The Whees and Woes of Literacy Curriculum Development

Hello Readers, it has been a while.  I have been on an adventure over the last year that took much of my brainpower and energy.  For the last few years, I have been documenting, through this blog, the construction and revision of our secondary literacy intervention initiative in an urban district.  In our sixth year, we began a process of extending our reach, always with the growth of all students in mind. The goal of this blog has been to share the work of proposing, developing, implementing, and adjusting a district literacy intervention.  Below is a review of our curriculum and instructional support development over the past years and an introduction to some significant recent revisions. I will speak from a “we” perspective because although I guide this work, I couldn’t possibly do any of it alone.  This work has provided our team with many challenges and celebrations. We hope others can learn from our efforts and experiences.

What have we done? 
As a review, and as you may already know depending on how much of our work you’ve read about in the past, the curriculum for our initial curriculum resulted from a district decision to excerpt from a proposal I developed for a building secondary literacy plan. Each building was provided with two FTEs (full-time-employees) whose sole job was to contribute to the literacy growth of all students, grades 6-9, eight middle schools and four high schools.  These literacy educators, dubbed Targeted Literacy Instructors (TLIs), provided direct instruction of general literacy strategies, specifically the before, during, and after reading strategies used to make meaning of content in general. We structured the curriculum around the processes of reciprocal teaching and explicit morphology study. In addition, these educators were asked to collaborate, in authentic co-teaching partnerships, to contribute to literacy access within core discipline courses, most specifically English language arts, social studies, and science.  They were also expected to contribute to an intentional building-level literacy plan, initially intended to be developed by a teacher-driven literacy team. 

The expectations beyond the intervention classroom, specifically co-teaching, had a dual purpose. First, co-teaching was intended to support disciplinary teachers and contribute to building their capacity for integrating general literacy skills, specifically the scaffolding needed to help students read and write for learning in any classroom. Although over these years, we were tasked with a more general content literacy focus, we respected that content should inform the process, so we did not advocate for the implementation of across-the-board literacy strategies in every class.  Literacy interventionists were asked to be intentional collaborators, meaning they were expected to plan with disciplinary co-teachers for the integration of content and literacy. This proved to be very difficult, primarily because planning time was not built into schedules. No collaborative planning means no authentic, effective co-teaching. Collaborative instruction was meant to support intentional and explicit literacy development in an authentic context, which is especially essential at the middle level. The second purpose of co-teaching was to provide literacy support for all students, not just those in our intervention course, at each grade level served by literacy interventionists. The obvious hope was to provide a clear transfer of skills gained in intervention courses into students’ other courses while exposing all students to effective literacy for learning.  Prior to this co-teaching work, and even as it was in process, unfortunately, when students were asked, “How are you applying these skills to your other classes?” students would typically state that they weren’t reading much in their other classes.   Our hope was to make an impact on that tendency. Although there was an additional desire on my part to support disciplinary literacy specifically, as I will expand on some here and in more depth in future posts, the district-accepted portions of my original proposal did not provide well for that work.

What did we learn? 
In the winter of 2018,  I started pulling together as much quantitative and quantitative data about implementation and student growth as I could gather for all of the students, teachers, and buildings engaged in this work.  It’s important to know that among “the most fascinating and sometimes frustrating aspects of human data is that people create variables which we sometimes cannot control for or standardized” (Gay, 2019).  So as I began to attempt to isolate human variables for qualitative data and the various data points of assessments for quantitative data, several patterns emerged, but few were definitive. Fortunately, a couple of elements were certain enough for me to enact change.  First, there was still a need for cross-curriculum collaboration between content courses and literacy instructors, but co-teaching in our current system was not likely the answer. Second, generalized strategy instruction alone was not transferring well into the disciplinary courses. Disciplinary teachers did not always accept the validity of generalized strategies, sometimes legitimately.

The co-teaching element, even when done as well as could be expected within our system. Identifiable, measurable impact was only evident in a few classrooms where TLIs collaborated with a content teacher. Overall, on average, there was little evidence of a direct impact on the student data used by the district to determine the initiative’s effectiveness. Yet in classrooms holding fidelity to the instructional elements of the established written course curriculum, including collecting cognitive and noncognitive pre- and post- and continuous assessment data on each student to inform instruction, identifying students’ strengths and needs to set learning goals, and using research-based instructional strategies, most notably workshop model instruction, independent reading with conferring, and reciprocal teaching, these practices did translate into higher rates of growth on standardized assessments and QRIs (Qualitative Reading Inventories). Moving forward, we wanted to maintain elements that were showing impact. Now, my goal here isn’t to provide a research analysis but to clarify why I felt compelled to make some significant changes to the initiative for our 6th year. 

