Advanced search

Expert comments and transcript

Read teacher Denise Durrant’s thoughts on what she achieved in the session and an analysis of the teacher-student interaction by literacy expert Peter Johnston. Peter (Ph.D. University of Illinois) is Professor of Education and Chair of the Reading Department at State University of New York at Albany. His position as an advocate for teachers and students developed from his early career teaching primary school in New Zealand. His many publications include Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning (Stenhouse 2004), Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment (Stenhouse 1997), and Running Records: A Self-Tutoring Guide (Stenhouse 2000).

Denise Durrant’s reflections
In keeping with the shared learning intentions, the students came in close looking at the theme of the piece and identifying a particular literary device (use of dialogue) to show rather than tell points of view. They practised the strategy of searching for evidence in the text to support their answers to inferential questions.

Students had to back up their answers with evidence from the written words and visuals in the text. I was looking for the links they were making to prior learning during the year. The number of times during the lesson that I gave descriptive feedback that linked to the learning intentions also indicated to me that the students are learning and practising the desired strategies. At the end of the session the students articulated what they had learned and gave examples of when they used a particular strategy. [This is not shown in the interaction.]
The more confident decoders in the group picked up quickly on using the strategy of searching for clues (in this case, examples of dialogue) in the text to support their answers. I had planned to model what they needed to know and do by the questions I asked and the feedback I gave. This shows the effect of the deliberate acts of teaching.

Sam has good ability and is ready to move on. But he does not always process the text and instead has tended to rely on his prior knowledge and experience of life to get meaning and draw conclusions. By asking why he said Dad was angry, I picked up on the opportunity to reinforce the need for him to process the text and to look for evidence in the text to support his conclusions and inferences.
What was reinforced for me as a teacher was how powerful the learning is when you are totally focused on the learning intentions and you deliberately bring the students back to that focus. I now realise that most students will rise to meet your expectation of them. It’s important not to put a ceiling on their learning.

Peter Johnston's comments
Teacher: I want you to discuss it with your neighbour the dialogue that you have found that shows how Dad is handling the situation. 
The strategy of discussing with a neighbour is useful because all the children get to articulate their thinking. They are all involved in construction and extension. Also, the interaction between peers is less hierarchical than with the teacher, which is part of what is learned. If the teacher had only asked one student what they were thinking, that student would be involved in a largely hierarchical interaction and the other students would have been passively involved. Referring to the dialogue is naming a particular text feature. The naming allows it to be taken up in subsequent discussion. (In this case obviously it has been previously named and introduced.)
Student discussion.

Teacher: OK. Have we found some evidence in the dialogue that shows us, not tells us, just shows us how Dad is feeling? Shameela.
Using the word ‘we’ implies that the class is a community working to the same end. Asking the children to find specific evidence for their understanding, is important so that they are able to take responsibility for their own knowledge construction rather than relying on an external authority. This is an example of naming two different writing strategies - showing and telling. The children are asked to attend specifically to one of them by finding examples. (Presumably this distinction has been introduced before.)

Shameela: Um, He chuckled.

Teacher: Is that dialogue? We’re going back and we’re finding the dialogue - where the person talks. 
This is the same as saying ‘That’s not dialogue.’ It would be better to recognise the part of the observation that was appropriate - something like, ‘That does show us how Dad is feeling. However, remember we were going back to look for evidence in the dialogue.’ The teacher also provides a definition of dialogue just in case Shameela or any others have forgotten what dialogue is.

Shameela: Um, ‘That’s fine by me. But there’s no way I’m letting her spoil my morning.’

Teacher: So what does ‘I’m not letting her spoil my morning’  mean?
This response is directed to all the students rather than just Shameela. It keeps them all involved and leaves responsibility for sense-making with them. Importantly, it is not an evaluation, like, ‘good,’ as is often found in this sort of interaction pattern (teacher question, student response, teacher evaluation). 

Thomas: Like, he’s having fun, like, and like she’s going to like probably like I don’t know.

