Strategy Discussion Cards

HelpTeensRead has added a new resource to Teachers Pay Teachers (TPT).   It has been a busy time for us both. We will try to be more diligent in posting resources in the future. Please respond to this post to let us know what types of resources interest you.  Our literacy resources are intended to support secondary literacy intervention and secondary disciplinary literacy strategy instruction.
Below is the explanation offered as part of the resource:

Reciprocal Teaching
Discussion  Cards

Our district secondary intervention requires reciprocal teaching as a way to encourage discussion and blend the strategies learned in class.  Although we started with the brilliant resources of Lori Oczkus (Reciprocal Teaching at Work), over the last decade, Help Teens Read teachers (Brian Hubbard and Tracy Cooper) have developed many variations on the reciprocal teaching techniques to scaffold and deepen student literacy skills through discussion with other learners. Our most successful variations and extensions have been in core content classes where we support literacy skills in disciplinary reading.   

At the upper middle and high school levels, our goal is authenticity of skill use. We build reciprocal teaching processes for meaning making strategies directly through the annotation of text.  We focus on disciplinary text and current events that build the students’ vocabulary and background knowledge.   We want students to apply the skills of developing predictions, clarifying confusion, asking questions, retelling and summarizing as they encounter complex text in school and life.
(Rationale for adding retelling, see Emily Kissner, 2006)

The discussion card set provided is one example of how we guide students through individual roles as they read segmented text (3-5 chunks with stopping points, see simple example provided) that allows for strategy application.  Each discussion card provides a student with a guide for their assigned role as he participates in the collaborative group. Traditional reciprocal teaching groups have four roles.  We have embedded a process for students to stop, think, and retell (a 5th role)  in order to address confusions and misconceptions along the way.

The role cards can be used in many ways.  Here are some example:

  1. The roles can be assigned as differentiation to address students specific skill needs. The role cards can stay with one student for the whole text or be shifted at each stopping point when you feel students understand process and product for each role.
  2. The teacher may wish to add the strategies as the students work toward autonomy. For example,  a teacher may wish to explicitly support the retelling process and allow students to read text in pairs and take turns reading, retelling, and adjusting the retell.  Maybe students are struggling with questioning and clarifying, the teacher may have students use only these strategies during reciprocal teaching until these skills are strong enough to blend with the other strategies. 
  3. After you teach each strategy through explicit and guided instruction, you may wish to only add that strategy to reading and retelling.  For example, one student may read a chunk of text,  the next student may retell (students will discuss accuracy) and then the third student may adjust predictions.  These roles may stay stable for this whole text, or students shuffle at the end of each chunk.   Once you teach the next strategy, clarifying for example,  then add that strategy to the discussions.

Whatever process you choose, you may ask students to individually or collaboratively write a summary at the end of the RT discussion.  Monitoring the reciprocal teaching discussion, student annotations, and the summaries allows you to adjust instruction for areas of strength and weakness.

Reciprocal-Teaching-Discussion-Card
This TPT resource includes PDFs for five role cards (example in image above), a sample text that shows how we chunk text for this variation on reciprocal teaching, and the explanation shown above.   If you find a reason to use this resource, please leave a rating. We like to know if it is useful to you.   Please feel free to contact me through the blog with any questions.

Co-teaching for Literacy Access

“…the 21st-century notion of co-teaching places it within the context of some of the most innovative practices in education” (Villa, et al., 2013).

unspecified-40

One of the unique elements of the secondary literacy model we currently implement in my district is the co-teaching piece.  We are in year four with an intervention model specifically used for students in grades six through nine. We’ve experienced a great deal of student success.  However, we are still growing, learning, and adjusting.

Over the last three years, many challenges arose in our work, and many of those were addressed by professional learning, collaboration and innovation from literacy teachers in our professional learning community. However, the co-teaching element needs more support and clearer direction over all.  With that in mind, I drafted a set of guidelines and expectations for literacy intervention teachers. This is not only intended to help literacy teachers gain a clearer vision of the plan and purpose of co-teaching, but it is also meant to be an additional data point for conversations with content teachers and building leaders.

