Paired Questioning/Review

	Text Citation or Link	Rationale for Choosing	Text Frame(s)	Strategies Used and Resource
Engagement Example	Viewpoint: Out of Touch, But Not Out of Sync	This article compares two different models of similar motion in Biology (cilia, flagella) and Physics (pendulum). This article discusses the idea of how cilia and flagella work.	Compare/Contrast Cause/Effect	Paired questioning/reviews (McLaughlin and Buehl)

Paired questioning or paired reviews is a very useful strategy for students to learn and use especially with more difficult or challenging texts. The premise behind paired questioning/review is that students take pauses while reading in order to generate questions and dialogue during reading. Often reading is a multi-step comprehension process where pauses in the reading allow for clarifications, reflections, and understanding.

Paired questioning/review can be done in different ways that suit the teacher or the classroom, but still follow a general guide. The teacher breaks the text into chunks that are more manageable and allow for breaks. The teacher can time the breaks so that the students are focused on certain details or play it by ear and let the discussions play through. The teacher can also guide the students about what to discuss by giving questions after each section or allow the students the freedom to go wherever their discussion leads. This is what makes paired questioning/review such a powerful tool, the ability to be modified so easily.

For this article I had enlisted the help of my reluctant younger brother who is a senior in high school and taking Physics and Biology. This makes him the perfect target audience for this article and guinea pig for testing out this literacy strategy. I modeled what we did after what I would do with a class. I started off with an introduction to the strategy about what it is and why it is important to read texts this way. Because the text was long and challenging I split the text into four sections that are two paragraphs each. We both read the section and then, to experience different versions, I modified how each post section reflection was done. For the first section, I was person A and my brother was person B. My role was to summarize the main points of the section and relay it to person B. Person’s B role is to ask questions or clarification to check their own understanding and to reinforce my own. This method was very useful because hearing another person’s take on a section allows me to add on to my own to further my understanding. This can also be further modified where person A can also ask questions about things they were confused about.

For section two and three, I modeled paired questioning/review as reflection. For the first round we swapped roles so I was now person B. In this case, person A comes up with questions based upon the text and person B answers them. For round two, the roles switch so that person B comes up with questions and person A answers the posed questions. Similar to the first method, this modification allows for questions to be asked for clarification. I was not a fan of this method and neither was my brother because we both felt that it was too restrictive to limit the discussion to just questions.

For the last section, it was the least instructive modification to peer questioning/review. After reading the section, we could discuss anything or ask any question we wanted. This was the preferable modification for both of us because we prefer the freedom to let the conversation go wherever it goes. In this article, because it covers a topic that is not solved completely we were able to have a debate on whether or not we think that this solution answers the question or if we thought that there is probably something else that explains it better. This modification lets the students go where they feel they need the reflection to go. If students feel they need to understand the article better they can discuss what they just read whereas if they understand the article, but want to discuss it further on a deeper level they can debate or throw in opinions.

Overall I like this literacy strategy that guides students. The fact that it is easy to modify and gets students to slow down while they read to make sure they understand is beneficial to both teachers and students. Teachers can benefit because as they walk around listening in on conversations, they can assess to see how the class understands as a whole. Students benefit beyond the ways discussed earlier such as being able to work with partners (or groups if the teacher wishes) and to talk. Students tend to like reading more when they feel engaged and this strategy kept me and my brother engaged because we slowed down to have conversations throughout the article.

References

Buehl, D., (2014) Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning, 4^th ed. International Reading Association.

McLaughlin, M., (2015).  Content Area Reading:  Teaching and Learning for College and Career Readiness. Boston:  Pearson.

Author Says/I Say

	Text Citation or Link	Rationale for Choosing	Text Frame(s)	Strategies Used and Resource
Engagement Example	Artificial sweeteners may evict good gut microbes	This article can be used as a means to explore different viewpoints and supporting evidence. The article provides vocabulary and terms related to Biology. This article covers an example of the Scientific Method for the students.	Proposition/Support Vocabulary/Definition Concept/definition	Author says/I say (Buehl)

The author says/I say strategy is a method to incorporate the reader’s internal monologue with the article. In this case, comparing the author’s viewpoint towards artificial sweeteners and the reader’s views or experiences with artificial sweeteners. This strategy allows the reader to acknowledge what the author is stating while finding common ground with the reader’s own thoughts. This is incorporating the transactional theory of reading, which involves the reader using personal experience to help understand a text.

I would use this strategy by first having a review of the Scientific Method where students are asked to write down the steps of the Scientific Method down and then identify aspects in the article that fit each step as a warm up. This will be both to review of the Scientific Method and its steps while also act as a preview of the article for the students. After the warm up I will pass out blank templates of Author Says/I Say for the students to fill out. We will come up an example “I wonder” question together as a class. I will model what kind of questions I am looking for and how to come up with the questions based on my thought process.

With this article, I will think out loud by saying, “This article is about artificial sweeteners and our gut microbes based upon the title. After reading the few paragraphs I’m being introduced to the background information for the research. This makes me wonder what is the difference between natural and artificial sweeteners so I will write that in under the “I wonder” category. Now I will look at what the author says the two types of sweeteners are in the text. I see that the author says artificial sweeteners are non-caloric alternatives to natural sweeteners that still provide similar taste so this goes under the “The author says” category. Next I will fill out the “I say” category with what I thought artificial sweeteners are and then finally I will make a conclusion in the “And so” category based upon what the author said and what I said. I thought artificial sweeteners had a different taste to them, but I never personally had them myself to know for sure so I would write that under “I say.” My conclusion for the “And so” category would be that I think the author is saying the general public thinks that there is no downside to them and that the only difference is that artificial sweeteners have no calories with the same taste as natural sweeteners.”