Sam: Like his morning’s fun right now his before that lady came his morning was fun. But now, since she’s taken his carpark, now he’s all angry cause he can’t handle someone taking his carpark, so he’s got all angry.  
Two student responses in a row, one following up on the other. The teacher has left time for this to happen. However, at this point she jumps in, interrupting the student to make sure the focus of the lesson is maintained.

Teacher: Has Dad got angry? Where does it say that?
Asking for evidence leaves responsibility for meaning construction with the students.

Sam: Like he’s all, up here, he’s got all angry with her cause he took her she took his carpark

Teacher: Show me where it says he’s angry. 
The teacher insists on specific evidence, or warrants, for the claim.

Sam: Like it - well, it doesn’t really say it - like it,  like…

Student: It’s obvious!
This comment shows that students are not intimidated by the teacher’s authority but also show the need for insisting on evidence.

Teacher: What do you think, Shameela? Do you think that Dad is angry? Or do you think Dad is calm?
This establishes Shameela as a person who thinks and the options focus Shameela’s response. It also opens up the possibility of, and encourages, different opinions. 

Shameela: He could be, like inside, not really showing it.

Teacher: So you think he’s not showing it. OK, so...
The teacher restates Shameela’s suggestion as a position rather than as a possibility. This seems like a prompt more toward argument than toward exploratory discourse which would be signalled by something like, So you’re saying it’s possible that (or maybe) he feels angry but isn’t showing it?

Shameela: There’s no way I’m letting her spoil my morning?

Teacher: Mmm, that’s a key piece of dialogue to me, ‘There’s no way I’m letting her spoil my morning'. So he’s turning it around and he’s going to make himself feel happy again. Right? 
This would be very different in terms of implied authority if the words ‘to me’ were left off - adding them allows that other people might have different views. The teacher pauses before ‘around’ to invite prediction, but realises it is not a good place to do that, so the pause is short. The same happens before ‘happy’, though it is a more likely spot. These pauses invite construction by the students to fill in the blank. The ‘Right?’ asks the students to verify the teacher’s view as the correct one. A different way to approach the discussion would be, ‘It sounds to me like' or, 'Do you think he maybe thought he might get mad but decided not to?' These would maintain uncertainty and require students to think through possibilities. 

Teacher: The question is, what is Dad’s reaction? And we’re trying to infer that information from those two sentences. What do you think now, Shameela?
By using ‘to infer’ the teacher names the process so it can be recognised and referred to easily.

Shameela: He’s calm and happy?
Shameela now thinks that there is a right answer to be had and that she might or might not have it. 

Teacher: What gave you the clue there? How did you infer that?
Using the definite article with the clue confirms Shameela’s suspicion that there is a correct answer to be had. It also suggests that there was a single clue to be used (and others would be wrong). At the same time, this second part of the teacher’s question reveals the process, names it again, and requires pointing to the evidence. It also sets up the child to potentially tell an agentive narrative. Take control, act strategically and so develops a sense of agency.

Shameela: He was feeling happy cause he laughed and he started singing.

Teacher: How did you know he laughed? What word told you he laughed? 
The teacher again insists on pointing to the textual evidence.

Shameela: It says ‘while he was sitting he chuckled’.

Teacher: He chuckled. What you were doing there was you inferred that he was happy and laughed by looking at the word ‘chuckled’. That was great, you were using this strategy here, so that’s fantastic. Anyone want to add to that?
This again highlights the inference strategy posted on the chart. Praise for the use of the strategy shows Shameela (and the others) that it is a good thing to do. However, it seems that she is not really convinced that she did anything in particular, just that she was good. An alternative comment would be to point to the usefulness of what she did. The conversation had been brought down to Shameela and the teacher, and the strategy of asking if anyone would like to add anything opens the conversation up again. 

Tarryn: Yeah and, um, he wouldn’t sing if he was mad.

Teacher: No, so we’re starting to get the feeling he’s quite OK about it, he’s quite happy.
Using the word ‘we’re’ helps to build the idea of a common community of readers, embarking on a process of figuring something out starting to get the feeling rather than just getting the teacher’s interpretation. This keeps open the possibility that more evidence might affect the interpretation.

