Literacy Now

photo credit: cybrarian77 via photopin cc

In my research, there appears to be two meanings of “gifted”—the child who seems to possess innate knowledge, scores well on IQ or state tests, and out paces his class is stereotypical definition. Or there is the unnoticed, abstract thinker—the one who has gifts, often beyond recognition in the classroom, beyond the scope of assessment, hides their gifts within.

I recently read The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller. The reading forced me to look at “gifted” in a new sense, almost. What is a child not allowed to express? Who do they have to be? For whom?

This book placed a new perspective on the gifted child for me, mainly, in the everyday context of school. Gifted is somehow associated with meritorious achievement. Gifted, in another sense, is how we see the world. I think one point Miller tried to convey is that many of us are not allowed to reveal or demonstrate our gifts. Her writing made me wonder if the term “gifted” is an entitlement rather than the truest expression of one curious, obscure, and/or sheltered talent. In a way, how one needs to conform to a community or society deems the “gifted” nature of a human being through context rather than innate talent.

What, then, defines the gifted reader?

From my experience, the gifted reader is one who passes state or standardized tests by exceeding the standard or ardent advancement through reading levels. Recall, the ability to narrow in on characters, or to identify main ideas further define the gifted reader.

One could argue that pedagogy defines the context of the gifted reader, how well a reader functions within the parameters of a class defines one’s talents. If our classrooms are test-centered, multiple choice-based where students derive answers not from close reading, but “right there” answers, a certain population will excel. Such readers score well. Are they not gifted for achieving a score within a particular range?

A gifted child, by traditional definition/perception of intellect, is based in fact or concrete thinking. The abstract may confound such a thinker. A gifted child who is embraced for his thinking is more apt to excel with abstract thinking than the concrete. Such a reader may not care to trivialize facts or concern themselves with “knowns” of the text. Rather, they ponder what might be. For example, while reading One Crazy Summer, kudos to the reader who can recall the most events. But what about the reader, age 11, who realizes Fern defines herself not by name but by proudly emphasizing black her poem performed courageously in front of an unfamiliar audience?

What about transaction? Transactional Theory, as cited by Louise Rosenblatt, takes us as educators and reader to a new definition. Transaction, however, possessed unique signs of giftedness with the concept of perception. Perception and confidence lead to one's ability to interpret text.

Do we believe in transaction or is there an unstated expectation that all students view texts the same way? What about those readers, age 8-13, who actually relate the context of a book to the reality that surrounds them? Interpret text within the constructs of their perceptions today (and maybe someday down the road?) Is this an aspiration we hold for all students?

Transaction with a text is an amazing, if not spiritual, act. But does this reading make a child gifted? If we valued the whole child and their views of the world, the ability in which one transacts with a test could indeed define their “giftedness.” Measuring giftedness on transaction would place experience and background into play. That move would presume giftedness is cultural and socioeconomic related.

What we don't often see is the reaction of the child who defines their ability, comprehension, or transaction, on immeasurable scales. When I find these readers, they don't seek a title to define themselves. Rather, they seek a person who will appreciate and admire their vision. Sometimes simply allowing this reader to define his thinking—through song, poetry, art, charts, or any means defined by them—is enough space for the student to express themselves and reveal their true selves to the world. Anything but a comparative test.

If a classroom desires abstract thinking, response to text with close reading supporting arguments free of predetermined outcomes, a new set of “talented” readers are likely to emerge. As I've watched students in the intermediate grades develop as readers, those who learn the skills of reading in class and are allowed the space to think outside of the four corners of the text outpace their gifted companions through “thinking” ability. This thinking is transactional—an interpretation and understanding of life. Perhaps even rationalization.

