Literacy Now

A few short years ago, I had the opportunity to work as a middle school reading specialist. My role was to work with students who were not qualifying for special services but still demonstrating a need for reading intervention. On this particular day, one of my sixth-grade students had neglected to visit my office. This wasn’t unusual for Jordan. Jordan could remember what shoes I wore last Tuesday, but not once had she remembered a reading intervention session. To be fair, Jordan forgot most school-related information, but she was very knowledgeable about fashionable footwear.

About 10 minutes into the class period, I was in the doorway of her classroom. Students were busily writing in yellow packets of questions, textbooks open. The teacher looked relieved to see me. “Jordan is a bit behind in her study guide,” she told me. “Can you help her catch up in your time together?” She smiled hopefully, and I mentally threw out the close reading lesson I had planned for Jordan. Monitor and adjust.

Jordan, visibly thrilled with opportunity to escape the room during a reading assignment, grabbed her textbook and her yellow packet and practically danced to the door.

On our way back to my office space, I had a conversation with Jordan that would forever change how I approached my work with students and with staff.

“So, Jordan, what are you learning in class today?” I asked.

“I don’t know. Calories.”

I smiled. “Yes, but what are you learning about calories?”

Jordan stopped and looked at me with sympathy. Poor teacher. So uninformed. So inexperienced.

“It’s OK, Mrs. Scullen. We don’t have to understand it, we just have to do the worksheets.”

I stopped walking and contemplated this revelation. We consistently teach students to read for understanding. How could it be that Jordan had such a deeply ingrained misconception?

Suddenly I understood why Jordan couldn’t remember what she’d read, why she couldn’t participate in a discussion of what she was learning, and why her completion of packets didn’t translate to higher grades. Understanding was not her goal.

I began asking my other students about the work they were required to do with open textbooks, and I found that Jordan’s peers had similar views. Reading was a hunt for the answer the teacher expected, not a search for understanding.

Jordan and her peers were performing what I started to call “pasteurized” (past-your-eyes’d) reading. When students were reading, the words went “past their eyes” but stayed on the page. Students’ purpose for reading was to find the answers. Compliance in the task meant that their eyes saw every word. Students had somehow missed the notion that textbook reading had a purpose, and that understanding was the goal.

This mindset, not unusual for many students, highlighted the need for teachers’ modeling of their own thinking during reading. It presented a strong reason to provide multiple opportunities for close reading across genres and text types, and for providing students with the opportunity to discuss and use what they learn in class. It highlighted a need for authentic reading tasks. It forced me, and my colleagues, to change the way we framed questions and had an impact on the rigor with which we asked them.
Years later, I have Jordan to thank for changing the way I approach teaching students to approach nonfiction text, and the way I guide teachers in professional development.

Incidentally, her shoes were pink that day. Mine were brown.

Julie Scullen is a former president of the Minnesota Reading Association and Minnesota Secondary Reading Interest Council and is a current member of the International Literacy Association Board of Directors. She taught most of her career in Secondary Reading Intervention classrooms and now serves as Teaching and Learning Specialist for Secondary Reading in Anoka-Hennepin schools in Minnesota, working with teachers of all content areas to foster literacy achievement. She teaches graduate courses at Hamline University in St. Paul in literacy leadership and coaching, as well as reading assessment and evaluation.

Teachers know the texts they choose for students to read in school serve myriad purposes and offer students various opportunities. One of these opportunities is for students to immerse themselves in the experiences and worlds of the characters they find in the pages of a book. Students read about people and places different from what they’ve experienced; their eyes open to new worlds, and their knowledge and views expanded. When a book is written well, students can get inside the world of characters, empathize with their experiences, and feel like they are in those characters’ minds and worlds. Even if the characters in the book are different in time and context, students can find connections to experiences in their own lives.