Once I finish modeling how to approach the text with the chart I will let them start reading and completing the chart on their own. Then to expose students to other thoughts and ideas, I will have them share with a partner what things they wrote down for each category. If time permits, then I will divide the class into two sides. Finally, I will have them write an exit ticket summarizing what they wrote down in their Author Says/I Say chart. This exit ticket is for me to check their understanding and look at their different viewpoints/knowledge on the topic. The further expand on this topic I will have the students do additional research at home at the pros and cons of artificial sweeteners in order to do a debate next class where they have to use a text to support any claims they make.

I like this strategy because it makes it easy to integrate my own personal thoughts and ideas with the author’s ideas. By having the students create “I wonder” questions while they are reading it makes them slow down and think about what they are reading rather than speeding through it. If something confuses them they can examine it then and there rather than taking note of it and then moving on before going back. You can also modify this strategy for your needs by providing the “I wonder” questions for lower level students or by creating an additional chart for “My partner says” among others. It is versatile enough to be adapted to different levels and abilities.

Example Author Says/I Say

I wonder…	The author says…	I say…	And so…
What is the difference between natural and artificial sweeteners?	Artificial sweeteners are non-caloric alternatives to natural sweeteners that still provide similar taste.	I thought artificial sweeteners had a different taste to them, but I never personally had them myself to know for sure	I think the author is saying the general public thinks that there is no downside to them and that the only difference is that artificial sweeteners have no calories with the same taste as natural sweeteners.

References

Buehl, D., (2014) Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning, 4^th ed. International Reading Association.

Ornes, Stephen (2014). Artificial sweeteners may evict good gut microbes. Science News for Students. Retrieved from https://student.societyforscience.org/article/young-blood-elixir-youth

Mind Mapping

	Text Citation or Link	Rationale for Choosing	Text Frame(s)	Strategies Used and Resource
Engagement Example	Young Blood: Elixir of Youth	This article covers the ideas behind the scientific method while describing the research. The article contains vocabulary words that challenge the students and exposes students to a narrower field of science.	Concept/ definition  Vocabulary/ definition	Mind mapping (Buehl)

Mind mapping is a visual tool to help students navigate texts and to help students make connections with key ideas or concepts. It is particularly effective when used as an introduction for new material. This strategy requires preparation by the teacher beforehand. The first step to using this strategy is the teacher analyzes the reading for key ideas and vocabulary that is important. Next the teacher organizes these ideas and vocabulary into a mind map creating the connections between them all.

Before the students read the text, they are to examine the mind map and keep it in mind while reading. At this point, the teacher can also spark discussion by asking students questions about the mind map contents. The students should refer back to the mind map before, during, and after they read. While reading, students should continue adding any new ideas or vocabulary that they find important for the mind map. The mind maps are not just limited to the text either, the students can also add connections they make based on personal experiences or prior knowledge.

Mind maps can be extended or modified based upon your preference or your student’s strong suits. For example, if you or your students like visuals and colors you can color code certain connections such as vocabulary is green while main ideas are red and supporting details are yellow. If students all have different texts they are reading, the teacher can have students introduce the articles to each other my using these mind maps.

This strategy is useful because it provides a visual representation of the connecting ideas and paints the whole picture. Mind maps are also similar to outlines, but represented in a more visual manner that guides students as they explore new ideas and vocabulary while taking into account prior knowledge. Mind maps can be referred back to throughout the unit which can be helpful for students to see where we are trying to go with the big picture while we are looking at the details.

I would use this strategy in a lesson by first creating a class mind map of everything they know about scientific knowledge. Afterwards I will provide the students with the mind map I created specifically for this article where we will compare what we put on the class mind map for general ideas versus the article specific mind map. The mind map will have the big picture idea being the scientific method with the larger branches being the different steps. Included in each of these branch steps would be examples taken from the text to outline how research in the real world also follows the scientific method. The students will then go read the article and add anything they wish to the article mind map either from the article or their prior knowledge/experiences. Once everyone has finished we will discuss as a class what people put down and do a combined class mind map on a large poster. Throughout the unit I will leave the large poster up and students can come add/change any ideas that they put on the mind map as we progress through and learn more. This strategy acts as more of a jumping off point rather than a comprehensive learning strategy.

Some concerns regarding this strategy may be that having the mind map created already for the students is that it makes things less challenging. However, like many other teaching strategies, mind mapping can be modified to be more or less challenging for students. Instead of the teacher giving the students the mind map already, the teacher can just give the students a blank mind map with only the main idea in the center filled out so that the students fill it out on their own. This modification can be more above grade level students who can work independently like that whereas the normal method of mind mapping can be used for lower level students who need that extra help and support.

References

Buehl, D., (2014) Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning, 4^th ed. International Reading Association.

Cain, M. (n.d.). Using mind-maps to raise standards in literacy, improve confidence and encourage positive attitudes towards learning. National Teacher Research Panel. Retrieved from http://www.ntrp.org.uk/sites/all/documents/Cain.pdf

Ornes, Stephen (2014). Young Blood: The Elixir of Youth. Science News for Students. Retrieved from https://student.societyforscience.org/article/young-blood-elixir-youth

Safar, A. H., Jafer, Y. J., & Alqadiri, M. A. (2014). Mind Maps as Facilitative Tools in Science Education. College Student Journal, 48(4), 629-647.