jseelhoffteach.weebly.com · web viewliterary instruction has, within the past two decades, taken...

Running head: LITERACY LEARNER ANALYSIS PROJECT 1

Literary Learner Analysis Project

James W. Seelhoff

Michigan State University

LITERACY LEARNER ANALYSIS PROJECT 2

Abstract

This paper examines the process of creating and applying lessons focused on literacy acquisition

with a single student. Within this paper is research-backed reasoning for the creation and

application of two lessons, including the execution and assessment of each lesson. This research

is focused on the importance of differentiated instruction within literacy centered lessons, and

discusses the role of new standards such as the Common Core State Standards in expanding the

role of literacy within the classroom. The lessons taught focused on a single subject who has

struggled with literacy in their education, with names having been changed to protect anonymity.


Brief Background and Reason for Project Focus

Literary instruction has, within the past two decades, taken a new and powerful place on

the center stage of education, largely driven by national initiatives seeking to close an

international literacy gap, such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and No Child Left

Behind (Reutzel, Clark, & Flory, 2015, p. 365). These directives have left an indelible mark on

instruction across all content areas, which has in turn renewed the efforts toward and emphasis

on differentiated instruction. As students struggle, differentiated instruction provides a means

for struggling students to receive instruction that addresses their area of weakness while

providing the same curricular access as their stronger peers receive (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse,

2015, p. 116). This holds true for learners who struggle within specific areas of literacy

instruction as well, with effective strategies showing success in improving achievement by

targeting skills with different text styles, different textual purposes, and varied technical

vocabulary across curricula (Risko &Walker-Dalhouse, p. 120).

Recently, the importance of literacy instruction within the Social Studies classroom has

grown, given the emphasis on literacy skills within the CCSS for Social Studies (Common Core

State Standards Initiative, 2017). In order to fully address these literacy standards, my own

understanding of literacy instruction and differentiation must increase past what my first 5 years

of teaching and professional development provided. Progressing through a teacher education

program in college provided only a cursory overview of literacy instruction and of differentiation

within teaching, while various professional development sessions similarly offered small and

disjointed pieces on differentiated instruction, with only mildly more available on literacy

education. Progressing through this study will provide further theoretical knowledge of the

methods, reasoning, and implementation of differentiated literacy instruction, and will also


provide experiential learning of those same methods and implementation that otherwise has been

lacking from provided teacher education courses and professional development.

Although the CCSS is focused on literacy for Social Studies, the standards do not address

particular content within the curriculum. This places even further importance on the literacy

processes and strategies reflected in the standards, which provide the national standards under

which I have taught for the entirety of my career thus far. These standards largely, within Social

Studies, focus on the processes of understanding, and analyzing texts, with four key subsections

regarding comprehension, and analysis within the standards: Key Ideas and Details, Craft and

Structure, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, and Range of Reading and Text Complexity

(CCSSI). These standards provide an umbrella of skills to be taught alongside, and integrated

with, state content standards. Due to this integration of CCSS and Grade Level Content

Expectations (GLCEs) within the classroom, and my experience being almost exclusively within

Social Studies classrooms, my experience with literacy instruction has been tied to content

instruction with very few exceptions. This project is a continuation of that integration, but also

brings further literacy instruction into the lessons taught, making literacy the centerpiece and

content the scaffolding, rather than vice versa. Mixing the integration level and focus between

the literacy instruction and the content instruction provides further resource and theory for

crafting future lessons and units in order to more successfully provide literacy instruction as well

as content instruction in a systematic manner backed by researched best practices. I also hope to

provide further support for each student as they take the school mandated Northwest Evaluation

Association (NWEA) reading test and the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-

STEP), both of which assess both literacy and content information (though the NWEA serves

only as a measure of content within ELA, Math, and Science at this time). This desire to provide


integrated literacy and content instruction provided the impetus for the student I chose to

research during this project, as I wanted to find a student who struggled both with the content of

the course as well as with literacy skills. This was because I wanted to work with a student who

could not lean on content area knowledge to cover for struggles with literacy, and vice versa.

The Student, Home, and Family Literacy Practice

John Smith1 is a twelve-year old student at John F. Kennedy Middle School, in the

seventh grade at the time of this study. He is African-American, has lived in the same city

during his entire life, and is fluent in English as his native language. Although he struggles with

reading and vocabulary, John speaks clearly and practices code switching between different

groups, such as his friends and teachers, which has been observed throughout his classes this

year. However, even with changes in tone and vocabulary, he struggles to utilize academic

vocabulary, which is evident from conversations stemming from individual conferencing on his

work. John is a student who receives Special Education services, which he has been receiving

during his time at the middle school, but that he does not recall receiving in elementary school.

His IEP covers reading issues, as well as deficiencies in math. Because of the IEP, John is in co-

taught classes for both English and math, as well as two separate, small resource classes with his

Teacher of Record. During resource classes, John receives more focused interventions,

including small group reading practice and one-on-one conferencing and assessment of reading

skills. These classes also exempt John from the school requirement of taking a foreign language

class, which leaves his schedule with the four core classes (English, math, science, and Social

Studies), his two resource classes, and physical education, with only the science, Social Studies,

and gym classes not having a Special Education teacher present in the class.

1 All names, including those of individuals, organizations, and schools have been changed to protect anonymity.


After completing NWEA testing in fall of 2017, John’s reading level was assessed at that

of a third-grade student, according to the most recent normative data for the NWEA2. John’s

score place him within the bottom most percentile of seventh graders in reading. Despite the

drop, John still felt he did as well as he could on the test, and informed me that he is very

comfortable with the format of the testing on the computer, though he finds the content difficult.

NWEA testing also breaks down his scores further, showing that John’s score has dropped since

he last tested in the spring of 2016, and that his weakest area is in understanding the language,

craft, and structure of both literary and informational texts. The drop in score over the summer

period reflects what John speaks about his home literacy options: his mother does not read, and

the only time he sees his older sister read is while she works on homework during the school

year. John’s father is not present at home.

When I spoked to John about what books he had at home, he informed me that the only

reading material at home is what he brings home—either from school, the library, or

occasionally getting a book in a sale, as his mother is currently unemployed. The books he has

access to are parts of series that John finds enjoyable. He specifically mentioned both the Harry

Potter and Michigan Chillers series as books that catch and keep his attention, and he openly

admits that if he is not interested in a text that he does not put much effort into reading it,

including when that text is required for a class. When he reads at home, John says he reads for

short periods of time, adding up to roughly an hour a week. He also says that his mother asks

him questions after reading roughly half of the times he chooses to read, though they are

primarily questions related to comprehension. John’s mother has a clear expectation that John

will continue to pursue school, and has some college education herself. However, John’s literacy 2 The NWEA is an online, adaptive test that provides a Rasch Unit (RIT) score to each student based on the questions they answer correctly or incorrectly, and when those questions are asked. Each RIT score is normative, with 50% of students are above or below the expected RIT score for a grade level, and 41st -60th percentile RIT scores providing the average scores for a given grade level, within one standard deviation.


at home is almost entirely dependent on the books he has access to, as he does not read online

and has limited access to magazines or other print media.

Experiences with Literacy in Schools

John does not recall what reading was done in elementary school other than part of each

day was set aside for reading purposes. However, since starting at the middle school in sixth

grade, John has been introduced to a number of literary strategies and skills. Each teacher in the

building has received training through the Reading Apprenticeship (RA) program as part of the

school’s improvement plan. RA contains several different literacy skills, the most widely used

strategy in the building is Talking-to-the-Text, in which students record their thoughts as they

read through a text (including questions, connections, and vocabulary issues). This strategy, and

others, are modeled by teachers throughout the building, including within my classroom

specifically. Frequently, John and his classmates are provided with current events articles

related to course content in my classroom and asked to use RA strategies, including Talking-to-

the-Text, 25-word summaries, and finding “golden lines” in texts. These articles are typically

provided at two or three different reading levels for students of different literary capabilities.