Beyond the guidelines, I offer a few other resources to support initial thinking. To connect to our district’s work with Rigorous Unit Planning (Marzano), I developed a scale to help educators think about the progression of learning needed for this process.   I provide Dr. Richard Villa’s definitions and comparisons of four co-teaching approaches.  Lastly, I drafted a few ideas to troubleshoot common concerns.  I don’t presume these will be the solutions to all problems, but it is a place to start.  Additional support will be offered through collaboration, modeling and coaching.

Note: Literacy teachers in our secondary system teach two classes of  reading intervention (intended as a type of case load).  They also co-teach with two content teachers per semester in the same grade level as the students in their interventions classes. The hope is that they will also be an “indispensable resource” in the literacy initiatives of their buildings. We seek to contribute to a positive culture of literacy and to simply help teens read and write for learning.

The hope is always that the administrators and instructional leaders in each secondary building will be intentional about assigning co-teaching relationships with the students literacy development as the foremost priority in mind.   This is two fold.  First, both the content teacher and the literacy interventionist are clear on and committed to the ultimate purpose of providing students with research-based, strategies for processing text across disciplines.  Additionally,  there must be intentional time for planning.  Dr. Villa, among other scholars on this process, would say that where there is no intentional planning there is no effective co-teaching.

I welcome you to read through the attached document and offer feedback.  It is a fluid document meant solely to help teachers and building leaders deepen this valuable piece of our model.

2016-2017 Targeted Literacy Co-teaching Guidelines and Expectations

What Works for Me: Reciprocal Teaching

unspecified-4Reciprocal teaching is a collaborative structure used to help students engage in essential proficient reader actions with the support of a peer group.  Many years ago, before my reading specialist education,  the desire that fueled my summer research reading was to find a method to support non-readers, reluctant readers, and struggling readers in my content classes (ELA & Social Studies), or according the NAEP, about 64% of 8th graders and 63% of 12th graders in 2013.  I started reading anything about best practices that would help adolescents read strategically in my class.  The data around reciprocal teaching grabbed my attention and has held it for most of my career.  My education since those days has only reinforced my desire to find the most effective method for implementing reciprocal teaching in content classes, as well as in my intervention classes.   I have used many variations to structure reciprocal teaching over the years.  Most recently the process below is bringing the strongest results to-date. I embed re-telling into the process, at the risk of complicating the collaborative structure, but the results have been positive.  Below you will find the general process I currently use, although please note that I adjust and tweak as needed based the struggles and strengths I observed as I monitored student progress.

Sample framework for reciprocal teaching session (with retelling embedded):

  1. Activate prior knowledge on the topic.  The topic should be chosen to engage and challenge the readers.  A variety of options exist, including but not limited to: KWL, Connect-Extend-Challenge, Question Formulation Technique.
  2. Groups can all meet at once or meet in a rotation as part of a station structure.   The READER will read until he/she reaches a “STOP”  break in the document.  I keep text to a manageable length and add 3-4  “STOP” breaks in the text.
  3. The RETELLER, who has annotated for essential vocabulary, will use those essential terms to retell the main ideas.  Other students are encouraged to help adjust the retelling if they feel the author’s meaning is altered or main ideas were excluded.
  4. The CLARIFIER, who has been annotating for words and concepts that were confusing, will offer those to the group for discussion and clarification.  If background knowledge of the group is not sufficient, a discussion on and application of fix-up strategies should ensue.
  5. The QUESTIONER, who has annotated for important ideas and inferences, asks explicit and implicit questions to check for understanding.   This is how I use the questioning element.  It is an extension of the Question Answer Relationship strategy and encourages students to focus on what is important in the text.  This is not the only way to use this questioning element.
  6. This process will be repeated at each of the 3-4 stops in the text.
  7. The READER, who is also the SUMMARIZER, will develop a summary independently or with the collaboration of the group.  If completing the summary independently is the option, the final summary is shared with the group to discuss if anything should be added or subtracted.  Another options requires all members of the group to prepare a summary independently and share out for similar feedback.