Take, for example, a student reading Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women in her seventh-grade language arts class. In the pages of the book, she finds herself identifying with the romantic ups and downs the March girls experience. Perhaps, on the basis of a current or past relationship, she identifies with the tension between Meg and Jo—two girls in love with the same man. Now, let’s turn to another student in this same class. As the class reads Gary Soto’s poem “Oranges” aloud, he identifies with the tentative touches, the treasured moments of a 12-year-old boy walking on a chilly night with his girl—his attention to the corners of the girl’s smile, the light in her eyes, holding her hand in his.

These are the aesthetic experiences students have that can build a love for reading. What may be less evident to the teacher of this seventh-grade class is that the story and poem above reflect one particular reality and experience with which these two students are able to identify with—young love, specifically young, heterosexual love. Many teachers are not aware of the ways in which the texts they use in their classes, those that are considered staples or classics and those in the Common Core’s Appendix B (like Little Women and “Oranges”) maintain an atmosphere of heteronormativity in schools, extending and perpetuating the same status quo that lies outside the school walls.

Although this may not be intentional, by presenting heterosexual identity and relationships as the norm and “what is,” any other form of love is consequently set up as “other,” not normal, and even unacceptable. For lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ) students, the feelings and experiences they have often aren’t valued or reflected in the books they read. At the same time, LGBTQ identity is often maligned in and out of school; LGBTQ students are subject to slurs and bullying in school, while outside school many decry their identities as sinful, abnormal, a threat to constructed social norms. Although some LGBTQ students may have family who support them, others may not have revealed their identity or may not have support in their home. School should be a place where every individual feels valued, included, supported, and safe. The literature teachers assign can provide a modicum of safety and small—albeit important—opportunities to experience acceptance.

Incorporating texts that reflect the experiences of LGBTQ students is a way that teachers can be supportive of LGBTQ students and contribute to a school environment that validates their identities and values their experiences. For heterosexual students, reading books with LGBTQ characters can help them expand their understanding of the nonheterosexual experience and build empathy, contributing to a safer and more open school environment.

For teachers, however, choosing and incorporating texts with LGBTQ characters may be challenging or problematic. Aside from concerns teachers have about approval from school administrators and parents, how to choose texts and how to integrate them within existing curricula, and possible discomfort with the topic on the basis of personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, is another issue. Few teachers, in their preservice experiences, spend significant (or any) time learning about addressing the needs of LGBTQ students and how to make curricular choices that make the classroom an equitable, positive, and safe space for these students.

Many teacher education programs spend significant time discussing the importance of embracing diversity and developing culturally responsive teachers, but most often such focus on diversity is situated in contexts of race, ethnicity, language, and culture. Diversity of sexual orientation is less often a focus in preservice teacher education because, in many cases, it is still an uncomfortable topic for students and teachers. This is all the more reason that teacher educators need to step up to the plate to bring preservice teachers into conversations about the LGBTQ students who will be in their future classes.

How can we expect the teachers we are sending out into the world to be prepared to make curricular choices to incorporate LGBTQ texts in their classrooms if we don’t make this an explicit focus in our teacher preparation programs? The responsibility of making the school and classroom a safe, welcoming, and affirming space for LGBTQ students is not a responsibility that rests just on the teachers in those classrooms. Such a space needs to be cultivated and built long before our teachers step into the classroom. Everyone in the education community—especially the teacher educators who are preparing tomorrow’s teachers—has a role to play in disrupting the heteronormative environment in schools and truly embracing diversity in all its forms. Let’s begin making LGBTQ issues an explicit issue of diversity and social justice that we discuss and act on in all our teacher education programs.

Autumn M. Dodge worked as an assistant professor in Literacy at St. Bonaventure, NY for two years and will start as assistant professor in literacy at St. John’s University, NY in Fall 2015. Her teaching and research interests include issues of social justice in education, especially addressing, recognizing, and integrating LGBTQ identities and experiences in the classroom; using multiple text types, including YA literature, across content areas to richly address CCSS; and examining student self-efficacy in varied reading contexts.