During his previous year at the school, in sixth grade, John’s scores showed good growth

(though they still fell below grade level norms), jumping over 30 RIT in score. That growth

indicates that the strategies and skills being learned and practiced by John have had positive

effect, though the drop in score between spring and fall indicates that regular practice is

necessary for John’s literary skill to continue growing and remain stable. The growth, and

John’s own testimony, also indicate that John, although he did not have much motivation to use

and learn literary strategies, did learn to utilize the strategies to some extent. However, John has

additional behavior issues that are addressed in his IEP that also hinder his ability to utilize


literary strategies. Because of these issues, John cannot follow the normal bell schedule, and

frequently requires one-on-one time with and reminders and redirection from teachers to remain

on task, as even when he engages with a task he struggles to remain engaged for more than five

to ten minutes, meaning that small group interventions will often be less successful than

individual interventions for him. However, John is also aware of this, and openly admits he can

do a better job with his reading, both in class and at home, though he needs supports in order to

follow through on that belief.

Classroom Emotional Climate

Within John F. Kennedy Middle School, literacy has been a key focus due to the school’s

previous placement on a list of struggling schools maintained by the state. Although the school

no longer is on that list, the policies and procedures developed during that time remain. As

previously noted, one of the structures in place due to the previous struggles of the school is the

Reading Apprenticeship program. According to its own website, “Reading Apprenticeship helps

teachers seize on these developmental opportunities. Students engage metacognitive processes to

unlock complex disciplinary text, and learn how to learn” (WestEd, 2017). This has a clear

impact on John’s motivation to work with literacy skills: due to the prevalence of these

strategies and structures across classes, when different strategies are approached, John often

knows immediately whether it is a strategy that is successful for him or not. As would be

expected under the Value x Expectancy model of motivation, John’s motivation notably waxes

and wanes with his perceived ability to succeed or struggle with a given strategy. One

commonly used strategy that John is much less motivated to work on is Talking-to-the-Text,

where students record their thoughts on the text within the margins of the text as they read. With

more social strategies, such as Reciprocal Teaching, a strategy where students work in small


groups with specific roles for each student to read and create away to share out information to

the class, John has a higher level of motivation.

With the emphasis on literacy strategies throughout the building, classroom procedures

have been put into place to assist students in developing their metacognitive skills with texts, and

to raise student interest in texts. Although literacy strategy work is an expectation throughout the

school, many classroom teachers employ reward systems that incorporate those expectations.

The most common, including within my own classroom, is a raffle system where students earn

tickets for positive behavior, and then names are drawn periodically for small prizes, such as

pencils or extra hall passes. In the classroom, this system is not consistently able to motivate

John, as the right incentives have not yet been found to lend to consistent self-management on

his part. Other systems to engage students with texts are also implemented, such as providing

choice of reading material when using a text in class. These texts are levelled based on NWEA

scores, with students within a given subset of scores provided an option of 2-3 different texts

related to a topic. Students are encouraged to choose a text that will be challenging, but not

overwhelming, by choosing from their own score subset or one grouping higher. However,

John’s engagement and motivation when working with texts is disassociated with student choice,

with social interaction again proving the key aspect of motivation for John.

Social interaction for John is a central piece of school. Within the hallways, he has been

placed on passing schedule that differs from the rest of the student body due to his

mismanagement of his tactile actions, as John often chooses to touch other students, and

frequently engages in horseplay when in the hallways with others. This means that opportunities

to collaborate with other students within the classroom are, aside from lunch, the main

opportunity for John to interact with his peers. Frequently, John will request to work with


another student, or group of students, when using texts. Due to his struggles with literacy, this is

often a strategy he is allowed to utilize, working with a small group of classmates at a similar

reading level and reading aloud within the group, with oversight from either a classroom aide or

myself. Despite his social desires, the opportunity to use a social strategy with a text does not

guarantee motivation or focus from John, and often breaks down into off-task discussion or

frequent choices to violate the personal space of the peers with whom he is working. However,

when these opportunities are not available, for example when working on tests or quizzes with

text passages, John will disengage from the text, and frequently attempts to engage other students

in conversation or leaves his seat—both breaches of the class’ self-constructed expectations.

Even his physical state noticeably changes when engaged or disengaged from a text: when

engaged, John will sit erect within a chair and keeps his upper body in a position to write, while

when he disengages he often leans his body backward and lets his arms lay limp at his side,

redirecting his gaze to the ceiling rather than the text.

Likewise, when offered assistance one-on-one with a classroom aide or myself, John will

say that he “needs help, but not from you”3. When John gives this position, we engage in a

conversation, as the situation calls for, about the difficulties he is facing, the assistance that

teachers can offer, and his choices with regard to meeting class expectations. These

conversations are in private, but John’s reaction to them changes based on whether the

intervention is in the moment or at the conclusion of class: redirection and discussion that occurs

promptly following the disengagement is often met with further frustration by John, while

waiting until the conclusion of class provides a more thoughtful reflection on his part (though

3 This quote is taken verbatim from John on 10/05/17, but unfortunately was not recorded in audio, given the frequency at which he expresses this mindset.


impacts limited change in his choices). This provides further proof of the social nature of John’s

motivation, as his behavior becomes more of a show when peers are present.

Pre- and Post-Assessments Given and Summary of Test Results

With this study’s focus on John’s struggles in identifying text structure within

informational text, the given assessments needed to provide John an opportunity to show his

understanding of these structures. As with any assessment, the pre- and post-assessment for this

study serve to provide important data on student understanding of the topic, in this case text

structures, in order to support and grow student success. Afflerback, Cho, Crassas, and Kim note

that, “Effective reading assessment is that which informs important educational decisions”

(2015, p. 319). Likewise, the data from these assessments also provides important feedback on

the efficacy of the teaching of lessons covering that topic. Given the goal of growth within this

study, for both myself as a teacher and John as a literacy learner, the fidelity of the results, as

well as the alignment of the assessment to the targeted area, was paramount. As previously

stated, John was selected as the student for this study given that his struggles with literacy could

not be masked by content knowledge, meaning these assessments would be directly addressing

the literacy struggles he faces. Additionally, because the focus area was textual structures,

additional supports, such as assistance with troubling vocabulary and pronunciation, were

provided for John when taking both assessments due to his further deficits in other areas of

literacy. Most notably any vocabulary struggles were given assistance from myself.

For each of the pre- and post-assessments, an article from NewsELA was appropriately

leveled to John’s third-grade reading level and divided into sections. On the pre-assessment,

each section was chosen and vetted for its primary use of a particular structure (see Document 1,

Appendix B). The assessment called for the student to pick which structure from the five most


widely utilized structures (Cause/Effect, Chronology, Compare/Contrast, Problem/Solution, and

Sequencing) was used to create each of the sections. The options were presented at the

beginning of the assessment, with a choice of “A” through “E” at the conclusion of each section.

The assessment also called for the student to circle any key terms in determining which structure

was used in each section. The article was entitled “The Evolution of Egyptian Hieroglyphs”, and

explored the creation and impact of hieroglyphic writing within ancient Egypt (“The Evolution

of Egyptian Hieroglyphs”, 2017). Although the specific class lessons on writing came after the

administration of the pre-assessment, the topic of ancient Egypt writ large was already being

explored, providing a relevant piece of informational text to form the backbone of the pre-

assessment. This relevancy was included to assist in motivation, and was framed as an additional

support to John’s work in class.