NOTE:  This process will develop over time.  Add each strategy to the process as you provide direct instruction, modeling and practice.   You can start with reading, retelling, and prediction/purpose setting, and then add the other strategies as they are introduced. Students can complete one strategy for the whole article or switch after each stop.  Be intentional about assigning roles to encourage practice and growth where needed.

unspecified-1

If you would like more comprehensive guidance on how to implement reciprocal teaching in an intervention class or a content class, I recommend the thorough support that comes from Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Powerful Strategies and Lessons for Improving Reading Comprehension by Lori D. Oczkus (2nd Edition, 2010).  In this text, Oczkus includes the research that supports the validity and long-term effectiveness of this instructional practice (also see Palincsar & Brown, 1984).  Additionally, in Visible Learning for Literacy, Grades K-12, Implementing the Practices that Work Best to Accelerate Student Learning (Fisher, Frey, & Hattie, 2016) reciprocal teaching is identified with an effect size of 0.74.  The authors note that the evidence supporting the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching is broad and that “researchers have found it to be effective with students with disabilities, English learners, and bilingual students.”   It is especially useful as an intervention strategy when used with fidelity.  

When I say this comprehension strategy should be used with fidelity, I do not mean that there is one classroom room process that works for all in every situation.  As noted earlier, organizing the use of the skills collaboratively and authentically can happen in a variety of ways.  However, there are some common mutations that alter success:

  • Focusing on engagement versus monitoring comprehension as a primary goal/objective.  
  • Altering the use of the strategies in unison. Strategies should be explicitly introduced and modeled individually, but the long-term development is built on using the strategies in unison, as they would authentically be used by a proficient reader.
  • Lack of specificity around the processes of questioning and clarifying strategies.
  • Not holding students to fidelity of each strategy as students collaborate to make meaning in reciprocal teaching groups.
  • Too much scaffolding (lack of gradual release by teacher or ownership by students) that prevents students from working towards independence.  
  • No scaffolding.  This involves not having a clear instructional process proven to support learning strategy development.

If you are using a structure for reciprocal teaching that is encouraging authentic student conversations and building natural application of comprehension strategies,  please comment about how your process works in your classroom.   I enjoy hearing how teachers at all levels and in every content areas are helping students make meaning from challenging text.

Progress Monitoring: A Student Perspective

Our district is currently progressing through Marzano Instructional Design training during our weekly/monthly professional learning opportunities. I am supporting that process through content professional learning for the district’s literacy instructors.  An element of Marzano’s process that is most useful for intervention is helping students think through their own proficiency with a specific skill or strategy.  Part of the instructional design process requires that students internalize how they are developing with the standards (skills).  Students must understand what the specific learning goal (target) is for the day.  Teachers must be intentionally transparent about what proficiency with the skill or strategy looks like.  

During class a teacher must engage in continuous checks for understanding to monitor student progress during small group, paired or independent learning. At the end of a class, especially when the day’s learning is new, the teacher needs to know how students perceive their success with the new skill/strategy and where they believe they still need help.  We use an exit slip that asks students to gauge their proficiency for the day.  We also ask them to validate their beliefs with evidence from the work we’ve done in class.  We provide them with a guided exit process (shown below) in order to gather good data to make decisions for continued instruction.

Note:  I am privileged to work with a graphic designer turned literacy educator who transforms our work into visuals.  Any full-color posters or visuals in this blog (in this case the target exit slip) are more than likely his design.   His collaboration is invaluable. 

Below are suggestions for using the linked resources:

Step 1: Engage students in the critical content (Marzano vocabulary) to begin the lesson. Activate prior learning connected to the concepts being taught.  Clarify new vocabulary that will be used repeatedly from direct instruction through independent processing. One way to get students thinking is have them write the “target” or goal for the day on the “exit slip” prior to beginning the activating process.

