Higher level thinking/questioning is a huge part of our state evaluation system this year. I'm really struggling with how to incorporate this into really low level lessons. For example, I'm using Orton Gillingham with my 1st and 2nd graders. If you're not familiar, its a systematic program that essentially teaches phonics. At the level my students are at, they're working with about 15 letters to name the letter, the letter sound, and blend the letters into CVC words. There simply isn't any "critical thinking" involved. After we do the letters/words I read a low level book with them (levels a-c). It's mostly predictive text such as "Mom likes to read. Mom likes to swim" etc. This is just the level they're at right now. I ask them basic level questions...I can't really think of any "higher level" questions that I even could ask based on the text and I also feel that our focus right now is simply being able to read. We also work on writing about the book, but right now they're at the level where we're working on tapping out sounds, etc. It's a huge success if we can get out one small somewhat correct sentence. Help! ETA: Also on a somewhat related topic, a huge part is also "integrating subjects." Some of it I simply can't do (I don't teach Science, etc.). With reading and math, again I run into the problem that the skills I teach are so basic that it's hard to integrate. In math 1st grade is working on number id and 2nd grade is working on addition with manipulatives. My students can't read well enough to do word problems or anything like that, and I'm not sure how you would incorporate math into reading with what we're doing either. How do you special ed teachers deal with this?
I think you also need to incorporate some read-alouds and comprehension into your ELA lessons to supplement the phonics instruction you are doing now. One simple way to do this (although it costs money) is to use News2You. It is a newspaper format that also has comprehension and grammar activities included in each issue. With my lowest level of students, I read a story and then we answer simple comprehension questions (usually a multiple choice). It might not be "higher level" thinking, but the students often need to refer back to the text to find the answer, which is a higher level task. I guess "higher level" thinking means to infer something from the text that isn't explicitly stated, which is very difficult for some students. My thinking is that reading instruction doesn't always mean the student has to read the story and then answer the questions. A story can be read to them and they can respond to questions by picking one of three choices.
We've been specifically instructed that "literal questions" are an important skill to teach but not considered "higher level thinking."
Yes. Higher level thinking questions are supposed to be included into every lesson. My older students are at least reading at some level so I can incorporate higher level questions into that. However, I just don't know how to go about it with the youngest kids. I have my formal observation set up during my 2nd grade reading group. I had a formal observation on a group doing this same intervention my first year and got marked way down on the "critical thinking" section because none of my questions were higher level. At the time it was only a small section of the evaluation and I got good scores on the rest of it so I didn't make a fuss. However, with the new state evaluation system this is a huge part of the evaluation...as in I probably won't even be "proficient" if I can't show it. Out of 21 "teacher quality" standards 9 of them discuss critical/higher level thinking in some way. Integrating the subjects is also another huge part. My state just created separate rubrics for speech pathologists and psychs, but unfortunately we special ed teachers are rated on the same rubric as classroom teachers and it's definitely geared towards them. I used to get a lot of "points" for things like using data, goal setting with students, differentiating, students knowing their progress, etc. but none of that is included in the evaluation anymore since we've gone to this statewide model.
Having the kids an example and non example to add to the book could help. In the mom book it could be - Mom likes to cook/Dad likes to run. Then, they have to justify why it fits/doesn't fit the story. For integrating subjects, nonfiction texts and teaching nonfiction text features would help you cover that. You can also integrate writing if your focus is reading and phonics.
I have very little experience with first and second grades, so I may be way off here. Could they find a rhyming word as you are tapping out words? So if they tapped cat, they could rhyme rat then spell it. You could ask how they knew it rhymed. (I'm not sure that's high enough thinking.). Or have them create a list of all the words they know with a certain sound. For the number id, have them identify the page numbers in the book they are reading. You might also consider just rewording your questions. Pull out your Bloom's question starter (we get a new one each year), and try to write questions with words from the higher levels. Example: How are the bug and snail alike becomes Compare the bug and snail. You're still comparing, but a busy P sometimes just listens or looks for key words. I think it's silly to be marked down for literal questions in an intervention program. There's a reason they need the intervention!
I like the page number thing! Thanks, I was racking my brain trying to come up with something that integrated math into reading. My kids are not at a level where they can come up with rhyming words. When doing letters I have asked them to name a word that starts with the letter, which they have to think of themselves, but it's still a "what/name" question so it's still low level thinking. I know what you mean about the Bloom's-we did that all of the time when I taught regular ed last year. However, my students don't have a very high vocabulary level either. If I said "compare" I don't think they'd know what I meant. Several of them have language issues as well as learning disabilities and about half are ELL also. A lot of times I'm happy if they can give me a response that's even just on-topic with what I asked.
That's too bad and really doesn't make much sense. I guess I might try to make an argument that foundational skills are, well, foundational to higher level thinking skills and are therefore part of the overall package of promoting critical thinking skills, but guessing it wouldn't work for you.