We were still not making a broad enough impact for students through our initiative for many reasons, many of which were completely out of my control and/or the control of the literacy interventionists I coach/support.  The resource was often not taken seriously or supported adequately with building literacy plans and was more than once referred to as a “band-aid” by those who refused to acknowledge the broader intent of the work. Beliefs inform action, and the actions showed that belief in, and even understanding of, literacy for learning was weak. The intention when developing the initial proposal, which was slated as a pilot in a single high school building for freshmen students, was a wide-reaching, tiered structure for all students and teachers. In contrast, it was piecemealed by those who chose to use it to fill literacy gaps for the district improvement plan. Given the opportunity to use new data to motivate adjustments, I knew some potentially impactful actions were within my influence, and could be within the influence of teachers and building instructional coaches/principals if they choose to accept the shifts and implement them with fidelity.  

I always believed we could serve more students, provide students with responsive instruction at all levels, be more intentional about how literacy skills transferred across disciplines, and weave more comprehensive literacy practices through collaborative planning for teaching and learning across the curriculum within a building and across the district.  This sounds big, but the BIG in this vision is that the stakeholders have to buy in and implement with CONSISTENT fidelity. Fidelity is essential for obvious reasons. Without the initial, all-in, fidelity, we can’t collect data that is meaningful. If we have data built on variables held stable across settings, then we can tell what matters and what can be changed or adjusted.  Then, with fidelity, we can use what matters to consistently help students, a lot of students, in ways that matter to their future. What we don’t do, like implementing with careful fidelity, says as much about what we believe about our work and our students as what we do.  To date, much lip service has been paid to the essential nature of literacy,  but what rings louder across my district is what is said simply by what we refuse to do well. 

Academic Thinking is focused on the blend of the metacognitive elements of intermediate literacy and the thinking at the disciplinary literacy level.

How did we adjust?
With a lot of hope and significant belief in students and teachers, I wrote a year-6 follow-up proposal to adjust our secondary district literacy initiative. It was accepted, maybe with little understanding of how one district literacy coach would pull off the changes suggested across 12 buildings with twelve different leadership teams, 24 literacy interventionists, 12 building instructional coaches, and a plethora of content teachers, all of whom need to be on board for this shift if we are going to make it matter for our students- all of our students. With the new proposal in hand, I gained the assistance of a team of diligent, passionate educators who have the knowledge and experience to think critically with me about how to pull the pieces together into a written curriculum. We collaborated to make adjustments to our original content literacy course, Strategic Reading, to add elements of fluency and, as needed, phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, or phonics.  

NOTE: Already some unexpected new barriers have arisen as we begin our second year of implementation. As the impact of those challenges become clearer, I will provide more details. We still believe the elements of our revisions are in line with what students consistently need, so we continue to move forward.

The team’s grandest effort was to then develop and add a course called Academic Thinking with units specifically focused on standards for literacy practices of the core disciplines.  This is not an easy set of tasks. We explored the literacy practices/standards within the national standards for the core contents, specifically English Language Arts, Social Studies and Science.  (We are exploring how to engage in math literacy through Tier 1 and Tier 2 math courses in the context of math courses, including math intervention.) With the help of content specialists, we built units specifically focused on reading, writing and thinking within each discipline through authentic inquiry processes.  (We look forward to sharing this work and gaining your feedback in future blogs).

Some other specific shifts influenced by data include: 

No more-co-teaching.  I believe completely in the deep impact potential of authentic co-teaching.  Why co-teaching is good for students and how I’ve seen it work are whole blog topics of their own. When I was a teacher within this initiative, I co-taught with some amazing content teachers and saw it make a significant impact on students for both content and literacy. It was an authentic transfer of strategies for making meaning of a text while honoring the literacy and content knowledge needs of the discipline. Content informed process (Gillis, 2014) and many students were reading for learning within some core classes for the first time. However, this impact was rare and it wasn’t working in most settings, for a variety of reasons including, how our beliefs manifest in our actions at both the teacher and administrator levels.  Basically, we needed to use teachers’ time in a more effective way.  

Serve all students.   Before my original building initiative was absorbed as a district initiative, it was intended to provide multi-tiered service for students at all levels, with the students just below grade level receiving intentional literacy support within tier one courses. The instructional support for content teachers was to primarily be provided through professional learning opportunities, as well as coaching from and co-teaching with a literacy specialist.  This secondary literacy specialist, which was to be me in the original proposal, would also provide Tier 2 intervention course options that focused on both content literacy (general comprehension) and disciplinary literacy.
 
Instead, for 5 of the past 6 years, based on district-level decisions, only our “bubble” students (ouch!) were being served through our intervention courses and our students more deeply entrenched in the gap were not receiving any significant literacy support, unless they were in Special Education direct service reading classes or ESL sheltered courses.   Concern for these students was always at the forefront of my team members’ minds. This new proposal gave us an opportunity to use the content literacy curriculum (general comprehension and vocabulary instruction), which we call Strategic Reading, for the higher-need students who were previously unserved, and create the disciplinary literacy-focused course, Academic Thinking,  to serve either as a follow-up to Strategic Reading, or as a support for the students already previously targeted by our district, those scoring 1-3 years below grade level. 