Step 2:  Teach your lesson toward the target. The Workshop Model is effective when teaching strategy lessons in intervention reading.  The “work time” is a blend of guided small group and pairs work leading to individual processing.

unspecified-23

Step 3: Ask students to choose the perceived level of proficiency (on a scale 0-4) after the day’s learning process is complete.  They will document the rating on the back of the target exit slip next to “Target Number Achieved.”   It is understood that choosing a number does not result in a specific grade.

unspecified-26unspecified-27

Step 4:  Ask students to explain their rating.  We tried this a few ways before deciding the students needed very specific guided support for their responses.  This is still action research from my perspective, but the student responses are now deeper and more useful for adjusting instruction.   (The visual below is linked to a Google Document.)

unspecified-28

Step 5:  Use the the responses and the students’ work for the day as data for the next lesson.  If all or a vast majority of your students feel they are at a two and their work reflects that as well,  use that knowledge to take a step back in the lesson and support the student needs.  If only a few students are at a 1 or a 2, use the exit slips and the students’ work to conference with the specific students and repair gaps or misconceptions.  If you have a mix of responses, this data can fuel flexible grouping or station work based on students’ level of development with this skill/target.

Professional Standards in the Intervention Classroom

“Standards for Reading Professionals—Revised 2010 (Standards 2010) sets forth the criteria for developing and evaluating preparation programs for reading professionals. The Standards describe what candidates for the reading profession should know and be able to do in professional settings. The Standards are performance based, focusing on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective educational practice in a specific role. Also, the Standards are the result of a deliberative process that drew from professional expertise and research in the reading field.”

www.literacyworldwide.org

www.literacyworldwide.org

Below is an abbreviated and adapted version of the ILA standards.  That adaptions are an attempt to apply these standards specifically to reading intervention efforts.

Standard 1 – Foundational Knowledge:  [Literacy educators] understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.   

Extensive knowledge is the foundation of being an effective literacy educator.  The knowledge is built on an understanding of the developmental reading processes of students PreK-12 blended with a working knowledge of how to diagnose and remediate effectively for students who fall behind.  This knowledge is intended to ensure “ competent performance for the betterment of society.”  In the intervention setting, educators facilitate processes that close gaps so students may have every possibility of productive, fulfilling lives.

Standard 2 – Instructional Approaches: [Literacy educators] use instructional approaches, materials, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced curriculum to support student learning in reading and writing.

The application of Standard 1 happens through data-driven instruction provided by professionals who apply their knowledge of evidence-based strategy instruction through an effective curriculum. Literacy educators understand the conceptual framework of developing effective reading programs or applying the elements of an effective curriculum.  In intervention, that implementation requires authentic differentiation based on student needs.

Standard 3 – Assessment and Evaluation: [Literacy educators] use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction.

Professional literacy educators have a comprehensive knowledge of literacy assessment options and the purposes for each.  They demonstrate the skilled use of assessment, the ability to analyze data, and the capacity to communicate findings to stakeholders.  Primarily, the literacy educator uses data to inform instruction for the ultimate benefit of students.  In intervention, this is how specific needs are determined for striving readers.  Limited instructional time must be planned for with intentional focus on a student’s specific assessment data to help a student close the gap as quickly as possible.

Standard 4 – Diversity: [Literacy educators] create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect, and a valuing of differences in our society.

The interest of an effective literacy educator is to provide students with opportunities to access information and literary experiences that broaden their understanding of the diverse culture in which they contribute and engage. Intervention teachers know that this “broadening of horizons”  builds students’ background knowledge, increases their vocabulary, and encourages a curiosity for a world full of opportunity.  The hope is that increased exposure and awareness also builds better citizens that appreciate the value of all humans in a global society.