Dodge will present a session entitled “Using ‘Linked Text Sets’ Examples to Integrate LGBTQ Perspectives in Inclusive Literacy Classrooms” on Monday, July 20, at the ILA 2015 Conference in St. Louis, MO, July 18–20. This session will provide concrete examples of linked text sets that meet CCSS goals, promote equity and diversity, support LGBTQ identities, and integrate LGBTQ experiences. Visit the ILA 2015 Conference website for more information or to register.

Sometimes I feel as though I am on a lifelong quest to find my Zen. I am constantly trying to figure out ways to balance work and family, to maybe squeeze in some exercise, to take feel more positive about the challenges in front of me, to focus on all that I do have and, you know, take the occasional deep breath. Oh, and napping. I’m always trying to figure out where that goes.

As teachers, we are kid watchers. We diligently study our students each and every day in order to develop ways to best meet their needs. As a result, we often can’t help ourselves from noticing all that our students aren’t able to do—yet. We notice struggles, pay attention to difficulties, and try to diagnose why our friends cannot seem to do whatever-it-is more independently. This is a slippery slope, because it can quickly lead to thinking of our students through the lens of their deficits, not their capabilities.

When you see what your students need, flip your point of view to think about what is the next logical step for your students as learners. Set small goals. For example, your students may not be able to read for 20 minutes, but they can read for 10, so why not shoot for 11? One friend may struggle to engage with stories, but he is motivated by informational text. Let’s start there and celebrate that.

If we determine that our students are currently unable to reach a goal, it is our responsibility to simultaneously unearth what they are doing well so we have a starting point for our work, by emphasizing what they can accomplish and setting small milestones to move them slowly but surely toward that larger goal. We can celebrate growth and promote increased student independence. It is a win-win, people!

Let’s not forget how we view ourselves either. With all of the end-of-the-year demands, it might feel hard to breathe, much less tackle the enormous number of tasks that lie before you, as the days count themselves down to the bitter end. We start thinking of all we can’t possibly accomplish, haven’t done, don’t have time for, won’t be able to complete. Again we emphasize deficits, not possibilities. Instead of thinking, “Ugh, I have to get all my portfolios organized today” try thinking, “Today I get to put together evidence of all my students have accomplished and check a major to-do off my list.” Rather than avoid reorganizing your classroom library because it is a BEAST of a project, try setting aside 15 minutes a day to tackle this (or any other behemoth end-of-the-year project) a little at a time. You can do anything for 15 minutes. Especially to a killer playlist.

So enjoy your summer. Sit by a pool. Sleep in. Watch bad re-runs on TV and catch up on your magazine reading. Maybe clean out the closet that has been giving you the stink eye. Rest. Then begin anew your quest for Zen—next year is all possibility!

Mrs. Mimi, aka Jennifer Scoggin, is a teacher who taught both first and second grades at a public elementary school in New York City. She's the author of 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. Mimi also has her doctorate in education from Teachers College, Columbia University.

In one of my first doctoral classes, my professor gave each of us an assignment to write a proposal for an imaginary book we might like to write. Clueless as to what that might be for me, I tried to think of a scenario. I had read articles about creative visualization and how it has helped athletes and entrepreneurs, so I tried to imagine myself writing a book. In my dream scenario, I am sitting among the stacks in some dusty archive, swimming in paper and artifacts, writing a fabulous biography of some unknown heroine, when my fantasy is interrupted by my own mumbling. “Oooh, this would be really cool to show my students,” or “Wow! If my kids saw this, they would miraculously understand (insert learning objective here)!” So my personal love of “old stuff” suddenly had an application in the classroom.

In case you are thinking “this doesn’t apply to me,” take a look at this in the context of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Each of the following goals fall under the standards for Language, History and Social Studies, and Science and Technical Subjects.

• Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources (or science and technical texts).
• Describe (or analyze) how a text presents information (e.g., sequentially, comparatively, causally) and how this contributes to understanding.
• Integrate visual information (e.g., in charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or maps) with other information in print and digital texts.