Include all core teachers or as many as possible, in the work.  Serving all students through effective literacy support requires continuity of care across the curriculum from all teachers.  In our case, we chose to focus on all core content teachers, which in and of itself was daunting.  Most disciplinary teachers do not avoid engaging in rigorous discipline-specific literacy practices because they don’t value them; they sidestep them because they don’t understand how to implement them in classes of greatly varied strengths and needs.  Much of what students need includes lots of excellent, relevant, authentic Tier 1 literacy instruction in the context of the learning in which it applied. 

Additionally, it seems worthwhile to build capacity in teachers to serve all students with scaffolded support for reading, writing, and thinking across the disciplines.  We did not want TLIs to function in a bubble. We wanted them to have conversations with content teachers so that intervention courses (Tier 2) would be in line with regular classroom instruction (Tier 1).   Within our new Academic Thinking curriculum, we are on-purpose about using the national standards for each core discipline, specifically those that focus on the literacy of the discipline, to inform our work.  Unless it also synced with the literacy processes used in the core classrooms, and therefore deepen the kind of literacy practice students applied in core classes, our work with students would be futile. Collaboration within core content PLCs was specified as an essential element of the instructional preparation of TLIs.  The hope was similar to that of co-teaching, through the process of collaborative planning, teachers would build their literacy instruction capacity for their discipline and all students would gain from the structures. The challenge of time is still in place, but when a building makes time for this type of collaboration, the learning is more authentic and just makes more sense to students.  (More will be offered in future blogs about some structures/processes we drafted to facilitate PLC collaboration for disciplinary literacy.)

What’s next? 
In pending blogs, we would like to share elements of our new disciplinary literacy curriculum, by disciplinary units, including strategy structures built that place skills within an authentic process versus in isolation. We would also like to share the work teachers are doing and how we have chosen to develop common assessments for each unit.  As we enter our second year of implementation with the recent revisions, we may also try to share our data and get feedback on implications for further adjustments, if we are given the opportunity to continue an eighth year.  

If you are still with me, thank you.  We do not claim to have the answers to raising adolescent literacy rates, but we are basing our curriculum and instructional choices on research regarding effective literacy instruction, as well as our own extensive experience. We realize there are many perspectives and experiences from which we can learn. If you know what it feels like to try to be innovative in a classroom, building, or district to change the literacy lives of teens, please contribute your voice of experience to the conversation. We love the opportunity to learn from others. 

A Few Noteable Resources

Brozo, W.G., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area
reading and disciplinary literacy: A case for the radical center.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.  56(5), pp. 353-357.

Buehl, D. (2017) Developing readers in the academic disciplines
(2nd Ed). Portland, ME; Stenhouse.

Fang, Z. & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know
about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.  56(8), pp. 627-632.

Gillis, V. (2014). Disciplinary literacy: Adapt not adopt. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy.  57(8), pp. 614-623.

Hynd-Shanahan, C. (2013). What does it take?: The challenge of disciplinary
literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.  57(2), pp. 93-98.

Lent, R.C. (2016) This is disciplinary literacy: reading, writing and doing
content area by content area.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Shanahan, C. (2017). Comprehension in the disciplines. In S.E. Israel (Ed.)
Handbook of research of reading comprehension  (2nd Ed.) New York:
NY Guilford.



Effective Interventionists

I have met many women and men who wholeheartedly want to be effective literacy teachers.  They want, as much as anyone can, to impact the lives of adolescent readers. In our district, those teachers accept the belief that an excellent education is built on literacy as a civil right.   When I am asked how to get an effective class or program started for struggling adolescent readers, the inquiry is typically about structure, standards, and resources, understandably. I also acknowledge that even the best research-based structure is subordinate to consistent building-wide and district-wide support for fidelity of that structure.  Beyond that need, the greatest factor for success in the individual classroom is an effective literacy educator that believes in all students, responds to the needs of the whole student, remains knowledgeable on effective literacy practice, and builds a classroom structure that facilitates success for all students.

Although this might be a great place to write a literature review citing sources that validate my choice of essential elements, I will instead share my knowledge and beliefs through the lens of my education and my experience with hundreds of real students and dozens of teachers.  Like many reading this, I have spent years, dedicated my life actually, to the work of helping teens read well, both in private and public contexts. I value data and spend a lot of time attempting to make sense of what the data says about what happens in actual classrooms.  I am genuinely saddened that neither my best intentions nor my best efforts have made a significant impact on the system as a whole. I have seen the impact of my work and the work of my fellow literacy educators at the building level, and most certainly at the individual class/teacher level. Students have experienced long-term benefit in these contexts.  However, even as a coach that supports middle and secondary literacy intervention in a large district, with a literacy model I developed and implemented over that past 5 years, I must admit I have yet to see our literacy work impact the system in a sustainable way. Our work is unique, innovative and research-based, but the moving parts are many and difficult to effectively support. Yet we continue to press forward, with our best resource: effective literacy educators.

