Literacy centers in Kindergarten Increasing motivation and Engagement

rationale Students often appear disengaged during independent literacy activities Some students lack motivation in independent literacy activities and exhibit off-task behaviors Guided reading instruction is frequently interrupted by students who need help with some aspect of their independent activity Assigning students to appropriately leveled groups for guided reading and word study did not allow for a rotation system

Research question How can I develop, structure, and organize my literacy centers to improve student engagement and independence?

Relevant literature Small group instruction in leveled, flexible groups has been found to be a highly effective classroom practice Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole (2000) cite multiple studies that showed gains in reading achievement were related to time spent in academic activity, frequency of small group instruction, high student engagement, and opportunities to engage in authentic activities that integrated reading and writing activities. Taylor, Peterson, Pearson, and Rodriguez (2002) found effective teacher practices included small group instruction, guided reading, and small group book discussion. Teachers determined to be most effective spent classroom time in small group instruction, provided students with time in more than one teacher-led small group (through use of an aid or specialist), grouped students in instructionally leveled groups, and frequently assessed students to allow for flexible groupings

Relevant literature Small group instruction is highly effective – what about the rest of the class? Ford and Opitz (2002) suggest three organizational options for teachers to use in their classrooms: collaborating with others (i.e. reading specialist), combing writer’s workshop with guided reading time, or using learning centers where students work independently. Cambourne, Labbo, and Carpenter (2001) state that independent centers are necessary to allow teachers to devote energy to a small group of students, and to allow students an opportunity for collaborative learning and group work

Relevant literature Centers are only effective when students are motivated and engaged Gambrell (2011) sets out seven research based “rules of engagement” Edmunds and Bauserman (2006) decided to gather information about motivation directly from conversations with students. Student choice/personal interests and knowledge gained were motivating factors that came up most often. McCombs, Daniels, and Perry (2008) also showed that student perceptions of their teacher’s motivational support impacted their motivation in the classroom either negatively or positively Gambrell reading tasks and activities are relevant to their lives. they have access to a range of reading materials. they have ample opportunities to engage in sustained reading. they have opportunities to make choices about what they read and how they engage and complete literacy tasks. they have opportunities to socially interact with others about the text. they have opportunities to be successful with challenging texts. classroom incentives reflect value and importance of reading. Cambourne Criteria for determining successful centers: Engagement in Activity: are students engaged and involved in what they are doing? Internalization and Transfer: can students take what they learned in a center and apply it in a different context? Promotion of Collaborative, Independent and Interdependent Learning: do activities encourage students to work in groups and work independently from the teacher?

Relevant literature Choice in classroom centers increases motivation and engagement, as well as supports differentiated instruction Patall, Cooper, and Wynn (2010) also found that providing students with choice in learning tasks enhances student motivation and performance, as well as developing a classroom environment that supports autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Falk-Ross (2008) agrees that literacy centers have the power to motivate students, to focus learning in meaningful ways, and to meet the needs of various learning styles These findings show that for my students to be more interested, engaged, and independent, they must have some form of choice in the activities and perception that I value their personal interests. Patall et al. found that providing classroom choice “may be the most concrete way for teachers to communicate to students that they view them as autonomous learners”

Research methods Participants: Timeframe 12 kindergartners, 5-6 years old 6 girls, 6 boys 1 ELL student Timeframe Literacy stations run for 1 hour/day Students participate in an independent center between 15 to 30 mins/day Research was conducted over approximately 8 week period during literacy station time in the classroom

Research methods Methods/Procedures Student surveys, pre and post Student observation during literacy station time Teacher introduction of new independent activity format Teacher instruction and modeling of new literacy activities

Research findings Pre-research survey findings Students liked activities that: took time to complete involved something deemed “fun” (like colored markers, whiteboards, stamps) in game format perceivably could be completed Students did not enjoy activities that: became too repetitive perceived as boring, old tricky to set up and/or use difficult to complete successfully in time allotted Students wrote or drew pictures of literacy activities they liked and didn’t like Oral-follow up on “why” Oral discussion of literacy station structure Students enjoyed “choice” menu format Mention observation too (covered in rationale)

Research findings Developing literacy centers Explicit teaching of activity Teacher modeling of activity Examples of expected outcomes/products Observation of students at first attempt Use this process throughout the year as new activities introduced to prevent anything from becoming stale Go back to question: How can I develop, structure, and organize my literacy centers to improve student engagement and independence? Looking back at research, student surveys Gradual release of responsibility

Research findings Structuring literacy centers Various structures tested throughout year Rotation model with activity assigned Menu for all students, groups called from activity to work with teacher Rotation model with menu for independent time (student choice with some teacher structure) Choice needed for student engagement Teacher-provided boundaries on choice needed for internalization Students enjoyed activities that provided both time to work in groups and time to work independently Discuss pros and cons of each briefly Cambourne criteria for centers: Engagement in Activity: are students engaged and involved in what they are doing? Internalization and Transfer: can students take what they learned in a center and apply it in a different context? Promotion of Collaborative, Independent and Interdependent Learning: do activities encourage students to work in groups and work independently from the teacher?

Artifacts

Research findings Organizing literacy centers Literacy activity shelf Allows choice Control by teacher Activities that apply to other contexts Choices that relate to specific reading strategy, word study Differentiation Organized and differentiated in ways easy for students to understand and teacher to maintain

Research findings Post-research survey Observation data All students appreciate opportunity to choose activity of interest Appreciated guide on SmartBoard to remind them of structure and choices Like interacting with their friends while “working” on an assignment Observation data Students were more engaged in activities they chose More explicit modeling/examples of expectations provided more engaged students Time to share what they did/learned was positive motivator More engaged in tasks they viewed as achievable Post is loose term here Oral discussion with class

Artifacts

Artifacts

Reflection As teacher researcher… As literacy leader… Value of providing students with classroom choice For choice to be successful, needs to be explicitly taught, activities need to be structured Importance of asking students for their thoughts and opinions, discussing their ideas, making changes where appropriate Tweaking could be endless! As literacy leader… Valuable experience for helping teachers set up some form of literacy center structure in their rooms Classroom literacy structures should be tailored to meet the needs of each student, each classroom Importance of staying current, continuing to look at research Researcher: so many moving parts, find something that works; don’t overwhelm class with tons of changes; lots of room for more research lLeader: Not one size fits all

References Cambourne, B. (2001). What do I do with the rest of the class?: The nature of teaching learning activities. Language Arts, 79(2), 124. Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. Reading Teacher, 59(5), 414-424. Falk-Ross, F. (2008). Helping literacy centers come alive for teachers: Transitions into use of interactive small group reading stations. College Reading Association Yearbook, (29), 237-247. Ford, M. P., & Opitz, M. F. (2002). Using centers to engage children during guided reading time: Intensifying learning experiences away from the teacher. Reading Teacher, 55(8), 710. Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know about motivation to read. Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178. McCombs, B. L., Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2008). Children's and teachers' perceptions of learner- centered practices, and student motivation: Implications for early schooling. Elementary School Journal, 109(1), 16-35. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896-915. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instructions in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121. Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the 'how' as well as the 'what' in effective. Reading Teacher, 56(3), 270.