothing about what Rowan Williams puts rather beautifully as ‘the mingled political and religious roots’ of an understanding of legality and constitutional balance. I’m not advocating one single narrative – these events can be and should be narrativised in multiple ways – but one has to start somewhere. I absolutely despair for those teachers who are simply prevented from helping pupils systematically into the kind of powerful knowledge that could give those pupils some future hope of engaging in political debates in an informed way as well as the many other kinds of power that rich knowledge of history bestows. Moreover, many pupils (those who struggle) need EXTRA time for practice, reinforcement, revisiting (not to mention sheer enjoyment of rich stories) in a clear planned framework.

    In the teacher training course that I run together with c.25 stunning history mentors in 25 very good history departments, we are very lucky. We not only give them options for generating the history equivalent of the solutions you suggest (should they end up in unpropitious circumstances in their first post; …some will), we also help them to think about coherence and balance, narrative and analysis, in different kinds of history curricula so that they could, in future, lead departments in shaping strong, rigorous history curricula. But history teachers cannot act in isolation. If there isn’t a will, from SLT/SMT, to let subject professionals have agency in determining knowledge priorities and progression, then it is almost impossible to help all pupils acquire even a basic ability to navigate their way around the past and to understand the disciplinary conventions and traditions that make that possible. And what is the point of training teachers to do so? The thing that infuriates me here is waste: waste of rigorous, school-based training; waste of pupils’ time.

    Yet in England we have a history NC. It isn’t too prescriptive. It now includes breadth and allows for further breadth at history department discretion. At the same time, it is a clear, starting structure. One cannot be said to be following even its spirit if one dots about and misses entire centuries and major developments. Might Michael Gove consider enforcing it?

    Reply
  2. Pingback: Do good writers always know how to write? | Room F08

  3. Christine Counsell

    Doug’s concern strikes a chord with me as experienced history teacher and history teacher educator who has seen practice, weak and strong, in hundreds of history departments. Your response, Daisy, is very useful, I am sure, to teachers of English. It points to the valuable (albeit limited) agency that knowledge-passionate teachers can still have, even in school cultures that are not friendly to systematic, rigorous subject knowledge growth. At the same time, it underlines the seriousness of the structural problem. To secure the full benefits of the system you propose one needs to treat it as a system. Its effectiveness would increase exponentially if (for example) I knew, with confidence, the Tier Two words that my pupils had tackled with another teacher last year, and especially if we had all worked as a team to identify which words we wanted to teach… and when, and how, and why.

    In history, the problem is severe. Many history teachers e-mail me in utter frustration when their agency finally hits the buffers of structural constraint. To take a very obvious example, if I want to Year 9 to understand how Britain’s political system developed in the 19th century, how and why the franchise extended, its key turning points and so on, I’m pretty stuck if I can’t teach them at all in Year 9 and have to squash all that material back into Year 8, together with everything else required at Key Stage 3. I’ll struggle to make sure they have firm grasp of the 1832 Reform Act or the Chartists. But I’m even more stuck if my department is required to use its meagre time in Year 7 and Year 8 only in a few isolated modules, especially when the ultimate diet looks something like this (here I select, combine and disguise from a random selection of academy websites – i.e. settings where there is no compulsion to follow the NC): Year 7: a chunk on Elizabeth 1, and a unit on ‘our town’. Year 8: a unit on ’empire’ and a unit on ‘World War II’. Even if by some miracle I manage to persuade SLT to give us a tiny bit more time so that I can fit 19th century politics in somewhere, pupils will barge into it with both hands tied behind their backs because, without the foggiest idea of what happened in the 17th and 18th centuries, they will know nothing about what Rowan Williams puts rather beautifully as ‘the mingled political and religious roots’ of an understanding of legality and constitutional balance. I’m not advocating one single narrative – these events can be and should be narrativised in multiple ways – but one has to start somewhere. I absolutely despair for those teachers who are prevented from helping pupils systematically into the kind of powerful knowledge that could give those pupils some future hope of engaging in political debates in an informed way as well as the many other kinds of power that rich knowledge of history bestows.

    In the teacher training course that I run together with c.25 stunning history mentors in 25 very good history departments, we are very lucky. We not only show trainees how to generate the history equivalent of the solutions you suggest (should they end up in unpropitious circumstances in their first post … some will), we also train them to find coherence and rigour, narrative and analysis, in their own strong history curricula. But history teachers cannot act in isolation. If there isn’t a will, from SLT/SMT, to let subject professionals have agency in determining knowledge priorities and progression, then it is impossible to help all pupils acquire even a basic ability to navigate their way around the past and to understand the disciplinary traditions that make that possible. And what is the point of training teachers to do so? The thing that infuriates me here is waste: waste of rigorous, school-based training; waste of pupils’ time.

    Yet in England we have a history NC. It isn’t too prescriptive. It now includes breadth and allows for further breadth at history department discretion. At the same time, it is a clear, starting structure. One cannot be said to be following even its spirit if one dots about and misses entire centuries and major developments. Perhaps Michael Gove should consider enforcing it?

    Reply
  4. Pingback: Do good writers always know how to write? | roomf08

  5. Pingback: How can we increase a child’s vocabulary? | Tabula Rasa

  6. Pingback: On Vocabulary: What is a 'Tier One' Word - Teach Like a Champion

  7. Anthony Radice

    A concept which has really helped me with the challenge of introducing more content-rich material is Hirsch’s notion of the ‘extensive curriculum’ as opposed to the ‘intensive curriculum’. The extensive curriculum is the broad range of general knowledge that will provide the schema into which pupils can place new information as they come across it. I’m introducing a regular ‘English literature overview’ lesson which will cover this broad but shallow knowledge, so that they will at least know who Geoffrey Chaucer is, even if I can’t spend much, or any, time teaching ‘The Canterbury Tales’ intensively. Of course, it’s going to be essential that this type of knowledge gets firmly lodged in their memory, via plenty of whole class drill and testing.

    Reply
  8. Pingback: Wurdz. | primarytimerydotcom

  9. Pingback: Is all practice good? | The Wing to Heaven

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s