On the pre-assessment, John correctly identified the text structure in 2 of the 4 sections.

However, for the portion of the assessment asking for key terms to be identified, John’s choices

were clearly more informed for the sections he correctly identified, while they appeared to be

randomly chosen for the sections he incorrectly identified. For instance, John underlined a brief

line about the myth of how hieroglyphs came to humans in a section he identified as

“Cause/Effect”, but that was rightfully “Compare/Contrast” (see Document 1, Appendix C).

However, when correctly identifying a section as “Chronology”, John also underlined the use of

a specific date within the section (Document 1, Appendix C). Interestingly, the date John

identified as his clue was the least linear of the provided dates, indicating that his understanding

of the nature of dates in relating to chronologic order may not have been what led him to choose

“Chronology”. Similarly, in the final section, John correctly identified the structure as

“Sequence”, however he also noted two separate sentences as key to that identification


(Document 1, Appendix C). The first of those sentences provided no clues to the nature of the

structure, instead serving as exposition, while the second sentence was one of the clearest clues

within the section.

The results of the pre-assessment indicated that John had some familiarity with certain

text structures, but lacked the strategies to identify unknown structures without familiarity. The

chosen key terms used by John in identifying the text structures indicate that even with the

correctly identified structures, his ability to link that structure to specific textual clues was

lacking. The post-assessment was constructed in a similar manner to the pre-assessment. An

article from NewsELA was chosen and leveled to John’s abilities. As with the pre-assessment,

the post-assessment utilized an article providing information that was concurrently being

explored within the classroom, also divided into sections based on text structure used within that

section. The post-assessment article was entitled “Should there be 13 months in a year?”,

looking at the development of the modern Western calendar system through its history, as well as

a few prominent alternatives (“Should there be 13 months in a year?”, 2017). Notably, the post-

assessment diverged from the pre-assessment by providing sections that had multiple structures

utilized within the section. The student was also asked to identify the structure from memory,

rather than choosing the structure from a set of 5, and was once again asked to explain the

reasoning behind choosing that structure, or multiple structures. However, the explanation for

the post-assessment was required to be in the form of written text using details from within the

section, rather than underlining the material within the section.

On the post-assessment, John correctly identified only 1 of the 5 structures used

throughout the article in the correct section. The structure he correctly identified was

“Problem/Solution” used in the second section of the text, and correctly identified a textual clue


for that structure in the proposition of a new calendar system (see Document 2, Appendix C).

However, the other textual clues John cited in his explanations had limited or non-existent

connections to the structures used within those sections, and the structures he identified were not

utilized in the sections he identified them as a part of. He also did not identify the second

structure used within the second section, missing the clues to a “Sequencing” structure

(Document 2, Appendix C). While these results are not the end goal of any education, they do

provide important information about John’s continuing struggles with literacy. As Duke and

Martin point out, even with focused, individualized lessons, literacy growth is a continual

process built on continued and consistent use of best practices within the classroom (2015, p.

251). Of course, this data also must point to the efficacy of the lessons, and the results from this

post-assessment speak to issues within the lessons and their implementation, which are explored

further below.

Lesson Plan Matrix

The chart below lists an overview of the two lessons taught to John. Included are the

focus and date taught of each lesson, the objectives and standards addressed by each lesson, and

the materials utilized within the lessons. The chart also contains the measures of formative

assessment use throughout the lessons. Full lesson plans are located within Appendix A at the

conclusion of this paper, labeled as Document 1 and Document 2. These full lessons include all

instructional materials utilized within the lesson as well.

Lesson Foci/Dates Objectives Instructional Materials

On-Going Assessment

Definitions of textual structures, 10/4/17 and 10/6/17.

Students will be able to describe the differences between types of textual structures by defining the key features of

PowerPoint presentation on textual structures.

“The Evolution of Egyptian

Identification of structural components on board.

Note taking on digital


each structure, and finding examples of each structure in action.

Hieroglyphs” article.

Chromebook.

Digital note-taking sheet.

note sheet, and review of note sheet following lesson.

Verbal check-ins.

Textual clues to identify text structures, 10/11/17 and 10/13/17.

Students will be able identify textual structures by utilizing clues within the text, and describing the connection between clue terms and the textual structure.

Textual structure clue word chart.

Textual structure clue word practice sheet.

“From Ptolemy to GPS, a Brief History of Maps” article.

Clue word practice sheet

Release of responsibility practice with “From Ptolemy to GPS” article.

Verbal check-ins.

Reflections on Literary Lesson Plans

As noted previously, the focus area for these lessons with John was on textual structure.

This area was chosen as a focus due to data gathered from John’s NWEA reading scores, which

indicated that among his multiple areas of weakness, text structures within informational texts

was the area with the largest deficit. The pre-assessment confirmed this area of weakness, with

John only getting one of four questions correct, and being unable to provide reasoning for that

answer (Appendix C, document 1). To assist John in improving his understanding of text

structures, I decided to work on two main skills within the lessons with him. The first lesson was

designed to build his knowledge of what the different textual structures are, with a focus on

awareness of the structures. The second lesson was designed to build John’s ability to identify

different textual structures through key terms and phrases within the body of each structure.

Each of these lessons will be discussed in greater depth later in this study.


In order to create the pre-assessment, I gathered information on the most common types

of textual structures used within informational texts, ultimately choosing to use a set of structures

suggested by the National Education Association (NEA 2017). However, I also chose to remove

the “Description” text structure as a focus, while adding distinct “Problem/Solution” and

“Chronology” structures. These choices were made due to the types of texts most commonly

seen in the content of history. As noted by Learned, Stockdill, and Moje, content-focused

literacy instruction can be as effective as strategy-focused instruction, and that the combination

of both content-centered and strategy-centered instruction is desirable (2011, p. 60).

Description was removed due to the sheer amount of descriptive text that exists within

many historical texts. This potentially overwhelming amount of description serves and important

purpose within informational texts focused on history by helping students build understanding,

respond to the text, and maintain interest in the text. With John’s struggles to focus on literary

assignments, giving such a copious amount of material to focus on and separate from other text

structures would have been overwhelming. The Sequence structure being divided into Sequence

and Chronology as individual structures was also a concession to the content, as many texts

include sequential structures both with and without dates. Providing a distinction between the

two allows for improved focus on understanding the relationship between events, though it also

added more for John to remember and work with. Likewise, the separation of the Cause/Effect

structure into Cause/Effect and Problem/Solution was done to provide increased focus on the

relationships between decisions and the impetuses for those decisions, giving more acute focus

on the problem-solving concepts that drive so many historical events.

After establishing the structures to be used within the assessments and lessons, I began

looking for texts with relevant content information that also had clear uses of the different textual


structures. An added obstacle in finding an appropriate text is John’s third-grade reading level,

as many texts that explore history become vaguer as the reading level is decreased. To alleviate

this difficulty, I made use of the website NewsELA.org, which provides a variety of texts at

levels that can be adjusted to meet the needs of the students. The next step was finding a text

with content-specific information that would be relevant to John, but not something that had

already been covered in class. This choice was made in order to ensure that John’s work on the

assessments was a result of his knowledge of textual structures, rather than carry-over from

content knowledge. I chose to use an article entitled “The Evolution of Egyptian Hieroglyphs”,

as we were just beginning our study of the earliest civilizations, including Egypt, but had not yet

delved into the details.

