ERIC EJ1035726: Avoiding the Blank Stare: Teacher Training with the Gradual Release of Responsibility in Mind

2014·0.55 MB·English

by  ERIC

Sandra Clark
United StateS
Avoiding the Blank Stare:
Teacher Training with the
Gradual Release of
Responsibility in Mind
A s English as a foreign lan- ing which path to take. Your face goes
guage (EFL) teachers, most of blank as you confront the indecision
us can relate to the classroom and quickly contemplate possibilities.
moment when we have just taught a You may even stop, hesitate, and falter.
lesson during which we implemented I know this stare well. I have experienced
all our best strategies. We modeled it in every instructional venue in my
what we expect our students to do and professional career, whether teaching
used our best language-learning Eng- young English learners in immersion
lish. We’re on a roll and in the teach- classes in the United States, interna-
ing zone. Whether independently or tional students at the university level,
in collaborative groups, our students or EFL teachers from around the world
must now get to work on the task at in professional development courses.
hand. Ready, set, go! And then, in that Interestingly, in this moment it is
moment of what Routman (2003) not only the students who are puzzled.
calls “handing over responsibility,” you Often the teacher’s confusion mirrors
see it: the blank stare. the students’. The teacher wonders,
In this moment of releasing respon- “What wasn’t clear about my instruc-
sibility—that is, moving from your tions, and how do I reteach when I
responsibility to prepare students for have already given it my best shot?”
the task to their responsibility to carry For insight into solving the problem of
it out—the students are confused. For the blank stare, the Gradual Release of
some reason, they are not clear about Responsibility (GRR) model (Pearson
your expectations and unsure about and Gallagher 1983) provides teachers
what to do next. Imagine yourself with a structure that can be used to
arriving at a crossroads and not know- strengthen classroom lessons.
28 2014 Number 2 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m
The GRR was introduced in 1983 in the fessional development programs for local EFL
context of early literacy instruction in public teachers around the world.
schools in the United States (Pearson and Gal-
The four steps of the GRR
lagher 1983). It has since been applied to the
education of K–12 language minority students The GRR model reflects the Vygotskian
as well as to adult basic education (Teaching view that meaningful learning takes place over
Excellence in Adult Literacy Center 2012). time and with abundant guidance and practice.
An understanding of this model improves Deeper levels of mastery are achieved with the
your teaching abilities in any instructional mentorship of others. Yet, even though prelimi-
setting by providing you time to observe and nary skills are developed through collaboration,
assess your students’ understanding of any the ultimate goal is learner independence. Each
lesson, thereby deepening your connection to student must take responsibility for and be
your students and increasing the efficacy of capable of proficiency in the targeted skill or
your teaching. knowledge. With the GRR, teachers keep their
In this article, I will introduce the GRR eyes on the prize and “purposefully yet gradu-
model in the EFL context, with an emphasis ally release responsibility for learning from
on training teachers in communicative lan- teacher to student” (Fisher and Frey 2008b,
guage teaching (CLT) strategies. I will first 32). Responsibility is handed over in four dis-
define the four steps of the GRR using a stan- tinct steps, generally known as (1) Focus Les-
dard EFL grammatical topic—the contrast son (I do it); (2) Guided Instruction (We do it);
between the gerund and the infinitive—to (3) Collaborative Learning (You do it together);
compare the nature of traditional lessons with and (4) Independent Practice (You do it alone)
those guided by the GRR. I will also provide (Fisher and Frey 2008a).
concrete examples of how I incorporate the Figure 1 summarizes the roles of both the
GRR in two fundamental EFL teacher-train- instructor and the learner—whether they
ing activities: (1) the information-gap activity are teacher and learner as in the case of EFL
and (2) reflections on model lessons. I will use classrooms or teacher-trainer and participant
examples from my experiences working with in EFL teacher training—during the four
public high school teachers in Pernambuco, GRR stages.