Sam: I reckon, like, he was quite mad, but then he sung his favourite old song to calm him down.

Teacher: Oh, so he was using a strategy of calming himself down. What a big man he was, yeah, clever.
This comment honours Sam’s observation as an original contribution. At the same time, it reminds children of the value of strategic action and connects it to Dad’s identity/character. However the word ‘Yes’ is unnecessary and risks taking Sam’s contribution away from him by implying that the teacher already knew this.

Student: Big man.

Student: About the same as my dad.
This student comment draws laughter from the teacher. The teacher laughing with the students (at a student joke) improves both their relationship and the students’ breathing, mental health, etc.

Teacher: What do you think the author is actually trying to tell us here?

Sam: Um, even though, like, they took your park you shouldn’t yell at them cause it’s not right, it’s have courtesy to other people?

Teacher: Have courtesy, cool. Yes, that’s good thinking. And was it the end of the world?
The word ‘Yes’ is also unnecessary for the same reason stated above. The following comment foregrounds the idea that thinking is the important thing. However, it also opens the possibility that thinking comes in good and bad varieties. The question adds an aspect of the story ‘ the consequence’  for the students to apply to their own lives. The teacher connects the strategic act to its consequences rather than simply labelling it as good.

Students: No.

Teacher: So, perhaps this key word here ... back was for Dad ... was ... he said it to the children, right down there in that last piece of dialogue.
The word ‘perhaps’ maintains the openness of the interpretation, leaving it as a possible interpretation rather than the interpretation. This makes possible alternative interpretations and contributions. 

Students: He said, ‘Just be patient,’ he said.
Students have the idea of looking for textual evidence at this point. This textual reference is co-constructed with the students. 

Teacher: Just be patient. And perhaps the author is telling us to be patient. And keep cool and he didn’t retaliate, and that kind of makes him a big man.

Again, the use of ‘perhaps’ leaves the interpretation open to be disagreed with or built upon. At the same time it inclines toward the need for evidence one way or the other. The final observation refers the interpretation back to the title of the story for the students, helping them see that connection.

Expert comments and transcript

Read teacher Denise Durrant's thoughts on what she achieved in the session and an analysis of the teacher-student interaction by literacy expert Peter Johnston. Peter (Ph.D. University of Illinois) is Professor of Education and Chair of the Reading Department at State University of New York at Albany. His position as an advocate for teachers and students developed from his early career teaching primary school in New Zealand. His many publications include Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children's Learning (Stenhouse 2004), Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment (Stenhouse 1997), and Running Records: A Self-Tutoring Guide (Stenhouse 2000).

Denise Durrant's reflections

The class is large - 32 students - so it was important to keep the students focused, and thinking about and discussing the text as much as possible. So I used think, pair, and share to provide opportunities for all students to be engaged and express their views and opinions. This strategy supported those students who are reluctant to contribute in a big group.

The topic built on what the children had already learned or knew so we reviewed together our prior knowledge at the beginning of the lesson. We had previously read about and studied the water cycle. Now we were narrowing the focus to the electrical activity in clouds. This focus provided opportunities for the students to make links to previous learning to help them to infer and to work out the meaning of unknown words.

In this segment of the lesson, my objective was to help the students see how the author used rich descriptive language to create a certain mood. Baden picked up on that and provided an example from further down the text and, when I prompted him, he was able to articulate the impact the language had on him as a reader. I was impressed with Michael’s response - he modelled for the other students how previous learning could be used. It was a student modelling for the others, rather than the teacher always modelling. This is empowering for the students and I was pleased how that went on this occasion. It also gave me an opportunity to reinforce understanding by giving explicit feedback on what Michael did.

I felt that this session provided an opportunity for the students to develop their ability to infer and to draw on the text to justify their inferences as well as to explore the way the author crafted his explanation. I plan to provide more rich text models in shared reading to help them write explanations that will have greater impact on the reader.