The last portion of the assessment design was to determine what questions to ask in order

to discover John’s ability with regards to these structures. For the pre-test, I decided to take a

“simpler is better” approach, and divided the text into 4 sections, with instructions for John to

identify which structure was used in that section. The instructions also called for John to

underline or otherwise identify key ideas within the structure that clued him in to the structure he

chose. To assist John with identification, a brief synopsis of each different text structure was

included at the beginning of the document, and the question at the end of each section was

presented in a familiar, multiple-choice style.

For the post-assessment, the same goals were in place to find an appropriate text.

Ultimately, a text entitled “Should there be 13 months in a year?” was chosen. Calendar systems

had not yet been covered in class, but the article’s discussion of the Egyptian ties to our modern

calendar provided relevance to the class content. However, the structure of the post-assessment

differed from the pre-assessment. Instead of providing multiple-choice options for John, the


post-assessment tasked him with choosing a text structure from memory for each of 3 sections

within the article, and then to provide a rationale for why he chose that structure. The post-

assessment also was divided into sections in such a way that multiple structures were present

within each section, allowing for multiple answers for each question.

At the completion of the pre-assessment, John had recorded one correct answer out of

four (Appendix B, Document 1). He also had underlined text within the pre-assessment that he

noted as the clues to the answers he chose, but in all cases the underlined text was seemingly

unrelated to the structure he chose (Appendix B, Document 1). With this in mind, it was clear

that the lessons needed to focus on two aspects of text structures: John’s understanding of what

the text structures are and how they function, and building his ability to identify text structures

through key contextual and literary clues.

To build understanding of what the structures are, I chose to approach the information

through direct instruction. I made this decision due to the large amount of information that

needed to be conveyed to John, based on his low pre-assessment score. Although it appears

counter-intuitive with John’s struggles remaining focused, the decision to provide direct

instruction was built on a belief that the one-on-one format of the lessons would reduce John’s

desires to be social and disrupt his own learning. Likewise, Risko and Walker-Dalhouse suggest

that direct, explicit instruction helps struggling readers acquire skills and determine the best skill

for a given reading task, with additional benefits from building skills useful across content areas

with any informational texts (2015, p. 112). This format also allowed for increased discussion

with John to intervene frequently and further prevent his loss of focus.

The main thrust of the lesson focused on a short PowerPoint with each of the five

structures and a note-taking sheet for John to complete. Almost immediately, a disruption to the


original plan was in place, due to a problem with the printers in the building making a hard copy

of the note sheet impossible to print. In order to solve this issue, I procured a laptop and created

a Google Doc of the note sheet for John to complete (Appendix C, Document 5). While this

solved the issue of having John document information, it created a new issue in ensuring that

John’s use of the laptop remained on the note sheet, which occupied more of my mind than was

optimal for a positive outcome to the lesson.

Throughout the lesson, John and I discussed different ideas about textual structure and

used examples from his life to describe them. However, in looking in on his work, this appeared

to more of a distraction to him than a benefit, as some of his answers lost the main thread of the

information (Appendix C, Document 5). For example, when examining the Problem/Solution

text structure, John’s answers focused on an example from his own life, that he is not allowed in

the halls, rather than focusing on the purpose of the Problem/Solution structure (Appendix C,

Document 5). When provided with other examples on the board, though, John was able to

identify the different portions of each structure, though the examples were somewhat simple in

design (Appendix C, Document 3). To conclude the lesson, I worked through a new copy of the

pre-test with John using a gradual-release model (Appendix C, Document 4). I began by

modeling how to identify text structures in the first section of the article, and as we progressed

through the article I moved to a modeling-student split for sections 2 and 3 (with 2 heavier on

modeling and 3 heavier on student work), John worked independently on the last section.

Through this model, John was able to work out the correct answer of Sequence within the last

section, making notes of the different steps taken within the sequence (Appendix C, Document

4). This work from John indicated that he had enough understanding of what the structures were

that we could work on the second lesson.


The second lesson was built around providing means by which John could more easily

identify the different textual structures. This lesson revolved around discussions and practice

work on a worksheet (Appendix 1, Document 2). However, from the beginning this lesson was

not executed as well as desired. This was due to John receiving a suspension from school,

requiring the lesson to be adjusted from multiple days to only 1 in order to meet deadlines. As

with many things in teaching, this required some reworking of the original ideas, and reduced the

amount of discussion and modeling that took place with the worksheet. John’s post-assessment

scores show this was a detriment to the understanding he developed (Appendix C, Document 2).

His worksheet answers showed the ability to find key terms for each text structure within simple

texts, but without further discussion it appears that this skill was not retained or developed

enough to enhance his performance on the post-assessment (Appendix C, Document 7). Another

mistake made in the formulation of the second lesson was in not providing enough varied work

to assist John in building his skill. A more meaningful way to work through the identification

clues would have been to use an article similar to those used in the assessments. However, in

order to keep up John’s motivation, the worksheet’s practice items were relatively simple

phrases, developed so that John would be able to feel and expect to be successful. But these

statements were laid out in a way that was disconnected from the natural inclusion of the

structures within text, and thus were not as useful as they could have been (Appendix A,

Document 2).

John’s work on the worksheet itself showed he was somewhat comfortable working with

the different clues for each structure (Appendix C, Document 7). In particular, his work on the

worksheet showed his ability with chronology, as he used the dates listed and completed some

subtraction in order to situate some dates relative to one another (Appendix C, Document 7).


This continued with his work on the article we complete using the gradual-release model. John

was quick to point out sequences within the text, and made numerous notes on the text pieces he

worked on individually at the conclusion of the article (Appendix C, Document 8). However,

this work level did not carry over to the post-assessment, as John made no textual notes within

the article as he worked (Appendix C, Document 2). The gradual-release article for the second

lesson plan and the post-assessment were both completed on the same day, which may have

exacerbated the problem, as John’s writing becomes less legible and completed more quickly as

the work continues (Appendix C, Document 8). This would seem to indicate that his attention

was being lost, but due to the timing circumstances I chose to have John complete the post-

assessment rather than adjourning and completing it at a future date.

As shown on Document 2 of Appendix C, John’s completion of the post-assessment

showed limited success with textual structures (Appendix C, Document 2). Within that

assessment, John only correctly identified 1 out of 5 possible answers in identifying section 2 as

containing a Problem/Solution structure (Appendix C, Document 2). However, when prompted

for his reasoning for each answer, John’s reasoning did not match any practiced skill from either

lesson (Appendix C, Document 2). Based on the poor post-assessment performance, I am forced

to conclude that these lessons were not successful in building John’s understanding of textual

structures.

However, with adjustment, John’s understanding of textual structures could be further

improved. The first change that would potentially make these lessons more successful would be

to add another student to the lessons. While I originally believed that John’s personality and

struggles with remaining focused on work in a larger setting would make a one-on-one format

more successful, it was clear that John’s motivation was lacking. Although he began class


discussions strongly, his engagement tapered as the lessons went on. As mentioned previously,

working with another student often provides John with more motivation, though it is weighed

against his decisions to socialize rather than work with another student. In order to bridge the

gap between too much social stimulation and two little, providing a partner student to work along

with John through the lessons would provide a social outlet while not being too much of a

stimulus, although the partnering student would need to be selected carefully to ensure a positive

partnership without creating opportunities to distract or be distracted by John.