Standardized test scores seldom reflect this phenomenon in the classroom. The skill-based, perceptive thinker, call them visceral or cerebral, processes information in an atypical fashion. Despite increased levels of cognition and metacognition, because test scores reflect measureable aspects of reading, these students are rarely recognized for their talents. Particularly if a multiple choice response can be argued with evidence. Despite their gifted thinking, these readers are not labeled gifted. In some cases, they are turned away from reading, creating an imbalance of talent, a public rejection of one's perception for the celebration of unfamiliar intellect. The student trapped in this predicament feels disenfranchised because the standard of intellect has changed without understanding.

I would argue, the child who is free to express their interaction with text and translate the ways of the world is gifted. A child who is breaking through barriers and overcoming their struggles, in the same right, is gifted. Perhaps even more so because the student “comes from behind” to close the “achievement gap.” A child is able become autonomous and creative with the tools they possess and acquire to further their reading and interpretation is also gifted.

We are all born with gifts. Our giftedness is defined within the context we exist.

Justin Stygles is a grade 5/6 ELA/Humanities teacher at Guy E. Rowe Elementary in Norway, Maine. He is currently engaged in a long-term project dealing with emotional involvement in middle grade reading.

There has been a significant up­tick in interest in project-based approaches to education. Some of this may be due to the work of organi­zations that advocate for project-based work, such as the Buck Institute and the George Lucas Educational Foundation, while some may be due to a growing recognition of the need to provide more engaging education to today’s media-enmeshed children and youth. Some could also be due to the perception that project-based approaches can address many Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or develop 21st century skills more broadly.

Whatever the reasons, it is important that we not get swept up in it as a fad, but rather take a thoughtful, evidence-driven approach. Project-based education has lots of potential for literacy development, but also potential pitfalls.

Three ways project-based instruction could go terribly wrong

1. Lack of clear conceptualization. Literacy has a long history of using terms so differently or broadly that eventually it seems anything “counts.” Consider “balanced literacy.” To some, this means balancing lots of opportunities to read connected text with explicit instruction in phonics and other knowledge and skills; to others, it means a balance of reading to children, with children, and by children (following Margaret Mooney’s 1990 book); still others apply the label to instruction that does not appear to me to be balanced by either meaning. Whole language, guided reading, writers’ workshop, direct instruction, and a number of other terms have been used to label a wide variety of approaches and practices that may be quite far from what popularizers of these terms intended.

Project-based learning is in danger of that same semantic spread. For example, I recently heard an assignment in which students were asked to make a diorama related to a book they’d read described as “project based.” To address this, I urge all of us who use this or a related label to be very clear in what we mean by it. In my mind, for instruction to be project based, students must work over an extended period of time to meet a purpose beyond satisfying a school requirement, such as to address a problem or create something to be used in the local community. We do not all need to agree that is a necessary characteristic of project based, but we do need to articulate what we mean by the term.

2. Limited alignment to standards. Today’s teachers and students cannot afford to spend large amounts of time engaged in an activity unaligned with standards. But standards have not been a substantial emphasis in much of the instantiation of project-based approaches. Instruction must be carefully designed to address specific standards while maintaining the character­istics that make it project based. Anne-Lise Halvorsen and colleagues described the development of standards-aligned projects in a 2012 article in Theory & Research in Social Education. One involved second-graders visiting a local park, identifying strengths and deficiencies of the park, and then developing a proposal to present to a government of­ficial about making improvements. Project lessons addressed a number of standards in reading, writing, and social studies, such as CCSS 5 for Reading Informational Text, about text features, CCSS 1 for Writing, about writing opinion pieces, and Michigan Grade Level Content Expectations for Social Studies involving identifying issues in the local community that influence the daily lives of its citizens.

Children who experienced this and an­other 20-session project-based unit showed pre- to post-term gains on standards-aligned measures, with effect sizes of 1.31 for reading, 0.52 for writing, and 0.85 for social studies (all reported in Cohen’s d). In fact, the children who were from low socioeconomic status (SES), low-performing schools performed in infor­mational reading and social studies at levels statistically equivalent to students from high-SES, high-performing schools. This suggests the promise of designing projects aligned with standards in multiple domains.