In spite of my obvious frustration with system change and the state of affairs of literacy in our nation, I must continue to believe in the power of the individual teacher, site-based management, & effective instructional coaching.  I would argue that one of the reasons systems change is so difficult is individual teachers, and frankly, individual students, are undervalued. Again, a blog for another time. With that said, I have bore witness to excellent practice in many classrooms.  I don’t pop in and out, I sit through classes, typically many times with the same teachers, and I notice some commonalities among our most effective literacy interventionists.

Effective literacy teachers believe In all students.  Above all else, effective teachers function from a belief system that accepts that all students can learn and grow as readers, writers, and thinkers.  This is first on my list and of utmost importance. When a teen has spent years battling against reading challenges, he doesn’t believe in himself anymore. These students also don’t believe that anyone can help them change their reading stars. Frankly, many educators have fallen victim to the belief that some students are just not able to read well.  “The good news is that we now have an essential research base demonstrating that virtually every child could be reading grade level by the end of first grade” (Routman, 2014). In a reality where that is not happening, the individual teacher must believe that the potential to achieve and grow still lives within each adolescent.

Effective literacy teachers employ responsive teaching practices.  Of course, this happens as a result of believing in all students.  It also requires a clear understanding of the strengths and challenges of each student.  This is where gaining and maintaining a strong knowledge of literacy development and pedagogy is important.  At the center of all of this is an awareness of the cultural knowledge, experiences, and beliefs students bring to a learning community.  The curriculum and the accepted methodology for instruction are important, however knowledgeable, reflective, relationship-driven educators can be effective with students through nearly any curriculum and any model of instruction. (This is where you may want to refer to my disclaimer for this blog. This is my strongly-held opinion.)

Effective, Consistent, Safe, Fair Classroom Structure.  The reality of teaching adolescent struggling readers is that they are not all that excited to take another spin at becoming a “proficient reader.”  Depending on the district and the structure of the intervention in that district K-12, they may have experienced a great many instructional attempts to fashion them into grade-level readers.  In some cases, those attempts, according to my discussions with students, made them all the more certain that reading is a boring waste of time. More than that, these students have undoubtedly experienced intervention attempts within classroom structures where the teacher’s credibility and clarity were constantly in question (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016).  The culture of the classroom, dependent on teacher direction and modeling, must acknowledge mistakes and confusion as part of the path to growth. Creating a safe space for students who have not felt safe enough to take risks, may well be the greatest benefit of thoughtful classroom structures. In safe, consistent, responsive environments students begin to absorb the positive culture of the classroom, respect the teacher’s expertise, and believe that maybe, just maybe change is possible.

Are you seeking to develop a curriculum that changes the literacy stars for your students? A solid data-driven, research-based curriculum is essential, but the impact of an effective educator is paramount. Have I missed some fundamental elements of an effective literacy educator? Share your thoughts? Consider your practice and the practice of those effective, impactful teachers in your sphere. Students deserve dedicated, responsive educators that always seek to improve their practice and who care deeply about each individual student. What does student evidence of impactful instruction look like to you? How are we using the evidence of our students’ success or failure to enhance our practice to serve students better?

Strategy Anticipation Guides

Anticipation guides allow students to contemplate their knowledge, beliefs, and experiences about concepts, skills, or strategy application before a unit begins. Students can open their “prior knowledge” files in order connect new learning to their existing schema. Through instruction, knowledge and skills can be revised, reorganized and enhanced. 

“What students already know about a topic may be jumbled, disorganized, and incomplete — and sometimes it can be plain wrong. Anticipation guides…are designed to determine what students know, and are especially effective when they hone in on common misconceptions” (Fisher, Frey & Hattie, 2016).  It is difficult to determine what students bring to the learning without some sort of intentional evidence gathering. In addition to providing some of this needed evidence, “prediction and anticipation guides provide frontloading in preparation to connect new learning” (Buehl, 2017). “As an added advantage, such activities give students clues about what’s coming next and that helps them set a purpose for learning, an important aspect of motivation” (Lent, 2012).

In Strategic Reading (secondary intervention), our comprehension standards are focused on building metacognitive processes needed to make sense of a text.  Our anticipation guides provide opportunities for students to consider how they think about their thinking and provide teachers with evidence of the students understanding, or lack of understanding, in preparation for strategy instruction.    

Our comprehension standards include:  

Activate prior knowledge specific to the text to determine a purpose for reading. Use text and text features to develop logical predictions. Monitor the accuracy of the predictions, analyze textual evidence to adjust.

Generate implicit and explicit questions for a variety of purposes (predict, clarify, wonder); seek answers to questions to deepen comprehension.