Brazil, to show how implementing the GRR Describing how the GRR model differs
model can strengthen student-centered pro- from traditional instruction illustrates how to
GRR Stage Instructor Role Learner Role
1. Focus lesson: I do it Trainer provides direct instruction, Active listening
models, demonstrates, and provides
rationale for lesson.
2. Guided instruction: We do it Trainer leads participants through the Active contributing: Learners
targeted task; continues to model and participate in the task and ask
ask questions. questions as needed.
3. Collaborative learning: You do it Trainer interacts with student groups Active learning: Learner collaborates
together or pairs: guides, coaches, clarifies, and with colleagues to implement the
questions students’ thinking. Trainer targeted task (in pairs or groups);
informally assesses and reteaches as learners problem-solve, discuss, and
necessary. negotiate to complete the assigned
task. Optimal when each learner must
produce.
4. Independent practice: You do it Formal assessment; trainer provides Independent work: Learner is
alone interventions as needed. personally responsible for the assigned
task.
Figure 1. GRR roles of instructor and learner in EFL class
E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m | Number 2 2014 29
implement the GRR in a contemporary EFL tionnaires from the 21.2.2 Surveys activity in
classroom. The following three scenarios are Ur (2009).
based on traditional ways to teach a quirky
GRR scenario: Focus lesson, guided
English grammatical structure—infinitive
instruction, collaborative learning, and
versus gerund (e.g., “I intend to sleep” versus
independent learning
the ungrammatical “I intend sleeping”).
Unlike the previous three traditional sce-
Traditional scenario #1: narios, the GRR scenario utilizes all four
Independent learning stages of the GRR.
Students work by themselves using self-
1. Focus lesson. The teacher delivers a
study packets, computer programs, online
stellar focus lesson in which he or she
courses, or other resources to learn when to
outlines a specific set of high-use verbs
use gerunds and when to use infinitives.
and provides ample modeling.
2. Guided instruction. The teacher models
Traditional scenario #2:
a questionnaire containing two gerund/
Focus lesson and independent learning
infinitive questions. Together with the
The teacher delivers a stellar focus lesson
class, the teacher creates two more
in which he or she outlines a specific set of
questions to complete the question-
high-use verbs and provides ample modeling.
naire (see Figure 2). He or she models
Then the teacher asks students to complete
how to circulate around the classroom
fill-in-the-blank exercises in the workbook.
asking the targeted questions and how
Traditional scenario #3: to collect data by creating sentences
Focus lesson, guided instruction, and that use the gerund or the infinitive.
independent learning The teacher expects perfect production
The teacher delivers a stellar focus lesson of the gerund/infinitive as students ask
in which he or she outlines a specific set of and answer questions to complete the
high-use verbs and provides ample modeling. surveys. Students work in groups to
Then the teacher monitors the classroom as create one list of data reports.
the students work in pairs to orally complete 3. Collaborative learning. The teacher pass-
a list of sentence starters requiring the use of a es out three other questionnaires that
gerund or an infinitive. The teacher provides use the same format but with different
individual correction where needed and final- questions. (See Figure 3 for an example.)
ly asks students to complete fill-in-the-blank These surveys also have two questions
exercises in the workbook. that the teacher has provided and two
Fisher and Frey (2008a, 13) believe that that the students must create. Students
this third lesson type, though common, is form groups to create the two missing
good but not good enough to “result in deep questions. The teacher reviews the ques-
learning, critical or creative thinking, or the tions for accuracy before students collect
ability to mobilize strategies as needed.” Con- data. Students follow the same proce-
