Read, Write and Talk

Today we watched a video on a method of teaching reading called Read, Write, and Talk. This design is not supposed to be another to add to the plethora of teaching methods, because there are already so many, rather it is effective enough to replace many other methods.

The concept is group oriented with teacher modeling, guided practice, and independent practice all mixed together. The class was presented with an article that, very importantly, was relevant to them: watching television. It would probably do more harm than good to hand them a Wall Street Journal article concerning the ramifications of failing to balance the federal budget and voting on raising the debt ceiling. This was something in which they were already interested and immersed, so it was not difficult to elicit interest or sell it.

The teacher facilitated the overlying instructional method and theme of "inner voice" and how to communicate what the student read and thought about during the reading. I use "facilitated" because a student actually developed and expressed the vocabulary of "inner voice" that they were to use the rest of the day. That student probably felt accomplished that the teacher used HIS concept ALL DAY! So, the students read the article, discussed it with each other, wrote down thoughts, and discussed the thoughts. However, this happened in small chunks of information, not the entire extent of the article because that can be overwhelming. A large majority of the lesson was taught before the main text was even read. The students were drawn to the inset pictures, captions and designs that contained information before they were drawn to the drab, linear text, which created a more conducive starting point.

After the teacher guided the students through the process, stopping often to recap, check for understanding, bring up new ideas, survey the class, and aid in discussion, she gave them the opportunity for independent practice in which they were able to choose from three articles. She presented (literally) the genuine article because it's more aesthetically pleasing and legitimate as opposed to an arbitrary, black and white copy. There are fewer interesting or trustworthy components of the latter that would provoke or interest a student in choosing this or that one. After the IP, the students gathered in a circle and THEY led the discussion by offering a thought then politely and properly inviting another student if they cared to share.

What was most intriguing about observing this is how the students probably knew they were learning reading and reading concepts, but that's with what they walked away intrinsically, not consciously. In other words, if a parent were to ask the student what they learned about, the student may respond with information about watching TV, the FLU or tigers, when, in reality, they walked away with deeper reading comprehension skills. Telling a student that they are going to spend the day learning how to read is like giving them a tranquilizer. Telling a student they are learning about TV habits, the FLU, or tigers is MUCH more interesting.

Moral of the story: Teach them to read without them knowing it.