Detect signs of confusion, diagnose causes of the confusion & determine effective reading strategies to resolve confusion and improve comprehension.

Read closely to determine essential details to analyze the author’s important ideas and intended themes; synthesize information in a logical structure that maintains the author’s intended meaning.

Following each unit, we find that revisiting the unit anticipation guides allows students to reflect on their own development as a result of their new learning. Opportunities for students to self-assess and self-reflect are considered highly impactful on student motivation and growth (Fisher, Frey & Hattie, 2016).   

Click on the image to follow the link to the anticipation guides we developed for our Strategic Reading comprehension standards. 

3 Stages of Good Reading

One of the challenges of teaching students to use strategies for making meaning of a text is helping them synthesize a series strategies into a logical process for previewing, making meaning, summarizing and reacting to the author’s message or argument.   We developed this Three Stages of the Good Reading guide as one option to help students practice the steps start-to-finish when they process a new piece of text for general meaning, clarifying confusion, activating schema, identify the author’s main ideas/arguments, etc.

Use of this guide requires some scaffolding through explicit instruction (mini-lessons in a workshop model, for example), but those lessons can follow students’ initial attempts at the process.  Through this, teachers can collect student evidence to inform instruction.  Once students are proficient in the process, and they can apply it to a variety of text types with increasing levels of complexity,  these steps can be applied authentically to text or be more of an internal mental process.  However, as it is initially taught and guided, this is a method intended to provide opportunities for students to make their thinking visible and gain much-needed feedback for growth. 

The Three Stages of Good Reading process is not intended to replace disciplinary reading strategies where “content determines process,” in ELA, science, social studies, math, etc.  This is an initial process to support general understanding of the text and can be used as the first-read in a close reading process in a content area followed by subsequent reading through the lens of the discipline.

     
(Click the document to follow the link.)

Clarifying Confusion, Part 2

As a follow-up the Clarifying Confusion post from April 2017, I am sharing sample presentations for introducing target clusters in our Clarifying Confusion unit for our intervention for 6th – 9th graders.  See April post for a better description of the standard for this unit and the targets for instruction. 

I see this unit as the heart of our work.  Our standards for this intervention are built around the tenets of reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984).  When I work with students at the secondary and postsecondary levels, they express that among their greatest frustrations is not knowing what to do when they don’t understand what they’ve read or not realizing they do not understand until the end of the text or during a test.  The purpose of the standard for this unit, as mentioned in a previous post, is to help students develop a mental framework for how to identify confusion and resolve it. 

I initially present the process with an analogy for diagnosing and curing an illness.
I do not think of my students as ill, nor do I teach from a deficit perspective, but developing an analogy helps students consider the whole process, before engaging with the parts of how to repair their own confusion.  

Some teachers encourage students to come up with their own analogy for the process. This may be especially useful for students to record and represent their learning at the end of the unit and solidify the process as they continue to develop their clarifying skills independently beyond the intervention classroom.

So, when I introduce this sequence, I focus on three questions.  How do I know I am
confused? What is causing my confusion? How do I repair my confusion?  Between the explicit instruction for each question,  a great deal of practice and application must happen through authentic reading experiences.  For my students, this typically happens through explicit modeling and guided strategy practice, individual conferring, think alouds, and reciprocal teaching.  

Again, the following presentations merely introduce the concepts and vocabulary needed for metacognitive discussions about monitoring for comprehension and repairing confusion.

If you have questions about any of these resources, please comment or email helpteensread@gmail.com.

References for Further Study: 

Carter, C. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational leadership. (54)6: 64-68.

Palinscar, A.S., and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension: Fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction (1) 2: 111-175.

Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Literacy Lessons – Predictions

The lesson below explains an instructional strategy that I’ve used with narratives in our first unit for secondary intervention students.  This engages student thinking to make predictions, guide reading, and sustain interest in the story.  This strategy also offers space for front-loading important and unfamiliar vocabulary.  As students read, they gather evidence to make adjustments to their original predictions.  “Fragments from the story, in the form of clue words and phrases (context clues), enable readers to form an overall impression of how the characters and events interact in the story” (Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz). Variations of this strategy can be found in a variety of resources.  Here you can see how it connects to a standard and specific targets (Marzano) in our Strategic Reading curriculum.

Story Impressions

 

Standard:   

Activate prior knowledge specific to the text to determine the purpose for reading.  Use text and text features to develop logical predictions. Monitor the accuracy of the predictions, analyze textual evidence to adjust.

Target(s):

  • adjust predictions based on textual evidence.  
  • monitor the accuracy of predictions based on textual evidence.
  • use the text features and context clues to develop logical predictions.

