Literacy Now

photo credit: World Bank Photo Collection via photopin cc

Teachers work hard. This is no revelation. It is just the truth, regardless of how many people make jokes about summers off. If everyone worked as hard as we do during the school year, they might need a few weeks to sleep too.

We have to be on top of our planning, monitor the progress of our students, deal with behavior management, communicate with parents, assess, go to meetings, sit on committees, prepare for the latest concert/art show/assembly/school sponsored event, etc. A very big ETC. Despite all of that, when our little friends are in the classroom with us, they should be working harder than us.

You heard me correctly. The students should be working harder than the teacher. They are supposed to be learning things and moving toward greater independence. You know, that.

While I believe most teachers are working with the greatest of intentions, I see far too many holding students’ hands and dragging them through the finish line. Let's see if any of this sounds familiar.

Do you remind your students roughly 700 times a day where the date goes on the page?
Do you entertain questions about how many words/lines/pages a piece of writing is supposed to be when it hasn't even been started yet and you don't teach high school where maybe this could be a relevant question? Do you work for hours to painstakingly make sure that each and every child has filled out the graphic organizer correctly?

I could go on, but these are definitely signs you are working too hard at the wrong things. (Our job is hard enough. Have I said that before?)

I was working with a teacher last week who felt daunted at the prospect of organizing her independent reading selections into baskets of characters who all had a specific trait in common. You know, shy characters, brave characters, mischievous characters, bullies. The idea of sitting on the floor for hours to create these baskets while the laundry wasn't doing itself, the gym was calling, she had a million other things to do made her want to put her head down and cry. Until she thought, "enough is enough" and, the next morning, asked her students to create the baskets themselves. Highly familiar with the selections in the independent reading library, her kids hopped to it, engaging in amazing conversations about which characters could be grouped together and why, what to label each basket, and what do to about characters who could go in multiple baskets. I mean, HOLY BRILLIANT, BATMAN! And you know what? This Super Colleague made sure her students were working harder than she was, allowing her to use her sacred time after school to devote energy elsewhere.

We all have these moments of clarity. Sometimes it is when we are alone in our classrooms and sometimes it is when we are in the thick of it that we realize, "this lesson feels too complicated," or "they are just not engaged with this work and I am up here killing myself." In those moments, I encourage you to stop. Just stop. Cut bait and move on with your day. Then, when you have a quiet moment (Ha!), consider these questions:

• Have you provided students with enough guided or shared practice?
• Have you provided students with the opportunity for oral rehearsal (before writing)?
• Is there another way to present this material/get this accomplished in which the children play a more integral role and take more ownership?

You work hard. Of course you do. But make sure your students are working just as hard, if not harder. It is the least we can do for them.

Jennifer Scoggin (a.k.a. Mrs. Mimi) is the director of the Connecticut branch of LitLife and a consultant in schools. She holds a doctorate in curriculum and teaching from Teachers College, Columbia University, and has been an IRA member since 2011. She's the author of the upcoming Be Fabulous: The Reading Teacher's Guide to Reclaiming Your Happiness in the Classroom and It's Not All Flowers and Sausages: My Adventures in Second Grade, which sprung from her popular blog of the same name.

I would like to introduce you to Jennifer. Jennifer is in the eighth grade and earning good grades—no, she is getting great grades. According to her teachers she is a nice, compliant, intelligent student who is just a little on the quiet side. Her ideas are complex and interesting and she always wants to do her best.

So, why would someone like me write about Jennifer? I am interested in Jennifer because the effort it takes her to make all of teachers think she is an average to above student is probably two to three times that of her peers. Jennifer is a twice exceptional student, which means she has dyslexia (and dysgraphia) and is intellectually gifted. This means she does three hours of homework when her peers are doing 45 minutes. She writes the same paper three or four times before she lets anyone see it. She chooses smaller words when she is writing to avoid spelling mistakes and receives lower grades because she is unable to showcase her true vocabulary. While we might applaud Jennifer for persevering and becoming successful despite (or because) of her dyslexia, Jennifer would be more successful if afforded the accommodations she needs to level the playing field. Then she could demonstrate what she knows and understands versus what she can write or read in the conventional manner. Her passing grades and good performance does not mean she doesn’t need accommodations under IDEA and we need to think outside the box when it comes to how people with dyslexia learn.

Sustained Silent Reading Assessment

On the surface, it looks like Jennifer’s reading is fine and she doesn’t need help to access the curriculum, but if we take a deeper look, we will see the struggle. One way to collect data regarding reading fatigue is to have a student read a long passage at their current grade level for four minutes. After each minute, mark where the student is currently reading. After four minutes you should have a word count for each minute. In most cases of students with dyslexia, you will have evidence of fatigue that might look something like this:

Minute 1: 106 Correct Words Per Minute
Minute 2: 96 CWPM
Minute 3: 85 CWPM
Minute 4: 75 CWPM

Writing With and Without Assistive Technology

Jennifer will write a sentence like this, “I went on a trip with my mom and dad.” This might seem fine until you realize what she wanted to write was more like this, “Last weekend, my family and I visited the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful with deep canyons and breathtaking views. I enjoyed the time with my family and look forward to our next vacation.” How did I know this is what she really wanted to say? I knew because I compared her verbal ability to her written ability.

So, the second way to collect data regarding the writing challenges of a twice exceptional student is to have her write something on her own with no assistance. Then have her dictate something to you and you scribe what she wrote. Lastly, compare the word choice, grammar and complexity of ideas. Which one is more representative of her true intellect?