sider the following scenario sequence that dure using the new questions. Again,
represents the GRR method and uses ques- the teacher expects perfect production
Questions (teacher models each step) Yes No
1. Do you enjoy studying with friends?
2. Do you prefer to study at home?
3. “reading” (create question together with the class using
this verb)
4. “going” (create question together with the class using
this verb)
Figure 2. Sample questionnaire for guided instruction (based on Ur 2009, 310)
30 2014 Number 2 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m
of the gerund/infinitive in sentences as many parts of the world are often hesitant to
students ask and answer questions to implement interactive student activities (Hiep
complete the surveys. Students individu- 2005). When we as trainers provide CLT
ally write sentences that report their own professional development to English teachers
data. The teacher collects these sentences who have experienced only grammar-transla-
and uses them to assess the level of the tion approaches both as students of English
students’ mastery and determine wheth- and as teachers of English, we are asking for
er to reteach the lesson. a giant leap in awareness and ability. Student-
4. Independent learning. The teacher then centered instruction requires teachers to make
asks students to complete fill-in-the- a fundamental shift in how they perceive
blank exercises in the workbook. English can be taught and to often ignore
their own experiences and cultural norms and
Each of the scenarios listed above has its
try something new. Often EFL teachers must
time and place. It is neither suitable nor desir-
overcome personal fear about their control
able to implement the GRR with every lesson.
over large class sizes and challenging teaching
GRR lessons should be used when introducing
situations as they move from teacher-cen-
new and important content, or content that
tered to student-centered instruction. These
directly relates to the stated objectives of the
teachers, as much as students, deserve large
course. Indeed, implementing the GRR implies
amounts of collaboration and support.
several underlying beliefs. The teacher believes
I learned this the hard way when I began
that the lesson topic is important and merits
to provide professional development for pub-
the use of valuable classroom time. The teacher
lic high school English teachers in Brazil.
understands that students are excellent peda-
In my first day of training, I introduced a
gogical “tools” fully capable of participating in
standard information-gap activity with the
and even enhancing the lesson. The GRR helps
goal of reviewing the course requirements. I
teachers realize that teachers as well as students presented the activity, divided my students in
are learning in each lesson. One delightful groups, and gave each group the text, which
side effect is that planning and implementing I had purposefully highlighted with different
all four stages of the GRR tend to augment colors that matched the groupings. I ignored
the teacher’s own skill set as he or she learns the blank stare, and slowly my students got
about and responds to students’ specific errors, to work. They immediately began to dem-
practices pacing and reteaching strategies, and onstrate all kinds of unanticipated behaviors.
develops metacognitive awareness of his or They ignored the highlighting and answered
her own instructional style. Paradoxically, this all the questions instead of just their own.
deepening of the craft of teaching––this reach- Many changed their groupings or even refused
ing fuller capacity as an instructor––creates a to work in groups. I heard quiet in the class-
natural enthusiasm all of its own: an upward room instead of that satisfying buzz of stu-
spiral of positive teacher–student interaction. dents discussing content. I had the presence of
mind to know I had taken a sharp turn from
The GRR and professional development
my GRR beliefs but not quite enough aware-
The GRR model is a natural fit for teacher ness to save this particular lesson.
trainers of student-centered instruction, more The information-gap activity is a staple
specifically CLT. However, EFL teachers in in CLT courses. Information-gap activities,
Questions (students complete in groups) Yes No
1. Do you like talking with your friends?
2. Do you like to make friends online?
3. “risk” (create question with group using this verb)
4. “disapprove” (create question with group using this
verb)
Figure 3. Sample questionnaire for collaborative learning (based on Ur 2009, 310)
E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m | Number 2 2014 31
often called jigsaws, are those in which each sion, they come to agreement about the main
participant in a group has a bit of information points. In this case, they also settled on appro-
that his or her group mates do not have but priate answers to their corresponding ques-
need in order to complete the task (Doughty tion. The questions were, “How has learning
and Pica 1986). Each person in the group English affected your teaching practice?”;
must contribute in order for the group to be “What are the qualities of a good language
successful. My teacher-participants needed to learner?”; and “What are the characteristics of
understand the strategy, be able to participate a good language teacher?” Then I led a whole-
in it themselves, and ultimately be able to class discussion, having each expert group
implement it in their own classrooms. Reflect- share its information. I used a PowerPoint
ing on the lesson in terms of the GRR helped to capture the information, although any
me to figure out where my teaching had led form of classroom notation would work. The
to confusion and what steps I needed to take students took notes and used them to write
to remedy the situation. journal reflections on the same topics.