3. Lack of explicit, systematic instruction. Project-based approaches have been linked to discovery learning, with little or no emphasis on explicit, systematic instruction. This is a poor fit to literacy education, in which there is overwhelming evidence in favor of ex­plicit, systematic instruction in a number of areas, including comprehension and writing, both of which are entailed in many projects.

We must ensure projects incorporate explicit, systematic instruction. I choose to use the term “project-based instruc­tion” rather than “project-based learning (PBL)” to emphasize the importance of instruction in project-based approaches. Project-based instruction can be seen as an overarching context in which we can place a number of research-supported in­structional practices. For example, with a project in which students research ani­mals and write articles about them for a magazine to be placed at a local pediatrician’s office, the teacher might provide explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, text structure, and revision strategies, all of which have considerable research support.

How project-based instruction could go powerfully right

With these challenges, one might question whether it is worthwhile. In my view, it is. A project-based con­text provides students with opportu­nities to read and write for a purpose beyond simply learning to read and write—which research suggests is as­sociated with greater reading and writ­ing growth. A project-based context enables students to write for an audience beyond their teacher, which is associated with higher quality writing. A project-based context provides a way to incorporate a number of characteristics of more engaging instruction (e.g., relevance, choice, collaboration, autonomy, mastery goals), which a number of researchers have established to be associated with stronger literacy outcomes.

It is well worth the delicate dance to take advantage of the affordances of project-based instruction while avoiding its many potential pitfalls.

Nell K. Duke, an IRA member since 1994, is a professor of literacy, language, and culture, and an affiliate of the Com­bined Program in Education and Psychology at the University of Michigan. Her most recent book is Inside Information: Developing Powerful Read­ers and Writers of Informational Text Through Project-Based Instruction, co-published by IRA and Scholastic.This column originally appeared in Reading Today magazine. Members can read the rest of the magazine in digital form and non-members can join IRA here.

Glendale High School in Springfield, MO, is taking a different approach to learning. Quest@GHS is the first program in the state to partner with New Tech Network, a nonprofit based in California that works with local business leaders to prepare students for a 21st century workforce with more than 130 schools in the U.S. and Australia. The program within the school addresses critical thinking, public speaking, collaboration and the use of technology with a focus on project-based learning. Our perspective is that learning has evolved and our approach to teaching and learning has got to change as well. Students should have a say in how they learn—ownership is very important when it comes to taking responsibility for one’s own future. Quest@GHS provides students with a voice and a choice in how they learn.

Quest@GHS students take pride in their accomplishments. They are responsible for learning, researching, presenting, coaching, directing, and completing projects from beginning to end. They take different roles on different projects. They may direct the group, they may assign the tasks, they may research, create, build, program, or direct their presentation. These presentations are for authentic audiences and designed to have a real world connection to the students.

Some schools have a ‘sit and get’ format. Students listen to lecture, answer questions from the back of the chapter, memorize facts, then spit it back out for the test. That model creates memorizers not lifelong learners. When a person is actively engaged in the process of learning they cannot help but be more invested in the outcome. PBL encourages students to take ownership in what they are learning. It gives them opportunities for hands on learning and encourages them to refine skills they will need for the future.

Our Quest, pardon the pun, began five years ago. It grew from conversations about “dream schools.”  What would we do if we could do anything? Matt Pearce, former principal at Glendale High School, spent time researching and searching for a model that would meet the needs of our students, address their needs in the future, he looked for a model that had some reliable research, and discovered New Tech. He built a team and began visiting different schools, and conversations began. Pearce left the district and Natalie Cauldwell replaced him in 2013. She, too, visited sites and with the support of our district leadership, eventually a team of eight teachers, one counselor, one building director and one district director came together.