 

 

Lesson Steps:

  • Students will receive a list of clue words “selected directly from the story and sequenced with arrows or lines to form a descriptive chain”(Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz). These words are chosen from a text that challenges but doesn’t frustrate students. 
  • Engage students in an effective strategy for exploring the unfamiliar vocabulary that is essential to the theme of the story.
  • After unfamiliar words have been explored and the Story Impression process has been modeled (the first time), students will use the clue words to write a story prediction for the short story or chapter they are about to read.  Students must use all of the words in the story chain.  Using all the terms requires students to predict the possible connections between the words and concepts.
  • Students share their ideas in pairs and volunteers share out.  If time allows, the teacher may facilitate quick discussion about how evidence fueled the predictions. 
  • Students will read the text using a process chosen by the teacher.  (Even a version reciprocal teaching could be used here.)  The teacher may identify stopping points for students to discuss adjustments and the evidence that supports them. 
  • During the reading process, the teacher can monitor conversations or conference with students about the applications of the target skills.

Academic Vocabulary:

Prediction, adjust, context, text features, textual evidence 

 Monitoring/ Assessment:  

  • Written story impression using all of the terms/concepts provided. 
  • Exit Slip/Quick Write – How did the story differ from your prediction?  Provide evidence from the text to show the differences.
  • Student-teacher conferencing throughout the process.

Turning Reluctance into Resilience

GUEST POST  by  Dr. Cheryl J. Wright

As effective educators, we strive to meet students where they are. But what if where they are is “I don’t care”? Rather than conceding that students can’t do better, it is important that we

  1. Make connections to build on students’ interests and strengths.
  2. Take time to clearly define crucial teaching content and create achievable goals.
  3. Teach intrapersonal skills and real-life applications of lessons.
  4. Provide effective support while emphasizing student effort and acknowledging progress.

Here are some ways these tenets might play out in the classroom, especially when students struggle to muster their motivation.

Cultivating the Will to Succeed

Taking time to know students and welcome them to the classroom fosters not only a positive culture but a productive one. Students perceive a safe environment where asking questions, sharing ideas, and linking learning to prior knowledge are the norm. When establishing classroom culture, it is beneficial to “focus on what students need to succeed and build it into the learning and social environment every day” (Jensen, 2016, p. 111).

How This Might Look in Practice

  • Inspire hope: Greet with a smile, give high fives, and embed genuine affirmations (e.g., “It’s good to see you.” “Nice job getting here on time.” “Welcome back.” “You nailed it!”). Specify how learning is beneficial in students’ lives and be receptive to their thoughts and feedback. Integrate examples into your teaching of how individuals overcome adversity. Ultimately, interactions with students should serve as stepping-stones for trust and growth.
  • Express enthusiasm: Exhibit a caring disposition for students and excitement about the topics you teach. Convey instruction with positive energy and purpose. Students will be more likely to ask questions and pursue learning.
  • Be approachable: Have clear and consistent expectations for both learning and behavior while also promoting civility, equity, and respect. Nurture students’ curiosity for learning by guiding them to discover their talents and view situations from different perspectives.
  • Embrace teachable moments: Encourage students to reflect on learning experiences and tell them that their voices matter. Analyze what is going well, what adjustments are needed, and how different methods can get better results. Look at drawbacks as opportunities to solve problems creatively and build confidence.

Fostering Essential Connections

How often, despite our best intentions, do we assume we know what motivates learners? Do we take time to genuinely know students or explore their attitudes about school? These questions call to mind a middle school student I once met. He was sometimes sheltered from challenging work out of a misplaced concern that pushing him to think critically would be too frustrating for him. Basic lessons that required mere regurgitation of facts conveyed low expectations and insulted his potential. When I asked him, “What influences you to do well in school?” he said, without hesitation, “When teachers don’t give me the easy stuff!”

Educators who motivate clearly define objectives and provide opportunities for “learning by doing.” Feedback and multiple opportunities for practice help students understand expectations, monitor progress, and foster a can-do attitude.

How This Might Look in Practice

  • Focus on success and set achievable goals.
  • Clearly identify the topic and what students will learn.
  • Use multiple, kid-friendly ways to explain learning goals so that students purposefully engage in the learning process.
  • Connect lessons to what is relevant to students, including real-life examples and analogies to foster deep understanding.
  • Pinpoint crucial information; too much at one time can be overwhelming and confusing.

Not Academics Alone

Competency in our content areas alone does not inspire effort. We must be sensitive to the fact that students may have experienced failure many times before coming to us. Students can be apprehensive that teachers will talk to them in a condescending manner or won’t value them. A savvy teacher knows how to convey instruction in ways that give and garner respect.

How This Might Look in Practice

  • Share a personal experience.
  • Acknowledge when you get it wrong: “Sorry, this is my fault.”
  • Say, “I have no doubt we can get this done.”
  • Encourage self-confidence: “We’ll take it one step at a time.” “You’ve got this!”
  • Invite feedback: “What are your thoughts?” “How might this be done differently?”
  • Follow the 2×10 strategy and “invest 2 uninterrupted, undivided minutes a day for 10 consecutive days with the sole purpose of relationship building” (Mendler, 2000, p. 51).