Another adjustment to be made to these lessons would be the method of delivery. While

I would still approach the first lesson as direct instruction in part, providing further opportunities

to work through different texts would be greatly beneficial to both student and teacher. This

would allow the student to practice more with the structures, allow the teacher more

opportunities to model and discuss with the student, and provide more opportunities for

formative assessment. Formative assessment is critical in providing meaningful feedback to

students in a low-risk way (Gambrell, Malloy, Marinak, & Mazzoni, 2015, p. 23). Overall, the

original lesson plans were lacking in formative assessment, which detracted from the ability to

provide useful feedback, and limited the amount of data taken in, both quantitative and

qualitative, which prevented more meaningful instruction.

Another way that the lesson could be improved is that the pacing of the lessons detracted

from the overall effectiveness of the lessons. As shown in the increasing freneticism of John’s

work during the second lesson, a time crunch was detrimental to his understanding (Appendix C,

Document 8). This could be avoided in a number of ways, most easily by providing more

flexible time management solutions. I was able to lean on a staff very supportive of John to

provide these lessons during times within school, but working with the staff and family to


provide opportunities outside of the school day may also have been helpful in mitigating the

fatigue of receiving one-on-one instruction during the ending period of the day. Another

potential solution would be breaking the instruction into smaller micro-lessons, only approaching

the information in 15-minute chunks. While this would potentially ease the mental fatigue, it

also runs the risk of losing information to working memory deficits.

Lastly, the layout of the post-assessment was additionally problematic. Although it asked

for John to provide the structure and his reasoning for choosing that structure, as the lessons

aimed to cover, the structure of the assessment relative to the pre-assessment was problematic

(Appendix B, Document 2). The biggest flaw in the post-assessment was diverging too much

from the structure of the pre-assessment. In requiring John to recall from memory the different

structures on the post-assessment, but providing the structures on the pre-assessment, a situation

was created in which the pre-assessment provided information to potentially jumpstart John’s

recall, while the post-assessment required more recall. While the elevation of the assessment

from multiple choice to short answer reflects a goal of growth, a middle step of providing a

“word bank” of the text structures would have provided a similar opportunity for memory

jogging that the pre-assessment provided. As shown by John’s answer of “S/S”, which may

match to “Sequence” or something entirely unrelated to text structures, a list of potential answers

could have provided John with more meaningful opportunities to be successful (Appendix C,

Document 2).

Recommendations to Teachers and Parents/Caregivers

Hello

John Smith is currently a student at John F. Kennedy Middle School. During this school

year, John has taken the NWEA Reading test, an online test that finds areas of student success


and difficulty relative to the same test taken by thousands of students over many years. John’s

scores showed that he has difficulties with using text structures to improve his understanding of

text.

To assist John with building his understanding of how the way something is written

affects the meaning of that writing, we worked through two lessons together, with John taking a

short test before and after the lessons. The first lesson aimed to help John improve his

knowledge of what a text structure is, while the second lesson focused on how to identify the

different text structures. The results from those short tests show that John still has room to grow

in this area. He has begun to use different strategies to identify what structure a piece of writing

uses, but he still needs to practice and build those skills and mental tools.

As John’s education continues, there are some steps that can be taken at home to help

him improve and sharpen his skills. Encouraging John to continue reading outside of school will

build his comfort with reading. In addition, provide him with different varieties of reading

material, giving him access to both the fictional series he enjoys, such as the Michigan Chillers

and Goosebumps series, as well as providing non-fiction texts such as Scholastic Readers and

Time for Kids magazines. And importantly, continue to ask John questions of his reading. One

of the best questions we can ask is “what in the story shows you that” when he provides answers

in a conversation about his reading.

John can overcome the struggles he is having now, but all together we can be a positive

support group to help him engage more with his reading.

Thank You

-James Seelhoff


Resources

99% Invisible. (2017). Should there be 13 months in a year?. NewsELA. Retrieved from

https://newsela.com/read/lib-calendar-design/id/34667

Afflerback, P., Cho, B-Y., Crassas, M. E., & Kim, J-Y. (2015). Best Practice in Reading

Assessment: Working toward a Balanced Approach. In L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow

(Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 315-339). New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Ancient History Encyclopedia. (2017). The Evolution of Egyptian Hieroglyphs. NewsELA.

Retrieved from https://newsela.com/read/lib-egyptian-hieroglyphs/id/33416#

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2017). History/Social-Studies: Grade 6-8. In English

Language Arts Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-

Literacy/RH/6-8/

Duke, N. K, & Martin, N. M. (2015). Best Practices in Informational Text Comprehension

Instruction. In L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy

Instruction (pp. 249-267). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., Marinak, B. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2015). Evidence-Based Best

Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction in the Age of the Common Core

Standards. In L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy

Instruction (pp. 3-36). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Learned, J. E., Stockdill, D., & Moje, E. B. (2011). Integrating Reading Strategies and

Knowledge Building in Adolescent Literacy Instruction. In S. J. Samuels & A. E.

Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 159-185).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.


National Education Association. (2017). Using Text Structure. Retrieved from

http://www.nea.org/tools/using-text-structure.html

Reutzel, D. R., Clark, S. K., & Flory, M. (2015). Organizing Effective Literacy Instruction:

Differentiating Instruction to Meet Student Needs. In L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow

(Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 365-389). New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Risko, V. J., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2015). Best Practices to Change the Trajectory of

Struggling Readers. In L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Best Practices in

Literacy Instruction (pp. 107-126). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Thompson, Clive. (2017). From Ptolemy to GPS, the Brief History of Maps. NewsELA.

Retrieved from https://newsela.com/read/lib-smi-history-maps/id/34188

WestEd. (2017). Middle School-High School Overview. Retrieved from

https://readingapprenticeship.org/middle-school-high-school-overview/


Appendix A

Document 1

Outline for a Daily Lesson Plan

Date: 10/4/17 & 10/6/17

Objective(s) for today’s lesson: Students will be able to describe the differences between types of textual structures

CCSS (or other standards) addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.5

Describe how a text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally).

Rationale (Explain why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how you will work to make it relevant to your students’ lives): Understanding the different methods of constructing informational text is useful for any type of reading, including information throughout life such as leases, contracts, instructions, and almost all academic reading.

Materials & supplies needed: Copy of pre-test text, chart to record information on different types of textual structures.

Procedures and approximate time allocated for each event

• Introduction to the lesson (What will I say to help children understand the purpose of the lesson? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or experiences in and out of school? How will I motivate them to become engaged in the lesson and understand its real world purpose?) (5 minutes)

Academic, Social and Linguistic Support during each event


To introduce the lesson, I will show a comic on the difference comma placement makes in the meaning of a sentence. The student(s) will analyze the images, and then discuss their thoughts. To transition, I will relate the image and the idea of a comma (or any punctuation) to the methods authors use when constructing text.

• OUTLINE of key events during the lesson (Include specific details about how I will begin and end activities; what discussion questions I will use; how I will help children understand behavior expectations during the lesson; when/how I will distribute supplies and materials) (___ minutes)

The first portion of class will be dedicated to explaining the main types of textual structures in informational texts: Cause & Effect, Chronologic, Compare & Contrast, Problem & Solution, and Sequencing.

To begin, the class will get a brief overview of each type of structure, including examples (strategies of how to identify those structures will be saved for the next lesson). Student(s) will be given a chart of notes to follow along with a brief presentation on each type of structure so that they have a reference for the remainder of the lesson. During the notes, student(s) will be asked to work with examples on the board in order to identify the key components of each structure according to the definitions of those structures.

• Closing summary for the lesson (How will I bring closure to the lesson and actively involve children in reflecting on their experiences? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or prepare for future experiences? What kind of feedback do I want from them at this time?) (___ minutes)

Student(s) will be given prompts to think about the image such as “what differences are in the two images?” and “why do you think those differences exist?”