Students who are enrolled in Quest@GHS have one combined class (2 subjects, 2 teachers) and then they have a standalone Quest class. Freshmen are enrolled in American Studies, (a combination class of English I and American History), some will be in Problem Based Algebra I, and PBL Physics First. Sophomore learners enjoy BioLit, (a combination of Biology and English II), and PBL World History.  They take the rest of their classes in the main part of the high school with the students who are not in Quest. Quest@GHS student are involved in athletics, fine arts, clubs, and academic teams as are all Glendale students.

Our vision includes an environment of Trust, Respect, and Responsibility. We ask students to use a collaborative approach and take different roles when working on a team. These students may take the role of researcher, speaker, presentation creator, or project manager. They practice critical thinking skills and are able to not only capitalize on their strengths, but are also able to improve areas of weakness by practicing and receiving feedback from peers and adults.

Our students develop norms for their teams and hold one another accountable for their work product. Students are honing their critical thinking and public speaking skills with every project they create. Learners in the Quest@GHS program are asked to share their knowledge with an authentic audience. So their culminating activity could be a presentation to a local business owner, the director of a museum or another relevant community connection. They have an audience comprised of adults including Facilitators, administrators, local experts and community members.

We have 168 highly motivated freshmen and sophomores participating in our program. When it was launched, students of all stripes were invited to join us if they wanted to learn differently than a traditional school setting. They now range from Honors students to those with IEPs and 504 plans. We were fortunate that we had plenty of room for everyone who applied in the first two classes. Next year, as we add approximately 100 freshmen, we anticipate implementing a lottery system to accommodate the flood of applicants we expected as a result of this year’s buzz.

We only have two caveats in order to be accepted: 1) If you accept the appointment, you must agree to stay in the program for one year and 2) Transportation is not provided for students not in our attendance area. We have seven students transfer into the program from schools other than Glendale and about a 50/50 split of males and females in the program and a wide range of diversity amongst our learners.

The facilitators of our combined classes are very deliberate when creating their projects so that students can see the correlation between the two subjects. The facilitators have completed numerous hours in professional development, learning to create authentic projects that have a real world connection so learners are able to make connections between their own lives and their projects. Our facilitation team, comprised of seven teachers and 63 years of combined experience, volunteered for this program. Some of our experienced teachers have likened the change in approach to repeating their first year in the classroom. They relish the opportunity to collaborate with their colleagues and create projects that are relevant and topical.

Our learners have had a bit of an adjustment period as well, particularly when it comes to how grades are earned. They earn grades in many categories: knowledge, collaboration, presentation, and agency (were they on task, did they meet their part of the contract, did they assist or hinder the team progression, how did their team members grade them). They were not used to so many different areas of grades—homework tests and participation are usually about it.

They were used to a traditional approach, and now they are driving and directing their learning. Our learners approached the facilitators and asked permission to create a program emphasizing the culture of the program and reinforcing the expectations of participants. They’ve already developed a deep sense of pride in their involvement and realize they are setting standards, expectations and traditions.

Our advisory board, made up of students, meets twice a month or as needed with the facilitators and the director to air concerns, share ideas, and assist in shaping the school for the future. Our learners and facilitators are on a quest to set the standard for implementation of the New Tech model in the state of Missouri. I believe we have set the bar high!

Tammy Quinn is assistant principal at Glendale High School and the director of the Quest@GHS program in Springfield, MO.

by Nell K. Duke
University of Michigan
November 20, 2014

Many International Reading Association members recognize the important role that families, as well as classroom teachers, play in developing students’ literacy. In fact, IRA has a position statement specifically on this topic:  Family-School Partnerships: Essential Elements of Literacy Instruction in the United States.

Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Education launched an initiative to strengthen family and community engagement practices in U.S. schools. The initiative rests on The Dual Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships.

“The purpose of the framework is to establish a U.S. Department of Education (ED) wide strategy of family and community engagement (FCE) efforts by collaborating FCE resources across ED, increase awareness about FCE, and highlight the importance of parents working as partners with schools to achieve academic success,” according to the document.