Standard 5 – Literate Environment: [Literacy educators] create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

A strong literacy-rich environment can make good instruction even more effective.  In any class, but especially in an intervention classroom with students who have experienced feelings of failure, a safe, low-risk environment with high expectations and highly effective instruction can motivate students to engage and connect to literacy strategies that encourage authentic application of skills. Intervention should allow time and accessibility to resources and more of the opportunities striving readers need. Providing choices for reading and writing based on interest and providing a variety of methods to demonstrate their skills can increase student motivation and self-efficacy while building a more positive self-perception as students enjoy these chances to experience success.

Standard 6 – Professional Learning and Leadership: [Literacy educators] recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility.

Given that literacy is the foundational skill of all learning experiences, literacy professionals are often called upon to share knowledge and support others in the application of effective integration of literacy strategies across disciplines.  When done in an effort to build a culture of literacy, it benefits striving readers by supporting needed skills in authentic ways outside a reading intervention setting.

ILA Standards for Reading Professionals (2010)

Data-Driven Literacy Intervention: the Assessment Process

Using Data to make differentiated data decisions
In my district, our intervention program (more a of an anti-program) for secondary is available for grades 6-9.  That includes all the middle school grades and the first year of high school.  There are reasons for not extending past 9th grade, but that is a whole other post.  Our goals are NOT to keep students eternally in intervention classes, but to identify their needs and reinforce strategies to support complex reading across content areas, so they can continue growth beyond the intervention classroom.  Literacy teachers also work (co-teaching, coaching) with content teachers to support them in using effective strategies for their content. Again, this co-teaching is a topic for a whole other post.  My focus today is on the importance of collecting authentic data.  We can’t begin true intervention without effective data.  We use limited district testing data for entrance and exit requirements, but I deepen that assessment process throughout my limited time with students so that their experience will be a life changing one.  I don’t want students to enter my class with a one-size-fits-all curriculum that doesn’t meet every student’s needs in some significant way.  I want them to enter my class feeling right from the start that I really SEE them.  I want them to exit knowing their ability has been enhanced.  With all that in mind, I focus on three levels of assessment, with an intention that students don’t feel ASSESSED all that time.

A typical student data file.

A typical student data file.

We are three years into the implementation of this intervention process proposed for secondary students.  Through the practice in the classrooms of 24 targeted literacy instructors, including my own lab classroom, we adapt and deepen elements as we grow and learn.  The pre-and post-assessment requirements we ask our literacy instructors to use has stayed fairly stable.  I recognize that different teachers have managed the process in different ways, but the purpose, to provide data-driven, timely, differentiated instruction that meets student needs, has remained the same.

Here is the process as it is still implemented in my classrooms:

PRE-ASSESSMENT

I initially assess for three things: student literacy skill, student motivation as it relates to reading specifically and literacy generally, and student self-perception of reading skills.  I assess these elements because these are the areas of change I seek.  I don’t like to overwhelm students with measurement activities, so these are spread out between other introductory activities throughout the first two weeks of class. I chose these specific measurement tools so I can understand each student better.  Most of these resources are recommended by the Reading Specialist Licensure program at Emporia State University.

Pre-assessment we are currently using:

  • MAP (Measure of Academic Progress) –  This is our district’s apples-to-apples growth measuring test. It is how my district generally measures growth starting at 3rd grade.  This is the score on which entrance and exit is determined at this time.
  • QRI (Qualitative Reading Inventory)  – This is my own apple-to-apples growth measurement choice.  The MAP is for the district data needs, but I gain more clinical knowledge on this assessment.  I am currently using the QRI-5, but have excitedly received the QRI-6.   The QRI-5 has always been very effective for me in this setting I’ve developed.
  • Metacognitive Reading Awareness Survey OR Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory – These options are intended to identify what strategies students can already apply.  It also identifies misconceptions about what “works,” which turns out to be the more valuable information.
  • Rhody Secondary Reading Attitude Assessment (Variations on this resource can found in the 5th Ed. of  Improving Reading: Interventions, Strategies, and Resources by Jerry L Johns and Susan Davis Lenski) – With a likert scale  format, this focuses on how a student feels about reading specifically.
  • Reader Self-Perception Scale  (Variations on this resources can also be found in the Johns & Lenski text.) – Again with a likert scale format, students relay their beliefs about themselves as readers.
  • Writing Samples – I ask students to produce one narrative about their thinking on their collected and sorted pre-assessment data and one response about a short piece of text at their instructional level.