I was also pleased with how Emma used the focus strategy in our shared learning intention to make an inference about the meaning of a word. Again, it was a student modelling how to use information in the text to work out the meaning of unknown words. It provided evidence to me that Emma was independently using this strategy, which was great as it had been a goal focus for her. That is why I selected her to respond and gave her such specific feedback. I was also reinforcing for all the class that this is what successful readers do.

Peter Johnston's comments

Teacher: I want you to close your eyes and I’m going to read a couple of sentences. ‘It’s been a hot, humid day and you look up at the sky and see huge clouds approaching. At the base it looks dark and brooding. Above this a tower of white billows high into the blueness.' OK, you can open your eyes now. Can you find a hint of warning that something is going to happen? Baden.

This strategy builds the students' focus on the secondary world of the book, which they have to imitate, but also models expressive reading. In asking the students to look for hints, the teacher is continuing to push students to articulate and justify their interpretation, using textual cues.

Baden : Um, it says here, um, ‘Soon the cloud is nearly overhead, and everything dims as its shadow seeps across the land.’

Teacher: What impact did it have on you?

This comment asserts that authors have an impact on readers through texts. It asserts this forcefully by offering it as a given. It says, ‘Obviously it had an effect on you, what was it?’ At the same time, it opens the possibility of legitimately different impacts on different readers. Nonetheless, it follows a comment that makes it clear that there should be a hint of warning.

Baden : Well it felt like that it was going to,  like um, something - it sort of felt freaky cause, um, you didn't know what was going to happen next.

Teacher: Good thinking there. Michael?

Michael: Um, like, relating back to the water cycle it said that, um - the like the white cloud that you can kind of see through doesn’t have much moisture in it, so - and the dark like, as it says here, um, ‘dark and brooding’ clouds, um, they would have a lot of moisture and you’d know it would rain or something soon?

Teacher: I like the way you linked back to something you’ve already learnt, that is really good, and you’ve brought that bit of knowledge with you and you’ve added to it, so that’s great thinking there.

The teacher points to a strategy Michael used and reviews it. She also invites expansion.

Teacher: OK, in summing up, the author is setting his scene for his explanation of what causes thunder and lightning. He’s using very descriptive language and he does this to capture our interest. He wants us to be interested in what he’s going to write about.

Teacher: I want you to discuss this with your neighbour. When did you -  one example of when you used this strategy up here, to look for key words or phrases in the sentence or paragraph to help you work out the meaning of unfamiliar words, because there were a lot of technical words in there. Discuss it with your neighbour.

Whether or not they did use this particular strategy, it does get the students reviewing examples of strategic behaviour with respect to figuring out the meaning of words. This sets up the students to tell each other agentive narratives. In this example, it is assumed that all or many of the students will have used the same strategy already described to figure out a word. Often I would expect just an invitation to review whatever strategy was used to figure out words. That offers the possibility of both reviewing the one strategy and offering alternatives for flexibility.

Student discussion.

Teacher: OK. Emma.

Emma: Um well, there’s this sentence, um, ‘If you were in the bush, try to find a low clum of trees to shelter under.’

Teacher: So what word weren’t you sure about?

Emma: Ah, ‘clum’, I think that’s how you pronounce it.

I love this because it is as if she has overgeneralised the model of ‘plumb’ or ‘dumb’.

Teacher: Clump.

Emma: Clump, yeah, well, I found out cause it says that, um, you shouldn't just hide under one, so it would be a bunch of trees?

This is an agentive narrative. Emma says, essentially, ‘I solved the problem by doing this.’

Teacher: Wow, that is really good, you inferred there. That is such a good strategy that you used. Well done, you should feel proud of yourself for doing that because you were a successful reader.

The teacher refers back to the named strategy. Although she offers praise, she offers it in a way that allows the student to attend to the positive feelings that go along with the agentive narrative. It might be a good idea here to articulate the strategy that was used. Calling Emma a successful reader is a nudge toward a positive identity. An alternative would be something like, By using that strategy you were able to figure it out by yourself. This shows what was done and its consequences.