The Framework is based on a larger document developed by the Southeast Educational Development Laboratory in Collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education. The report and the Framework emphasize the need to build capacity for school and program staff as well as families in four areas:

• Capabilities (skills and knowledge)
• Connections (networks)
• Cognition (beliefs, values)
• Confidence (self-efficacy)

The outcome of this is anticipated to be families who can play multiple roles in schools and programs, and school and program staff who can:

• Honor and recognize families’ funds of knowledge
• Connect family engagement to student learning
• Create welcoming, inviting cultures.

The report includes three case studies of effective family-community partnerships, each of which involves literacy. It seems likely that literacy will be a focus of many family-community partnerships inspired or supported by this initiative. IRA members can play an important role by providing research-based information about literacy practices in schools, homes, and communities and about how to foster literacy development in children and youth.

This article is from the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to LRP@reading.org.

A few Reading Today issues back, I pondered the importance—and the challenges—of educational leadership, particularly what it takes to lead in the midst of policy. I made the following observation:

“…politicians and the public can fight the fight, but regardless of how we feel or where we stand on policy decisions, the job of public educators is to implement what has been put in place by a vote or decision (state or federal).”

Nowhere is this more evident than with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), in which the continuing debate is undoubtedly a hot topic, but for the wrong reasons. Equally full of passionate support and disdain, the “noise” is coming at teachers from all directions—from teachers unions to parents, from media outlets to state legislators, and even from publishers shopping what’s billed to be CCSS-aligned materials.

The unspoken implication for teachers is that whether or not they agree or disagree with education policy, their job is to teach within it; deliver student outcomes as prescribed and/or interpreted by an educational overseeing body. That leaves the average teacher wondering who to follow. Sometimes the policy noise can be deafening and, worse yet, defeating to the very teachers it is meant to guide.

As the largest global professional network of literacy educators, we have the duty to cut through that noise. Each educator that comes upon us and considers joining weighs the value of what we offer and considers us as worthy (or not) of their dime and time. When an educator makes the choice to join, they are likely seeing IRA not only as a resource for supporting fine classroom instruction in reading, but also hopeful that IRA will support what is right and good for reading instruction at a greater level—one of influencing those who create the policy under which they deliver instruction. Literacy educators around the world want an advocate.

We can tell our members what makes for good instruction—the research and evidence that produces student outcomes—but it may be of marginal use if we are not assertive within the global realm of education in informing and influencing the bodies of government that craft the policy.

This is no mean feat for IRA; within our ranks, we have disagreement over what is effective. But arguing amongst ourselves which body of research is valid can no longer be an excuse for not supporting—and advocating for—teachers everywhere. We believe our job is to convene the collegial dialogue and the debate in a way that ultimately informs good practice for inclusion in education policy.

We live in an age when taking a public stance on an issue often includes vilifying the opposing view. The fallout carnage of the vehement argument of right and wrong perspectives has a wearying effect on our teachers and serves no useful purpose for them as to what they need to teach literacy to our children. IRA is stepping up and finding the right balance with serving literacy educators by continuing to translate research to sound classroom teaching and renewing our charge of advocating on their behalf for what is effective instructional literacy practice.

In doing so, there have been times when we’ve been accused of being pro-Common Core, or criticized simply for not demonstrating enough favor for or against education policies, Common Core or otherwise. But the truth is, in the end, our stance on any one particular issue does not make us who we are as the International Reading Association. In fact, the truth is simple: We are pro-educator. We are for teachers. That is our stance, and if it’s Common Core-aligned research and lesson plans our members need, then that is what we are going to provide.

We owe it to teachers—our members—to do just that, as well as to continue to voice, with fervor, what is necessary to build sound education policy.

Marcie Craig Post (mpost@reading.org) is the executive director of the International Reading Association. This column originally appeared in Reading Today magazine. Members can read the rest of the magazine in digital form and non-members can join IRA here.