During this portion, there will be verbal explanation and visual cues for notes. Using a PowerPoint for familiarity to both teacher and student. 1 slide per structure is enough to cover information, but not too much to overwhelm the student(s). This also provides the opportunity to place student(s) in an area in the classroom helpful for focus. Teacher will provide opportunities for student(s) to work with examples alongside the definitions in order to understand the connections between the structure and its own components.


the class will work through the pre-test text together, examining each section of the text to determine which structure it is. The first section will be done together as a class, read aloud and modeled for how to figure out what structure it is. Student(s) will first read the sections themselves, then will discuss the section as a whole, explaining their thinking and reasoning through what structure the section uses, giving the teacher the opportunity to expand on student thinking and correct misconceptions.

• Transition to next learning activity

The final piece will be an exit slip that will give the student a set of 5 sentences, each one representing one of the 5 main text structures, and will need to choose which structure the sentence represents.

Working through the pre-test together allows for modeling of the skills student(s) will need to be successful in finding the text structures in informational texts.

During the exit slip, student(s) will be assisted with vocabulary if necessary, but will be instructed to work alone on the structures.

Assessment (How will I gauge the students’ learning as I implement the lesson plan and once the lesson is completed? Specifically, what will I look for? How will I use what I am learning to inform my next steps?)

As the lesson proceeds, questions will be asked to check for understanding as a method of formative assessment. Student(s) will be asked to provide their rationale for decisions as we work through texts together, giving an opportunity to gauge their knowledge of the subject.

The exit slip at the end will serve as an additional piece of assessment to see how well the student understood the information in the lesson, and what (if anything) needs to be additionally retaught.

Academic, Social, and Linguistic Support during assessment


Text Structure Notes

As we discuss the different text structures, record the necessary information in each box of the chart below.


Cause & Effect

Description:

1 important fact:

Chronology

Description:

1 important fact:

Compare/Contrast

Description:

1 important fact:

Problem/Solution

Description:

1 important fact:

Sequence

Description:

1 important fact:


a. Cause and Effect: Events lead to other events or actions happeningb. Chronological: Events are put into an order based on timec. Compare & Contrast: Text shows how two or more things are alike and are differentd. Problem & Solution: A problem is addressed, and a potential fix is writtene. Sequencing: Ideas or items are placed into a list with each new item coming after the

previous.

Section 1:

The early Egyptians wrote using a system called hieroglyphics. This was made of many different

signs. Some of these signs looked like animals or people.

In English, people write using an alphabet. The different signs, like A, B and C, are called letters.

By themselves, letters do not mean much. They have to be put together to make words.

The English alphabet only has 26 letters. The Egyptians may have had more than 1,000 different

hieroglyphs. Every hieroglyph has a certain meaning.

The god Thoth was the scribe of the gods. It was said that he gave humanity the gift of writing.

Section Structure: A. B. C. D. E.

Section 2:

Egyptian stories say the god Thoth created writing. He wanted to help the Egyptians become

wiser and have more knowledge.

The god Re said this was a bad idea. Humans would stop using their minds to remember things.

To solve the dispute, Thoth gave writing to only a few Egyptians. They were called the scribes.

In ancient Egypt, scribes were very respected. They were the only ones who could read and

write.


Section 3:


No one is sure when the first hieroglyphs were used. Some of the oldest Egyptian writing was

found on pottery. This pottery was buried in the tombs of rich Egyptians.

One of these tombs was in a graveyard called Abydos. There, hundreds of jars were found with

written labels. Some of the labels were carved on wood.

There are also examples of writing on stone from 5,000 years ago. These writings talk about the

lives of ancient kings. They were made whenever a ruler died.

The oldest known Egyptian stories were written around 4,500 years ago. These are called the

“Pyramid Texts.” They were written on the walls of pyramids.

Most writings in Egypt were not carved in stone. They were usually put on paper. The Egyptians

used a thick paper called papyrus.

About 1,800 years ago, the religion of Christianity was getting popular in Egypt. It started to take

over the Egyptian religion.

Christian Egyptians used their own alphabet. Soon, Egyptian hieroglyphs were replaced. The

written language of the gods was lost for almost 2,000 years.

Thanks to the Rosetta Stone, we now know a lot more about Egypt.

For many years no one knew how to read hieroglyphs. Then, the Rosetta Stone was found about

250 years ago.


Section 4: The stone had a speech written on it from more than 2,000 years ago. The speech was

by the Egyptian king Ptolemy V.

The stone had two versions of this speech. One was in the Greek language, and one was written

with hieroglyphs.

A man named Jean-François Champollion knew how to read Greek. He compared

the hieroglyphs with Greek words he knew. He was able to guess the name of Ptolemy V.


Then, he compared other writings from Egypt. Soon, he realized that hieroglyphs were not like

an alphabet. The pictures did not stand for letters. The pictures stood for sounds, ideas and

words. Finally, the world learned about Egyptian history.



1. Early humans first moved out of Africa into the Middle East, then throughout Asia, next

going to Europe and Oceania, and finally they reached North America and South America.

Structure:

2. In some places, humans had a major population growth, which put pressure on their food

sources. However, they started to domesticate plants and animals, which allowed them to make

more food than they previously had.

Structure:

3. Because of the evolution of tool use and standing upright, early hominids were able to leave

the forest and begin living on the grasslands.

Structure:

4. Homo habilis lived roughly 2.3 million years ago, then homo erectus lived about 1.8 million

years ago. Neanderthals lived from about 250,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago, and

homo sapiens have lived on earth since about 200,000 years ago.

Structure:

5. Homo habilis used tools, but had a smaller brain than homo sapiens, while homo sapiens did

not have the jaw or brow line of homo habilis.

Structure:


Document 2

Outline for a Daily Lesson Plan

Date: 10/11/17 & 10/13/17

Objective(s) for today’s lesson: Students will be able to identify textual structures by utilizing clues within the text

CCSS (or other standards) addressed: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.6-8.5

Describe how a text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally).

Rationale (Explain why this content and/or skill is important and worthwhile, and how you will work to make it relevant to your students’ lives): Understanding the different methods of constructing informational text is useful for any type of reading, including information throughout life such as leases, contracts, instructions, and almost all academic reading.

Materials & supplies needed: Text structure clue word chart and practice sheet, copy of content article, prior student work

Procedures and approximate time allocated for each event

• Introduction to the lesson (What will I say to help children understand the purpose of the lesson? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or experiences in and out of school? How will I motivate them to become engaged in the lesson and understand its real world purpose?) (5 minutes)

Academic, Social and Linguistic Support during each event

Student(s) will be prompted to review and think about the difficulties faced in the previous lesson, as well as given a chance to review notes


To introduce the lesson, I will review the previous work completed by the student(s) in the previous lesson. This will provide the student with means to reflect on the previous work, as well as remember the key ideas covered during that lesson.

• OUTLINE of key events during the lesson (Include specific details about how I will begin and end activities; what discussion questions I will use; how I will help children understand behavior expectations during the lesson; when/how I will distribute supplies and materials) (___ minutes)

The first portion of class will be dedicated to explaining different clue terms for identifying each textual structure within a work.

First, the student(s) will go over the clue word chart as a class. Student(s) will discuss how the clue words work to help identify textual structures, with prompting from the teacher to provide their reasoning and thoughts on the clue terms.

Then, the student(s) will work with the teacher on the identification practice sheet. Student(s) will initiate the investigation of each example structure, and the teacher will provide support and direction to assist student(s) in properly addressing the different clues within the example structures.