While I was thinking about how to make a bunch of antiquated materials accessible to kids, I Googled across a news piece about visual literacy. Turns out my passion for old stuff, particularly images, is cutting edge because visual literacy is a key skill for 21st-century learning—and even old pictures qualify. I’d like to share one example of how I use primary sources, visual artifacts in particular, across the curriculum.

When introducing primary resources, I start students with pictures. Students tend not to think of them as texts, so you haven’t lost them yet! Below is one of my favorites. It is accessible, fairly easy to interpret, provocative—What kid doesn’t think disembodied heads are cool?—and applicable to almost every discipline. The image is followed by a short plan of action.

Observe

Just as you would give students time to read and process a piece of writing, give them time to look at the image, at least 2 or 3 minutes. Then ask, “What are your overall impressions?” After looking at the piece as a whole, have students scrutinize the image in quadrants, which makes them focus on the details. In the sample image, this is particularly important, as students will begin to notice the use of markers, like “Fig. 1,” and so on.

Make connections

You can start kids thinking just by asking “What does this make you think of?” Deepen their thoughts with questions that relate to purpose. “Does this piece have a function other than to entertain?” “Why do you think the artist used this particular technique (realism, cubism, naturalism)?”

Discuss

Having students talk about what they observe is an important component vital to critical thinking. It requires students to both justify their own thinking, what we teachers like to call “using evidence,” and it forces them to be open to the interpretations of other students and perhaps take a second look or reevaluate their own thinking in a new context.

Focus

As I mentioned, I love using this picture because it has so many applications. In English, I like to pair this text with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. An easy comparison relates to mood. Because the image of Aldini’s experiments is in stark contrast to Mary Shelley’s novel, talking about mood is a good gateway to thinking about author’s purpose and how it is achieved in literature.

Another application for this image, of course, is science. There is any number of issues to discuss; for example, a basic question would be about the primitive creation of electricity and what materials are conductive (human flesh?). What about the new science of electricity in the 1800s made scientists think they could reanimate people? Another fascinating conversation revolves around the relationship of these early efforts and contemporary use of defibrillators. Why does Aldini’s work seem so creepy when we cheer scenes from the TV show Grey’s Anatomy, in which the doctors bring patients back to life?

Finally, there is history and social studies. The obvious lessons are teaching about the history of medicine, but what about exploring crime and punishment in the 19th century in contrast to contemporary thought on the subject? How about delving into the ethics of experimentation? Does a cost/benefit analysis (traditionally a business model) make sense when we talk about the potential to save lives?

I guess by now you can see why I haven’t written my book yet—I’m too fascinated/distracted by all the individual treasures I come across, but I’m already working my latest interdisciplinary find—recipes!

If you are interested in incorporating primary resources into your classes, a great place to start is the National Archives. There are also simple introductions to visual literacy to check out, for use with elementary students or with older students on how journalists interpret photos.

Eve Zehavi is a PhD student in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Houston. She has 15 years of classroom experience and master’s degrees in both Library/Information Science and English. Her current research interests revolve around complex texts including primary sources.

Zehavi will present a session entitled “Critical Thinking on Steroids—Using Primary Sources in Disciplinary Literacy” on Saturday, July 18 at the ILA 2015 Conference in St. Louis, MO, July 18–20. This session will feature how to best use primary sources in the classroom. Visit the ILA 2015 Conference website for more information or to register.

A few years ago, staff at Edward White Elementary learned we would begin a partnership in comprehensive literacy (PCL) with the University of Northern Iowa while beginning full implementation of the Common Core. Designed to enhance the learning of all students, the PCL program involved the use of language, reading, writing, and content workshops, which necessitated a restructuring of our traditional daily schedule.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) also called for increased rigor, complexity, and variety in types of texts, requiring the devotion of additional instructional time to new and more challenging materials. Our staff was left pondering where to begin and how to create sufficient time in the day to address all learning goals. Once PCL implementation began, we realized the workshop model worked for the Common Core, too. As a result, our depth of instruction as well as student learning has increased.