Applying the GRR to an information-gap Third session: You do it together
activity in a professional development I formed the three large expert groups as
setting above, still giving only one piece of the tar-
geted text and its matching question. After
Classroom confusion almost always can be
each expert group reached agreement about
attributed to omitting one of the two middle
the main points of its text, I reorganized the
steps of the GRR. Most often, the students
students into several small “sharing” groups of
have not had either enough guided instruction
three (triads), consisting of one expert from
or sufficient collaborative practice (Pearson
each of the three larger groups. In sharing
and Gallagher 1983). We often expect our
groups, each person instructs the others about
students to apply learning too soon. Indeed, in
his or her text. In this case, each expert taught
introducing the information-gap activity, I had
the main ideas of his or her section to the
omitted the “We do it” practice stage. I had
others in the small group and then discussed
gone too quickly from teacher modeling to
the answers to the corresponding question.
collaborative practice. In subsequent lessons,
The students took notes and used them to
I returned to the following information-gap
write journal reflections on the same topics.
activity and used the four stages of the GRR.
The topics were “Describe learning styles,”
First session: I do it “Describe learning strategies,” and “Describe
I led the whole class in answering ques- basic principles of language learning.”
tions about a targeted text in the teacher-
Fourth session: You do it alone
training book assigned to the program. The
In this session the small groups of three
topic was, “How have you learned English?”
completed a standard jigsaw with a highlight-
I modeled how I wanted the questions to be
ed text. Each person had the whole text and
answered—in this case, first-person narrative
all the questions. The students understood
with personal experiences. Students therefore
that they were responsible for only a sec-
saw the type of responses that I required in
tion of the text. They knew that they would
my course.
become experts of their text section with the
Second session: We do it help of their small group. They also knew they
I formed three large “expert” groups that would be responsible for teaching others who
received one segment of the targeted text with had not read their section. The students took
a matching question (instead of the whole text notes and used them to write journal reflec-
and all the questions), and they worked col- tions on the topic “Aspects of communicative
laboratively to answer the questions. The task language teaching.”
of an expert group is just that: each person One benefit of planning four steps is the
in the group becomes an expert on the par- added opportunity for informal assessment.
ticular segment of the text that the group has The feedback allows you, as the teacher, to
been given. Expert groups generally read and keep your finger on the pulse of your class,
then orally summarize the text. After discus- and that then helps to guide your instruction.
32 2014 Number 2 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m
The GRR is not necessarily a linear process. Learning to reflect on model lessons
Cycling back and reteaching missed steps Modeling lessons is a powerful strategy
supports the learning process in a healthy and for those of us who are EFL teacher train-
positive way as you better meet the immediate ers, but its efficacy depends on the ability of
and future needs of your students. participants to create a meaningful analysis.
Sometimes implementing the GRR is a Initially, the Brazilian teachers I worked with
quick and easy modification. For a fill-in- reflected on model lessons with comments
the-blank activity, you simply model the first such as “It was fun” or “You are a good
three items with the whole group. The teacher teacher.” I was happy for the feedback, but I
responds to the first question, asks for input wanted responses with more depth and with
on the second, and gives students a moment concrete examples to support their conclu-
to answer the third together before providing sions. A long-term view with the GRR in
the correct response. The students are then mind was essential. After a short lesson on the
ready to complete the worksheet individually. differences between fact and opinion, I used
However, in professional development our different model lessons to follow the sequence
goals are usually much more complex and far- described in Figure 4.
reaching. Implementing the GRR necessitates With this sequence, and by using the Les-
the long view as in the information-gap activi- son Reflection Guide (Figure 5), the teacher-
ty shown above or in analyzing model lessons. participants learned to reflect on lessons with a
GRR Lesson Teacher Trainer Participant
1. Focus lesson: Models Lesson #1 and Becomes comfortable in the
I do it provides oral Think Aloud. model lesson format.
Reflects on lesson using Recognizes that he/she is
(Model Lesson #1) the questions on the Lesson taking the role of “student”
Reflection Guide and also that of “evaluator.”
Goal: Participants (see Figure 5).
become comfortable
participating in model
lessons.
