Coming of age to a new definition of reading instruction

            When I began as an English teacher, reading instruction was quite basic.  I never really looked at reading as a complex process. But after going through this course, I realize that reading is indeed a complex process. If students are coming to me with a deficiency in any part of the process, like a break in a bridge, it will eventually collapse. Students become frustrated with reading constantly and now its apparent as to why.

            In planning reading instruction, I never thought beyond simple differentiation. By my definition, simple differentiation is only planning the lesson for two different modalities.  Based on this information, an instructor tries a gradual release method, and if successful, the students claim ownership. However, addressing only two modalities excludes many students. As shown through this course, reading comprehension is not just two modalities it is multiple.  I think that most instructors tend to ignore this because it seems to time consuming.  In thinking about this problem, it comes back to bringing both student and teacher together to design the assessment. 

            But this is not something that can happen over night. Many teachers comment on why students are not learning even though they have taught the material. It comes back to assessment. How are they assessing their students? How will they know that they got the objective?  With reading, we have to be so vigilant with our assessment, because without then students really are not learning at all. They will be in the recitation phase and then what has 180 days of instruction really done for them?

            These questions can try to lead to answers but only if teachers are open to it.  Most teachers seem to reach this point that if the students are not getting it, they are not putting in their all.  I have to admit I have let my mind wander into this territory.  It is easy to do because we feel powerless.  What this says now, after this course, is there is something not working.  This shows me now that I need assessments to help refocus the learning.  Remediation is not a bad thing if used the right way.  The plan should be: plan plus teaching plus assessment plus reflection. It is completely cyclical.  If we recall when reading, did we begin automatically reading as soon as we left the womb?  No.  It was through multiple times of practice and some reteaching as well.  As practioners, we have to embrace the need to allow reteaching to happen if the assessment shows students did not get the lesson.  I use to say that if they did not get it with this assessment, they will get it with the next one.  The reality is they need to get it with this assessment. Seventy five percent pass rate means the test is good…but that does not mean learning took place. Unfortunately this is often coupled with compromising time schedules as well as pressure from impending state assessments.  However time needs to be made to make sure students understand and comprehend the material. Because if not, they will never learn…and we will be responsible.  

Data...its the new F word

            When you think about teaching, does the word data ever come into play? If I was teaching math, of course, but as  far as teaching in general? Data and teaching seemed like oil and water, there would never be a chance in God’s green earth they would work together.  Come 2010…that statement proved wrong and we have now become a data driven profession (Boudett, et. al, 2014). 

            But, for some, teaching has become too data driven. If we stop to thinl for a minute though, what is data in teaching? Data can simply be looking at grades from a recent test.  Yes, it can be as simple as that. Shocking right? It was common knowledge that the former ways of education made it seem like test data was more for the student not necessarily for the teacher. If students failed a test, they had to make sure they did better the next time.  Now, its not as simple.  This idea of reteaching comes directly from this idea of that we use data to inform our instruction.  I don’t recall many of my teachers using reteaching, as most of the things we learned seemed cyclical in nature. The idea of reteaching didn’t seem to come into conversation.  However, as standards change and new assessments ask students to do more, maybe it’s a good idea to try and reteach?

            The problem comes back to time. We never have time to really sit down and analyze the data. We have to back up for a second and look at what is our data. For me, its always about writing.  Whether we have expository or argumentative essays, it comes back to the idea of analyzing what kind of output students are creating and if they are mastering the concepts. As Boudett, et. al (2014) show, it is about “Helping teachers see the big picture also means managing expectations around the question of how soon it is reasonable to expect to see improvements in scores on tests used for accountability purposes” (p. 183).  For many instructors, the goals of mastering a concept may differ as far as time goes, but I do feel we have to be realistic. When it comes to teacher made assessments, students can be required to reach that 100 percent mark. We control what goes on in our classroom, we control what the environment looks like.  In a state testing situation, we have no impact on what the room looks like or feels like.  Based on my reading, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have realistic expectations when it comes to a state assessment (Boudett, et. al, 2014).