Expert comments and transcript

Denise Durrant's reflections

The class is large - 32 students -  so it was important in the shared reading sessions to keep the students focused, and thinking about and discussing the text as much as possible. So I used ‘think pair share’ to provide opportunities for all students to be engaged and express their views and opinions. This strategy supported those students who are reluctant to contribute in a big group.

My objective in this segment of the lesson was to help the students to identify the author’s viewpoint and to understand that to do this they had to infer. The session provided further practice for the students to explore the text at a deeper level, and I was conscious of the need to keep referring them back to the text to find the evidence to support their inferences. Laura did this well and Michael piggy-backed on the idea and added more information. I was also pleased with the way the students were learning from each other and building on each other’s ideas. I’ve been working on this.

I was surprised by Connor’s comment. I hadn’t thought about that aspect and it was important to let the students know this. If this occurred again I would point out that Connor had made his inference using background knowledge beyond what was in the text, which is a valid thing to do.

Peter Johnston’s comments
Teacher: We’re going to sum up. What’s the author’s point of view about electrical storms? How does he feel about them? Discuss it with your neighbour.

The teacher names a process ‘summing up’ the group are about to engage in. 
Student discussion.

Teacher: What’s the author’s point of view about electrical storms? Laura?
The teacher reminds the students that the text was written by someone, and that writers have perspectives -  a foundation for critical literacy.

Laura: Um, well, he wants us to enjoy them, but then again you have to be aware of them.

Teacher: Could you show me in the text where you inferred that?

Asking Laura to ‘show’ is, again, building responsibility for knowledge. At the same time, as students point out the evidence for perspective, they have the whole concept of author point of view  - and thus of critical literacy-  reinforced. The teacher also names the strategy of inferring again.

Laura: Um, well with the safety tips he’s kind of telling us to be aware, but with... he’s kind of explaining what he’s like enjoying them, sort of thing?

Teacher: OK, could you just find in the text somewhere where it does tell you that he enjoys them and just read that bit to me?

Again, the teacher encourages responsibility for views by insisting on evidence.

Laura: Um

Teacher: Where you had to infer.

Again, the teacher names the process.

Laura: Oh, um, ‘And if you’re a lightning fan, enjoy the thunderstorm, but watch safely’?

Teacher: It does. You had to infer that he also enjoyed them. Good thinking. Michael?

Here the teacher points out that it’s not exactly in the text and reinforces the need to establish where it did come from. She also stresses that thinking is the valued process.

Michael: Like Laura, he likes them but, um, he knows what -  oh, yeah, he knows what to do around them and  it’s not saying you just take for granted, like, you take it seriously?

Michael’s questioning tone at the end suggests he thinks there is a right answer which he might not have.

Teacher: You take it seriously. Enjoy it, watch it, and respect it because it can be quite lethal, it can kill you. Connor.

The teacher’s tone of voice is important here.

Connor: Um, there’s a really big hint, um

Teacher: Oh, is there?

Connor: He must really like them because he wouldn’t have really wrote the book.

Teacher: That’s a good point, that’s something I hadn’t thought of, he wouldn’t have written the book if he hadn’t been interested in them.

This comment points out to the students that the teacher does not have all the knowledge to impart. Students can teach teachers. The teacher also reinforces the significance of the idea by repeating it.

Connor: Yes, if he hated them, or wasn’t interested in them at all, he would have said no, I don’t want to write it.

Teacher: OK. Thomas O.

Thomas O: Well, I think he likes it but he thinks it’s quite dangerous -  like, he just wants you to be aware of the dangers and what could happen and what you can do and what you can’t do.

Teacher: Beautifully said. You have said that very well and I think you’ve summed it up perfectly.

I wonder quite how this plays out. The ‘it’ remains undefined here and could refer to the main idea. I wonder whether ‘You have summed up our discussion very nicely’ would offer a narrative of collaborative construction of meaning instead of an individual getting the right meaning