At the high school level, I have my students score the surveys for their own knowledge.   I also have them write about what they think the scores on the reading attitude and self-perception scale mean about them as readers, writers and thinkers.  Prompts for writing should be adapted to the age and skill level of the students. Examples may include the following?  What do your response scores tell you about how you feel about reading? What do you think about yourself as a reader based on the scores?   What surprises you?  

There are likely other surveys, inventories, etc.  that will give similar information.  I encourage teachers to find what informs them and their students best.  I encourage teachers to remember that without motivation and a stronger self-perception, the skill development doesn’t tend to stick.  This is especially true for students who have spun through several cycles of remediation/intervention.  It’s all circular.  If you can motivate a student to do the work of skill development and success if experienced,  he gains a stronger self-perception.  This increases motivation and a creates a deepening sense of self-efficacy.  A stronger motivation to continue to grow is a consequence of believing that work is worth the effort.  Perpetuating this process is a big deal for students who have spent too much time feeling like failures.

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT
Every lesson and practice produces data to inform the next instructional choice. Solid differentiated intervention requires constant checks for understanding.  Examples of this daily process can include annotation on text, graphic organizers around thinking/strategies, student strategy journals, workshop model conferences, independent reading conferences, or written reflections (exit slips) about perceived proficiency with a skill, to name a few.  I also regularly track growth on the QRI with an independent version differentiated based on the student’s total comprehension level on the previous QRI assessment.

ILA Blog recently posted this commentary on formative assessment.  Although it is mostly elementary focused, many of the authors’ points are universally applicable.
LINK:  Better Than CBM: Assessments That Inform Instruction

POST ASSESSMENT
In post-assessment, we repeat everything except QRI.  As I already mentioned, I use a independent version of the QRI through continuous assessment to track QRI growth.  This data carries a lot of weight with me, and even with students, because it shows actual reading skill growth.  I would prefer to sit with students and do a post- QRI process face-to-face, but the time needed is enormous.  I do offer a post face-to-face version to provide growth data for students on IEPs.                   

I make my students aware of their growth and challenges and encourage them to develop goals specific to what they most want to improve.  After each independent QRI, I conference with students (usually during Reading Workshop time) to address recurring concerns.  Students typically WANT to improve, and appreciate knowing what they can do to improve.  At the high school level, part of my goal is to help my students fully understand their strengths and struggles as a reader.   I’ve always attempted to write up a summary of the students data with commentary on the interpretation of that data.  That is a consuming task.  I work streamline it for other teachers to use. This semester, I used a document from Richard Villa called “Cooperative Teaching Student and Class Summary.”  This provides students with my reflection on their growth.  It also allows feedback from content teachers as we work together to improve authentic literacy growth.

One of the last actions my students take before they exit the class is to write an essay about their growth and where they still need to grow.  I do provide a graphic organizer to help students with structure.  The students use the information in their personal data files to develop the essay.   I include easy-to-read comparisons of all pre- and post- assessments, all scores on the QRIs as they grew (which they all do), evidence from all of their strategy work, annotated texts from reciprocal teaching groups,  morphology work, summaries and writing about strategy application, and my own conference notes.   The essay they write is one typed page about what the evidence says about their growth, where they think they still need to grow, and how they believe they will use their new skills in the future.

All of this data collection and application sounds daunting, and it can be, but I try to keep it organized and streamlined.  Management requires staying on top of daily data and making real-time decisions about that data.  Don’t let it build up.  

This is a lot of information.  What parts of this can you implement fairly easily? What other types of assessment do you use to get to know your students and their needs?