Making a Difference

Unmotivated students can challenge any teacher. However, consistently framing each day as an opportunity to get stronger, and giving students the supports to do so, can encourage them to persevere. Over time, reluctance shifts to resilience, and students’ excitement for learning reawakens. What could be more rewarding than giving struggling students hope and a chance to hold their heads a little higher?

References

Jensen, E. (2016). Poor students, rich teaching: Mindsets for change. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Mendler, A. N. (2000). Motivating students who don’t care: Successful techniques for educators. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Cheryl J. Wright is an instructional coach in Kansas City for Kansas Public Schools.

Originally Posted in ASCD Express, Vol. 12, No. 23. Copyright 2017 by ASCD. All rights reserved.  Reposted with permission from the author.

Summer Reading List 2017

IT WAS A SHORT, BUSY SUMMER…

The following lists of texts represent what consumed my summer and caused a temporary BLOG hiatus.   My summer was spent engaged in graduate work for my Ed.S., teaching a pre-service education course, and facilitating a collaborative inquiry cadre focused on digital literacy.  Limited opportunities for weekend road trips allowed me to enjoy a few examples of the best of young adult literature.  When all was said and done,  I spent relatively little time focused on literacy instruction specifically but still strengthen my resolve around the systemic (local, state, and national) need to advocate for our CLD students (and their teachers) in urban education.  My focus will always be literacy, but literacy instruction involves much more than skills.  We must provide all students with relevant, rigorous, and empowering learning experiences that incorporate resources present in the unique knowledge and experiences of each child.  You may see that as a common thread in many of the resources listed below.  These are not all of the texts I read this summer; here I seek to share resources I found most impactful to my thinking as a parent, an educator and an instructional leader.

Culturally Responsive/Sustaining Pedagogies

 

Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning, 3rd Edition
Etta R. Hollins (c) 2015

Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice 
Geneva Gay (c) 2010

Culturally Responsive Teaching & the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement & Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students
Zaretta Hammond  (c) 2015

Building Racial and Cultural Competence in the Classroom: Strategies from Urban Educators
Karen Manheim Teel & Jennifer E. Obidah (c) 2008

 

Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World
Django Paris & H. Samy Alim (Eds.)  (c) 2017

Literacy Topics Across the Curriculum 

 

Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines
Doug Buehl (c) 2011 – New Edition Released 2017

Literacy in the Disciplines: A Teachers Guide for Grades 6-12
Thomas DeVere Wolsey & Diane Lapp (c) 2017

Collaborative Coaching for Disciplinary Literacy Strategies to Support Teachers 6-12
L. Elish-Piper, S.K. L’Allier, M. Manderino, P. Di Domenico (c) 2016

Collaborative Inquiry for Educators 
Jenni  Donohoo (c) 2013

Connected Reading: Teaching Adolescent Readers in a Digital World
Kristen Hawley Turner & Troy Hicks (c) 2015

Young Adult Literature 

 

Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe 
Benjamin Alire Saenz (c) 2012

The Hate U Give
Angie Thomas (c) 2017

Everything I Never Told You
Celeste Ng (c) 2014

Echo 
Pam Munoz Ryan (c) 2015

I am Malala: How One Girl Stood Up for Education and Changed the World
Malala Yousafzai with Patricia McCormick (c) 2014

March: Book Three 
John Lewis, Andrew Aydin, & Nate Powell (c) 2016

SOME Still on the Book Pile (Or in Process) 

 

For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood…and the Rest of Y’all Too
Christopher Emdin (c) 2016

Collective Efficacy: How Educators’ Beliefs Impact Student Learning 
Jenni Donohoo (c) 2017

Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines
Doug Buehl (c) 2017

Everything, Everything       
Nicola Yoon (c) 2017

American Street 
Ibi Zoboi (c) 2017

What summer reading impacted your practice as a teacher or your functioning as a citizen?  I can add those to the pending list.  Have a great school year!

Signs and Fix-ups

As a follow-up to my April post about Clarifying Confusion,  I am sharing links to introductory lessons for clarifying and repairing confusion.  Below are two resources from the Help Teens Read page at Teachers Pay Teachers.

The first item is a Cornell Notes printable (student and teachers pages with visuals) for identifying the six common signs of confusion.  See description below:

This poster shows the concepts included in the Clarifying Confusion resource.

As the first step in helping our students be metacognitive about the process of identifying their own confusion, isolating causes of their confusion, and choosing options for repairing our confusion, we teach students the common signs readers experience when confusion occurs.  This Cornell notes task introduces students to the common signs,  engages students in Cornell note taking, and supports instruction of main ideas, supporting details and summary writing.  These are all targets within our intervention curriculum for students in grades 6-9.  The commentary and graphics are developed by the Helpteensread.org contributors, but the content is based on Cris Tovani text, I Read it, But I don’t Get It.