Implementing the workshop framework

Regardless of content area, there are five components of the workshop framework. Based on the work of Linda Dorn and Carla Soffos in Teaching for Deep Comprehension: A Reading Workshop Approach (Stenhouse, 2005), workshop models allow student participation in a whole-group minilesson, followed by guided instruction, independent practice, individual conferences, and a whole-group sharing time. The minilesson allows for strategy instruction followed by an opportunity to practice these strategies with varying levels of support in a variety of contexts. Sharing at the end of the workshop is essential, as it facilitates social learning and metacognitive reflection about the day’s learning. Therefore, to be effective, all components of the workshop must be included.

Given the components involved, the implementation of workshops requires a significant amount of instructional time and clear instructional objectives. Because implementation of the CCSS further requires vast amounts of time and understanding of what is being required of students, it was necessary to determine the best means of integrating the standards into the various workshops. We found language workshop allowed for teaching the vocabulary and concepts students needed to understand the requirements of the standards, with particular emphasis being given to the language standards. The reading strands facilitated the alignment of reading and content workshops. Students practiced the reading standards during reading workshop and applied this learning in content area work to build an understanding of science and social studies concepts. Although written responses to share thinking occur in all workshops, writing workshop allowed for focused writing instruction to enhance students’ understanding of the craft. Through all workshops, collaboration and application of learned skills integrate the speaking/listening and foundational skills standards. Recognizing the connection between the various workshops and the CCSS supporting these areas created a framework to structure all educational experience throughout the day, maximizing our instructional time.

Learning and mastering the standards

The rigor of the CCSS places high expectations on student performance. Therefore, within each workshop, instruction needs to be carefully tailored to the needs of students, continually moving their learning forward to promote mastery. A Gradual Release of Responsibility model, as explained by Doug Fisher and Nancy Frey in Better Learning Through Structured Teaching: A Framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2014), fits the workshop framework and allows students to take additional responsibility for learning as they gain proficiency with the standards. Through the workshop, there are opportunities for focused instruction (minilessons), guided and collaborative practice (small group and partner work), and independent practice. As mentioned, standards align throughout the various workshops. Therefore, as Dorn and Soffos highlight, not only are students able to gradually accept more responsibility for learning, they also can apply this learning in a variety of contexts promoting the transfer of understanding.

The CCSS increase expectations for student progress. As teachers, we must ensure our students demonstrate proficiency with grade-level standards. In the PCL, to maintain growth and monitor progress, formative assessments become key in documenting student understanding. The Dorn and Soffos workshop model incorporates a variety of instructional settings, including whole group, small group, partner work, and individual practice allowing data to be gathered in various contexts. Formative checklists and anecdotal notes are easy to collect and allow instruction to be tailored to students’ needs. With daily workshops, these assessments become a systematic and common practice. Although our initial reaction to implementing both new standards and the workshop model was one of trepidation, once implemented it became clear we would be able to not only integrate standards throughout the day but have multiple opportunities to monitor students’ progress on a given standard.

Why the workshop model works

Although our staff experienced initial hesitation when being asked to restructure our instructional time and teach new standards, time has shown the workshop model is an effective way to deepen students’ learning across all grade levels. The workshop model allowed us to integrate standards-based instruction throughout the school day; such integration creates experiences in which students become immersed in concepts. As students are exposed to the standards in a variety of situations, with responsibility for learning gradually released to them, they have an increased depth of understanding. Our building data have shown an increase in students performing at grade level as a result of our instructional practices. Thus, the workshop has proven to be a powerful instructional technique to fully implement the Common Core and ensure the learning of all students in our school.

Jennifer Neff teaches first grade at Edward White Elementary School in Eldridge, IA, and is the ESL coordinator for the North Scott School District. She earned her bachelor's degree in elementary education and Spanish from Augustana College in Illinois, and a master’s degrees in bilingual/ESL education and reading from Western Illinois.