• Closing summary for the lesson (How will I bring closure to the lesson and actively involve children in reflecting on their experiences? How will I help them make connections to prior lessons or prepare for future experiences? What kind of feedback do I want from them at this time?) (___ minutes)

taken during the previous lesson.

Here, the teacher will facilitate student discussion around the clue words for each structure. Starting with a review of the structures, students will be prompted to relate the clue words to particular aspects of each structure—for example, relating the term “therefore” to a specific cause/effect relationship

Teacher will provide assistance to student(s) based on their success/struggle with the clue word examples.

Initially, the teacher will model identifying the clue words in each structure,


To end the lesson, the student(s) will work with the teacher through a gradual release model using an article on the history of maps. In the article, the student(s) will identify the clue words used throughout the article, and use them to break the article into sections based on textual structures, taking a larger load of the responsibility for work as the article is worked through.

• Transition to next learning activity

The final piece will be the post-assessment for the lessons taught.

explaining the methods used in identifying the clue words. As the student(s) take more responsibility within the lesson, the teacher will continue to provide support, gradually providing student(s) more opportunity to work through issues before providing scaffolding intervention.

During the post-assessment, vocabulary help and support in non-structure related areas will be provided to the student(s) by the teacher to focus on the structures within the text.

Assessment (How will I gauge the students’ learning as I implement the lesson plan and once the lesson is completed? Specifically, what will I look for? How will I use what I am learning to inform my next steps?)

As the lesson proceeds, questions will be asked to check for understanding as a method of formative assessment. Student(s) will be asked to provide their rationale for decisions as we work through texts together, giving an opportunity to gauge their knowledge of the subject.

The post-assessment for the lessons will provide data on the successes and failures of the lesson, and will give a picture of the student(s)’ level of understanding with regards to textual structures.

Academic, Social, and Linguistic Support during assessment

Cause and Effect In texts that follow this structure, the reader is told Consequently, therefore, as a result,


Structure the result of an event or occurrence and the reasons it happened.

thereby, leads to, because

Chronology Structure

Texts that use this structure place different events in order based on the date that they occurred in.

Specific dates (example: 53 BCE), years ago, years later

Comparison/Contrast Structure

Texts that follow this structure tell about the differences and similarities of two or more objects, places, events or ideas by grouping their traits for comparison.

However, unlike, like, by contrast, yet, in comparison, although, whereas, similar to, different from

Problem/Solution Structure

In this structure, texts present a problem, obstacle, or conflict, and then describe a potential or actual solution to that problem.

To solve, to fix, addresses, resolves, propose, conclude

Sequence Structure

Texts that follow this structure tell the order in which steps in a process or series of events occur.

Next, first, last, second, another, then, additionally

Cause and Effect practice

Early humans learned to farm, so they began to live in permanent settlements.

Cause:____________________________.

Effect:____________________________.

Ancient Sumerians had a surplus of food, which led to the creation of a way to count things.

Cause:_____________________________.

Effect:_____________________________.


Chronology Practice

Place the following events in order in a sentence:

Mesopotamia became a major civilization, 3500 BCE

The Yellow River civilizations are first around, 3950 BCE

Ancient Egypt becomes a civilization, 3000 BCE

The Indus River Valley civilization first arises, 3200 BCE

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Compare/Contrast Practice:

The ancient Egyptians and Sumerians both had a system of writing. Egyptians use hieroglyphs

with each being a different picture, while Sumerians used a series of wedges called cuneiform.

Both cultures had scribes who knew how to read and write, while most people were illiterate.


Problem/Solution Practice:

As mammoths died out, the human food sources began to shrink. To solve this issue, some

humans began to settle down and plant crops for food.

Problem Solution

Sequencing Practice:

Put the following ideas in order to create a sentence.

Lastly, scribes used papyrus to write important documents

Papyrus was grown along the Nile River.

To grow papyrus, first it had to be planted.

Then, to make papyrus into paper, it had to be flattened and dried

After it had grown, papyrus had to be harvested by workers.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________


From Ptolemy to GPS, the Brief History of Maps

Last spring, a young woman was driving through the Canadian town of Tobermory. It was

unfamiliar territory for her, so she was following her GPS, which is short for Global Positioning

System. The woman was so focused on the device that she didn't realize she was heading straight

for Georgian Bay. She drove straight into the water. Thankfully, she managed to climb out and

swim to shore. Her car sank beneath the waves.

Accidents like this have become weirdly common. Many people have stopped paying attention to

the world around them because they are too focused on following directions. Some people worry

that this is a dangerous shift in how we navigate the world. Scientists say that we normally have

an "internal compass." What this means is that we know where we are in our neighborhoods, our

cities, the world.

Is it possible that today's technology is affecting our navigational skill? Will technology

completely change how we get around?

They answer is that it already has. Thousands of years ago, our ancestors began a long

experiment in figuring out how they fit into the world. They invented a bold new tool called the

map.

The invention of geography

One of the oldest surviving maps is the Babylonian Map of the World. It is actually about the

size and shape of an early iPhone. The clay tablet was created more than 2,500 years ago in

Mesopotamia, an area in the Middle East. The map shows the city of Babylon at the center,

surrounded by the ocean. It doesn't have much detail, but it wasn't meant for navigation. The

purpose of the map was to help people understand the idea of the whole world.

The first great attempt to make realistic maps came around A.D. 100. Claudius Ptolemy was a

scientist obsessed with making accurate horoscopes. These were diagrams of the heavens used to

predict events. They required that people's birth towns be correctly placed on a world map.

Ptolemy developed new ways to put the towns in the right spots. In the process, he ended up

inventing geography.


Ptolemy gathered records about the locations of towns. He also collected information from the

tales of travelers. By the time he was done, he had invented a system for plotting locations. It

involved a system of lines. These lines, called latitude and longitude, are still used on maps

today. Ptolemy plotted some 10,000 locations, from Europe to North Africa to Asia. He even

invented ways to flatten the 3-D planet onto a 2-D map. He called his new method "geography."

The need for better maps

Over time, maps began to improve. This was partly because of business. Ships were crossing

oceans. Kings were building huge empires. They needed to lay out their lands. Maps also

improved because of new technology. For example, trustworthy compasses allowed mapmakers

to create "portolan" maps. These maps had lines crisscrossing the sea from port to port. The lines

helped guide sailors.

By the late 1800s, improvements in math and technology made mapmaking even more popular.

In France, the Cassini family crisscrossed the country measuring the land. They were able to

determine its size with certainty never before seen. Their trick was using a type of math known

as "triangulation." Advances in binocular lenses allowed mapmakers to measure many miles at a

glance. World maps became more accurate.

GPS may not help us learn our cities better

These days, our maps seem alive. They speak, telling us exactly where to go in order to get to

our destination. "There's something fun about turn-by-turn directions," says Greg Milner. He is

an author who writes about the history of maps.

Milner does have worries about today's smartphone maps, though. He believes they are hurting

how well we remember the details of the world around us. A 2008 study compared people's

knowledge of a city with the way they used to navigate it. The study found that people who used

a GPS had a weak understanding of the city, while those who used a paper map had a much

stronger understanding. So did those who learned through direct experience.

Map collector David Rumsey isn’t convinced of this loss, though. As he argues, the convenience

of GPS and online mapping means we live in a world with more maps than ever before. For


example, many online searches produce a map as part of the search results. When Rumsey first

started collecting maps in the 1970s people said, Why bother? Now when people visit his

collection at Stanford University they "get it right away. That’s because they’ve been exposed."

It’s possible both effects are true. Technology still hasn't changed some of our oldest urges. The

historian Jerry Brotton once visited Google, where the engineers showed him a huge version of

Google Earth. They asked him, whenever a visitor shows up to try it out, what’s the first thing

they zoom in to look for? Their own home.