2. Guided instruction: Models Lesson #2. Works Participates in model lesson.
We do it together with participants Works together with teacher
to fill out the Lesson to fill out the Lesson
(Model Lesson #2) Reflection Guide. Emphasizes Reflection Guide. Adds
the requirement to provide personal opinions when
evidence. Collects the necessary.
reflections and uses
information to guide
instruction and provide
feedback to students.
3. Collaborative learning: Models Lesson #3. Participates in model lesson.
You do it together Circulates to provide Completes Lesson Reflection
feedback as needed. Guide in collaborative
(Model Lesson #3) Collects Lesson Reflection groups.
Guide to further inform
instruction.
4. Independent practice: Collects and scores. Applies Lesson Reflection
You do it alone Guide to his/her own lesson.
Figure 4. Long-term view of the GRR sequence
E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m | Number 2 2014 33
Lesson Reflection Guide
Objective of lesson: 4. Motivation is high: Lesson is interesting
and challenging to students.
1 2 3
Brief description of lesson: Explanation/Evidence:
The objective is clear to learners. 5. Closure gives students feedback: Students
Yes No are aware of learning.
1 2 3
Use the following scale to rate five lesson
elements. Also provide an explanation and Explanation/Evidence:
evidence.
1=not evident 2=somewhat evident 3=clearly evident
1. Language is at an appropriate level: Additional reflections:
Lesson reviews known and introduces
unknown language. 1. Time needed to prepare this lesson:
1 2 3
Explanation/Evidence:
2. Relationship to text or targeted test:
2. Learners talk quite a bit: Students spend
most of the time in conversation.
1 2 3
Explanation/Evidence:
3. Student accountability:
3. Participation is even: All students have
equal opportunity to speak.
1 2 3
4. Other:
Explanation/Evidence:
Figure 5. Lesson reflection guide
greater understanding and to provide support- initially resistant teachers needed to make those
ing details. They had the ability to make more giant leaps into student-centered instruction.
informed choices about their own instruction
Conclusion
and to take those first scary steps in imple-
menting CLT strategies in their classrooms. Often the most engaging things in life
Furthermore, they used this ability to conduct are those that are easily explained but take a
peer observations. The slow but steady release lifetime to master. The GRR counts as one of
of responsibility provided the security these those. While I cannot profess that I implement
34 2014 Number 2 | E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m
each lesson perfectly, the GRR framework has Hiep, P. H. 2005. “Imported” communicative lan-
led me to more powerful teaching. I am able guage teaching: Implications for local teachers.
to handle the “blank stare” with more efficacy English Teaching Forum 43 (4): 2–9.
Pearson, P. D., and M. C. Gallagher. 1983. The
and grace. I have a greater ability to assess my
instruction of reading comprehension. Contem-
students’ understanding at any given moment,
porary Educational Psychology 8 (3): 317–344.
which has led to more targeted instruction.
Routman, R. 2003. Reading essentials: The specifics
As a result, I believe I teach with more empa- you need to teach reading well. Portsmouth, NH:
thy. My relationships with my students have Heinemann.
become stronger and more successful. In Brazil, Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy Center. 2012.
my teacher-participants were able to imple- Just write! guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment CLT strategies in their classes, which ment of Education.
Ur, P. 2009. Grammar practice activities: A practical
began to have a direct impact on their students.
guide for teachers. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cam-
What could be better than that?
bridge University Press.
References
Doughty, C., and T. Pica. 1986. “Information gap”
tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisi- Sandra Clark, University of Oregon
tion? TESOL Quarterly 20 (2): 305–325. American English Institute instructor, has
Fisher, D., and N. Frey. 2008a. Better learning enjoyed working in two-way immersion
through structured teaching: A framework for the
programs and providing professional
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA:
development in the public and university
ASCD.
——. 2008b. Releasing responsibility. Educational school systems of the United States and as
Leadership 66 (3): 32–37. a Senior English Language Fellow in Brazil.
E n g l i s h T E a c h i n g F o r u m | Number 2 2014 35