Accommodations

Now that we have established students with dyslexia—who happen to be also be intellectually gifted as well—are actually struggling, we can provide accommodations that will help even the playing field and allow them to put in the effort that is expected of their non-dyslexic peers. Here are some ideas for assistive technology that is easy to implement.

• Audio Books
• Speech to Text
• Livescribe Pen
• Keyboarding
• Notes provided
• Taking pictures of the notes on the board

Your Turn

Now I have an easy task for you. Take a moment to write a sentence about what you did this morning, but before you do that take a look at a few words you cannot use: a, the, of, and, is, or. These words should not appear on your paper anywhere. You have one minute. Then come back to this article.

How was it? Based on my experience with this simulation, I am going to propose the task was not easy, and I purposefully used the word easy as part of the simulation. I wanted you to believe this should be something you can do without any problem before you even tried it. I am willing to bet what you wrote was not an adequate representation of your intellectual ability. Imagine if you were graded only on what you wrote?

The reality is that our public education system does not have to make sure a student reaches her potential; they are only required to show educational progress. However, when students with dyslexia become frustrated with not being able to work to their potential, it wreaks havoc on their self-esteem. But it doesn’t have to, because now you know what it feels like and together, we can change the culture of silence about the dyslexic and intellectually gifted students. These students are not asking for more, they are asking for fair and we all know that fair does not always mean equal.

Kelli Sandman-Hurley (dyslexiaspec@gmail.com) is the co-owner of the Dyslexia Training Institute. She received her doctorate in literacy with a specialization in reading and dyslexia from San Diego State University and the University of San Diego. She is a trained special education advocate assisting parents and children through the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and 504 Plan process. Dr. Kelli is an adjunct professor of reading, literacy coordinator and a tutor trainer. Kelli is trained by a fellow of the Orton-Gillingham Academy and in the Lindamood-Bell, RAVE-O and Wilson Reading Programs. Kelli is the Past-President of the San Diego Branch of the International Dyslexia Association, as well as a board member of the Southern California Library Literacy Network (SCLLN). She co-created and produced “Dyslexia for a Day: A Simulation of Dyslexia,” is a frequent speaker at conferences, and is currently writing “Dyslexia: Decoding the System.”

Can you imagine a classroom of 16 first grade students, heterogeneously grouped and highly engaged in independent quiet writing time for 20 minutes? Can you picture a classroom in which the teacher announces it is time to move on from writing and some students frantically write as if they will never see their journals again, while others sigh as they put down their pencils?

I can. Believe it or not, motivating all students to want to write regardless of ability level is an achievable goal. The classroom I describe is my first grade classroom during writing time. However, my writing time didn’t always look like this!

Towards the end of the last school year, I was introduced to the book Super Core! by Mark Weakland. I have used this book and continue to use it as a resource to make the necessary changes to maximize student engagement during writing time. In order to engage every student during extended writing time, I had to overcome two major roadblocks. I had students saying “I’m done!” or “I don’t know what to write about!” By the time I redirected students to keep writing and worked with others on picking a topic, writing time was over.

Here are a few simple changes I’ve made using Super Core! and they have made all the difference in the world!

Create a Topic List

Discuss topics with your students. Take the time to explicitly teach what a topic is by showing actual examples of authors’ work. Once your students understand the idea of topics, provide mini-lessons on creating a topic list. Explain to your students they will create a list of things that are “near and dear to their hearts.”  Make sure to take your time with these lessons and keep the focus on adding to the topic list each day for one week. Most importantly, students should always have access to their topic list. My students have a writing folder that holds their writing tools. The topic list has become my student’s first writing tool. Now, if a student is struggling with a topic idea they know where to find ideas that are meaningful.  

Provide Extended Writing Time

I am fortunate to have a 30-minute writing block each day. The first 10 minutes is devoted to a mini-lesson, the next 20 minutes involves independent student writing and conferences, and the final 10 minutes provides an opportunity for students to share work in “The Author’s Chair.” This extended writing block is crucial to the development of student writing as it serves to differentiate and provide choice to young authors.

Teach with Data-Driven Mini-Lessons

In previous years I used my core reading program to drive instruction. Currently, my mini-lessons are driven from the data I record during student conference time. For example, if I notice several students using the words and or because at the beginning of a sentence, I form mini-lessons on how to correctly use the words and or because. This becomes more authentic as it addresses real student need.

Provide Choice

Providing choices during independent writing has been the single greatest factor for increasing student engagement in my classroom. At the end of every mini-lesson before students go off to write, I remind my students they may use the topic I chose during the mini-lesson, pick a new topic, or add on to a topic they have already started. This engagement reduces student questions and interruptions. When my students are motivated and empowered by choice, I am free to work with individuals during conference time. Individual conferences serve as a time to differentiate instruction and keep valuable notes about student writing. For instance, during a 10 minute conference, I may find that one of my students needs to work on correcting letter reversals while another needs to focus on using correct punctuation when writing dialogue.

Provide Opportunities to Share               

Finally, each one of my students is provided with the opportunity to sit in the Author’s Chair to share a piece of writing that is important to them one time a week. Students are proud and eager to share with their classmates. It also gives me an opportunity to review specific skills, provide positive feedback, and assess student writing progress.

Renee Dryer is a first grade teacher at Ferndale Area Elementary School in Johnstown, PA.

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.