Elements provided with the Fix-up Cornell notes resource

The second item, also a Cornell Notes printable with visuals included,  is used once students have a fair grasp of when they feel confused and what causes the confusion. See description below:

Helping students use effective strategies to repair confusion as they read is an important and challenging step to helping secondary students become proficient readers.  The steps may be intuitive to proficient readers, but some students need explicit instruction and authentic practice.  This Cornell notes task introduces students to the ten common repair strategies,  engages students in Cornell note taking, and supports instruction of main ideas, supporting details and summary writing.  These are all targets within the intervention curriculum for students in grades 6-9.   The fix-ups are divided into three segments.  Students may find learning and practicing use in authentic ways a few at a time helps them become more independent at applying each when needed. Ultimately, students can develop a toolbox of many strategies that apply to their own common challenges.  The commentary and graphics are developed by the Helpteensread contributors, but the content is based on Cris Tovani text,  I Read it But I don’t Get It.

Clarifying Confusion

The common secondary literacy intervention we use in our district is intended to be Tier 2, based on RTI (Response to Intervention) framework. This means that it attempts, within the district parameters, to adhere to the following characteristics:

  • It builds on the literacy needs for Tier 1 and should be in collaboration with Tier 1 instruction.  One element of this collaboration for our model is co-teaching for the purpose of integrating the application of literacy strategies across disciplines.  
  • It meets 3-5 times a week.  It should meet 8-12 weeks, but we must honor a semester schedule.   
  • It focuses on no more than three to five foundational skills in reading.  We focus on comprehension and vocabulary (morphology) to contribute to comprehension, independent reading, and collaboration (building knowledge in a community of learners).
  • Teachers are intended to use consistent formative and diagnostic assessments to determine students’ strengths and needs.   With a focus on student data-driven instruction, teachers are supported through professional learning and by a literacy coach to use research-based intervention strategies and track student progress toward specific goals based on gaps.

Our model has only four comprehension standards, but they are dense.  They are taught in units built by using the Marzano Instructional Design.   This allows teachers to unpack a dense comprehension standard into individual learning targets and organize them in a logical progression that scaffolds skills for cognitive complexity and student autonomy with the standard. In intervention, autonomy with a standard means that students build independence with literacy strategies that help them make meaning of a text.  This is as complex, and sometimes as overwhelming, as it sounds.  However, when students are in an intervention, the goal is to help them practice and deepen the use of proficient reader skills that have long been unattainable. They need effective and thoughtful instructional processes to get them there.

Arguably our toughest standard is for clarifying confusion:

During reading, detect signs of confusion, diagnose causes of the 
confusion & determine effective reading strategies to resolve confusion 
and improve comprehension.


The thinking and processing this clarifying confusion standard, by far the most challenging of our standards/units, was born long ago while reading Cris Tovani’s classic book,
I Read It But I Don’t Get It.   Much of the vocabulary for the targets and the progression were shared by Tovani, but implementing them as replicable strategies that work for a diverse group of students with many layers of strengths and needs has been a long journey that continues to expand with every new student in need of strategies to clarify their confusion.

If you were to ask the secondary interventionists who teach around this standard, most would say that helping students identify, and give language to, what causes their confusion is a tall order.  The targets (based on the standards above) are ordered by complexity from bottom to top as follows:

3.0 Learning GOAL Targets   (“learning targets that demonstrate attainment and mastery performance of the academic standard”)

  • resolve confusion (apply strategy)  to improve comprehension.
  • determine effective reading strategies to resolve confusion.

2.0 Foundational Learning Targets  (“essential prerequisites, knowledge, and basic processes not explicitly stated in an academic standard”)

  • diagnose causes of the confusion during reading.
  • identify common causes of confusion.
  • identify confusion while reading text of different types.
  • identify signs of confusion during reading.
  • describe the six common signs of confusion.
  • recognize or recall specific vocabulary:  detect, diagnose, signs of confusion,  fix-up  strategies, sensory images,  clarify, text features, adjust

Over the next few blogs, I plan to provide resources and techniques for addressing these targets to facilitate progression toward the “mastery of the academic standard.” However, the challenge with learning to clarify confusion is that it is a “work in progress.”  From the ways my children first learned to acknowledge their “huh?” moments and try to fix their own discomfort to the ways I make sense of dense and complex academic research,  we must keep reading and growing.  Students must have replicable strategies with which they can begin their journey, but as they continue to progress through the reading challenges of this life, and hopefully as we keep challenging them as educators, they will deepen these strategies and develop variations of their own. Of course, they must believe they can. 

Resources:

I Read It, but I Don’t Get It  by Cris Tovani  (1999)

Creating and Using Learning Targets & Performance Scales: How Teachers Make Better Instructional Decisions by Carla Moore, Libby H. Garst, and Robert J. Marzano  (2015)

Read, Write, Lead: Breakthrough Strategies for Schoolwide Success by Regie Routman (2014)