References

Boudett, K. P., City, E.A., Murnane, R.J. (2014). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment        results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 

I would like to know how to read...but can at you least let me succeed?

         Every year it happens without fail. No matter how we change our approach or our teaching style, utter the word SpringBoard, children run.  The love/hate relationship between students and the curriculum has increasingly grown sour over the last couple of years as it becomes apparent they detest SpringBoard.  I find this so unfortunate, because in my opinion, the curriculum works. While scaffolding is needed in every aspect,  SpringBoard represents an opportunity for students to work at a higher level and to think about higher level concepts in a very unique way.  It allows them to develop as readers and writers alike, but there are times where you have to get inventive.  I often feel that whenever I tell students to take out their SpringBoard books, the eyes of detest and boredom stare me down, as if to say…ok white guy what are you going to attempt now? If I’m teaching reading and writing skills, am I really giving students the chance to succeed?

            This week, we would look at readings that focused on creating authentic assessments that allow students to succced. As mentioned in the last blog post, we often design curriculums with literature that is out of touch with students both in skill and in content. As Allington (2002) shows, books/texts with “more specialized technical terms… and abstract ideas…The  syntax of texts becomes more complex and demanding. The reasoning about information in texts also shifts, with a greater emphasis on inferential thinking and prior knowledge” (p.16-17). For a lot of students, building such prior knowledge within the classroom is available but once they leave the class, the resources aren’t there. As Allington shows, we are simply not creating chances for students to succeed.

            The question then becomes, if we are preparing students to enter our society as prepared citizens, should we be giving them skills that we already do as adults. In a follow up study, Allington (2013) shows how we use reading in our adult lives, emphasizing “if adults typically read texts at this level of difficulty, that would mean they would encounter…words…they had not seen before” (p. 525). As adults, we don’t read things with words we don’t know. Instead, we switch to a text with words we can easily access and still create the same kind of meaning. Allington’s point to teachers is to create authentic assessments that help students build this type of skill, while also challenging them to use familiar texts to build up to more complex texts. In a manner of speaking, give them chances to succeed.

            This would only work if students only worked on a singular profile. But as a teacher with limited experience, I can tell you that students don’t all come from the same sheet. Often, we have to design assessments with various outputs for different learners. This can often be very frustrating given the fact that every different learner has a different way of wanting to be assessed  (Applegate, et. al, 2006). When designing assessments, its so hard trying to make sure that you are covering both the standards and the curriculum selected by the district. But everything gets complicated when we consider the FSA assessment or any computer-based assessment. I find that computer assessments often are not realistic because if we teach decoding skills, its hard to transition those skills to a computer (Robinson, et. al, 2002).

            With all of this thinking behind instruction in general, I still am troubled by not finding the silver lining between instruction and assessment. Designing assessments that give my students an equitable chance at success often frustrates me.  I feel that I accomplish something for the district but I don’t help my students out in the long run. As Dennis (2009-2010) shows, “‘it becomes critical to reconsider how we conceptualize the ways teachers might think about reading instruction, struggling readers, and the multitude of influences that can affect student learning and growth” (p. 289).  When Dennis (2009-2010) talks about the multitude of influences, I keep thinking how many influences are in terms of students’ reading lives. I want to decrease it. But at the same time honor my commitments to the curriculum but also make sure with the students they actually succeed.

References

Allington, R. (2002). “You can’t learn much from books you can’t read”.  Educational
     Leadership. Retrieved from EBSCO. Pgs. 16-19.

Allington, R. L. (2013). “What really matters when working with struggling readers”. The Reading

     Teacher. 66(7). Pp. 520-530.

Applegate, M.D., Quinn, K.B., Applegate, A.J. (2006). “Profiles in comprehension”. The Reading

    Teacher. 60(1). Pp. 48-57.

Dennis, D.V. (2009-2010). “I’m not stupid”: How assessment drives (in) appropriate reading

     instruction”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 53(4). Pp. 283-290. 

Robinson, R.D., McKenna, M., and Conradi, K. (2012). Issues and trends in literacy education (5^th

     ed.). Boston: Pearson