"They go, wow, look at that!" Brotton says. They're like the people who held that Babylonian

clay tablet nearly 3,000 years ago. They're using a map to figure out where they are and to see

their place in the world.


Appendix B

Document 1

Pre-test Instructions: For each of the following sections, choose one of the structures listed below, then circle 2-3 key terms in the section that helped you choose the structure for the section. You can circle the chosen structure’s letter underneath each section.

a. Cause and Effect: Events lead to other events or actions happeningb. Chronological: Events are put into an order based on timec. Compare & Contrast: Text shows how two or more things are alike and are differentd. Problem & Solution: A problem is addressed and a potential fix is writtene. Sequencing: Ideas or items are placed into a list with each new item coming after the

previous.

Section 1:

The early Egyptians wrote using a system called hieroglyphics. This was made of many different

signs. Some of these signs looked like animals or people.

In English, people write using an alphabet. The different signs, like A, B and C, are called letters.

By themselves, letters do not mean much. They have to be put together to make words.

The English alphabet only has 26 letters. The Egyptians may have had more than 1,000 different

hieroglyphs. Every hieroglyph has a certain meaning.

The god Thoth was the scribe of the gods. It was said that he gave humanity the gift of writing.


Section 2:

Egyptian stories say the god Thoth created writing. He wanted to help the Egyptians become

wiser and have more knowledge.

The god Re said this was a bad idea. Humans would stop using their minds to remember things.


To solve the dispute, Thoth gave writing to only a few Egyptians. They were called the scribes.

In ancient Egypt, scribes were very respected. They were the only ones who could read and

write.


Section 3:

No one is sure when the first hieroglyphs were used. Some of the oldest Egyptian writing was

found on pottery. This pottery was buried in the tombs of rich Egyptians.

One of these tombs was in a graveyard called Abydos. There, hundreds of jars were found with

written labels. Some of the labels were carved on wood.

There are also examples of writing on stone from 5,000 years ago. These writings talk about the

lives of ancient kings. They were made whenever a ruler died.

The oldest known Egyptian stories were written around 4,500 years ago. These are called the

“Pyramid Texts.” They were written on the walls of pyramids.

Most writings in Egypt were not carved in stone. They were usually put on paper. The Egyptians

used a thick paper called papyrus.

About 1,800 years ago, the religion of Christianity was getting popular in Egypt. It started to take

over the Egyptian religion.

Christian Egyptians used their own alphabet. Soon, Egyptian hieroglyphs were replaced. The

written language of the gods was lost for almost 2,000 years.

Thanks to the Rosetta Stone, we now know a lot more about Egypt.

For many years no one knew how to read hieroglyphs. Then, the Rosetta Stone was found about

250 years ago.



Section 4: The stone had a speech written on it from more than 2,000 years ago. The speech was

by the Egyptian king Ptolemy V.

The stone had two versions of this speech. One was in the Greek language, and one was written

with hieroglyphs.

A man named Jean-François Champollion knew how to read Greek. He compared

the hieroglyphs with Greek words he knew. He was able to guess the name of Ptolemy V.

Then, he compared other writings from Egypt. Soon, he realized that hieroglyphs were not like

an alphabet. The pictures did not stand for letters. The pictures stood for sounds, ideas and

words. Finally, the world learned about Egyptian history.



Document 2

Post-test Instructions: Read the introduction. Then, for each section, choose one or more of the

text structures we discussed, and explain why you chose those structures. You may make

whatever notes you feel will help you. Be sure to use details from the text in your explanations.

Introduction:

The calendar is not exactly simple. A month can start on any day of the week. Each one lasts 28

to 31 days. Sometimes a month is four weeks long, sometimes five and sometimes six. That's

why people have to buy a calendar with new dates every year.

Our calendar today is a mix of the ancient Roman and Egyptian calendars. It is more than 2,000

years old. It started when Julius Caesar and Cleopatra met to talk about time and the Earth.

Caesar was the leader of Rome, which controlled much of Europe. Cleopatra was the queen of

Egypt, in the north of Africa.

Section one:

The Egyptians knew that the year is about 365 days long because they had been watching how

full the Nile River was every day. They also knew that they had to add an extra day every four

years. The fourth year is called leap year. This happens because a year isn't exactly 365 days. As

time goes on, the days don't match the seasons anymore. Adding the extra day on leap year sets

the time right again.

Caesar was glad to hear this from Cleopatra. Caesar knew that the Roman calendar wasn't quite

right. At that time, the Roman calendar only had 354 days in a year, because it was based on the

movements of the Moon. So, the Romans made the Julian calendar. They added the 11 missing

days and started using leap year.

Section 1 structures: Reasoning:


Section 2:

Still, the Julian calendar was not perfect. In time, the days still did not match the seasons.

Hundreds of years later, Pope Gregory fixed this problem. He was the head of the Catholic

Church, and he noticed around 1582 that everyone was worshiping the holy days on the wrong

dates. He made the Gregorian calendar, which we use today.

Since then, a few people have tried to create new calendars. One of them was Moses B.

Cotsworth, from Britain. He made a new calendar that had 13 months in a year. Every month

was exactly 28 days, no more, no less. It was four perfect weeks.

He also added an extra month between June and July. He called it "Sol," after the summer

solstice. The summer solstice is the longest day of the year. Cotsworth's calendar had 364 days

in it. To make it 365, Cotsworth added a new holiday. He called it “Year Day," and he wanted it

to be a worldwide day of rest.

Section 2 structure: Reasoning:

Section 3:

Not many people liked Cotsworth's calendar. One person who did was George Eastman, one of

the richest men of the time. He was the one who started Kodak, a business that made cameras.

He had his workers at Kodak use the 13-month calendar for 65 years.

George Eastman tried to get the rest of the world to make the switch. At one point, The League

of Nations thought about changing the calendar. The league was a world group of

countries. Before they made a decision, World War II broke out. Suddenly, a new calendar did

not seem very important.


Since then, no one has really tried to change the calendar. Still, there’s no reason why we can’t

take our vacations in Sol and celebrate Year Day.

Section 3 structure: Reasoning:


Appendix C

Document 1


Document 2


Document 3


Document 4


Document 5


As we discuss the different text structures, record the necessary information in each box of the chart below.


Cause & Effect Description:they are different from each other.

1 important fact:they almost like the same.

Chronology Description:it mean time

1 important fact:how longer and youngest it is

Compare/Contrast

Description:compare two things

1 important fact:its different then the other one


Problem/Solution Description:i stay after class

1 important fact:dont be in halls

Sequence Description:number the laboles

1 important fact:to explain


Document 6

1. Early humans first moved out of Africa into the Middle East, then throughout Asia, next going to Europe and Oceania, and finally they reached North America and South America.

Structure:sequence

2. In some places, humans had a major population growth, which put pressure on their food sources. However, they started to domesticate plants and animals, which allowed them to make more food than they previously had.

Structure:cuase/effet

3. Because of the evolution of tool use and standing upright, early hominids were able to leave the forest and begin living on the grasslands.

Structure:casue/effect

4. Homo habilis lived roughly 2.3 million years ago, then homo erectus lived about 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals lived from about 250,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago, and homo sapiens have lived on earth since about 200,000 years ago.

Structure:chronlogy

5. Homo habilis used tools, but had a smaller brain than homo sapiens, while homo sapiens did not have the jaw or brow line of homo habilis.

Structure:problem/solution


Document 7


Document 8

jseelhoffteach.weebly.com · web viewliterary instruction has, within the past two decades, taken...

Documents