Literacy Now

Have you noticed the many recent news reports of school purchases of electronic tools and applications, and how teachers are using technology in their classrooms? Such extensive coverage is not surprising; we need to be next-gen schools and educational technologies do have enormous potential to raise student achievement.

Classrooms, such as those at Califon School in Califon, NJ, look like exciting places for kids to learn. I believe, however, that we should tread cautiously, reflecting on some instructional assumptions we may be making, how we determine school budget priorities, and the influence wealthy individuals and giant corporations potentially have on literacy instruction as we go digital.

Possible assumptions

My first teaching position was in a really small town (population 512). I made some assumptions about my students that over time proved wrong: (1) they could all read, (2) they would be excited about learning, and (3) they all got a good night’s sleep.

It turned out that (1) quite a few were struggling readers, (2) they didn’t like school, and (3) many spent weekday evenings at the local bar with their parents. Initially, my incorrect assumptions guided my teaching; as they unraveled, I had to readjust and reconsider how and what I taught.

I wonder if now we are making faulty assumptions regarding educational technology in classrooms. Perhaps we are assuming as fact that:

1. Students prefer to learn using today’s technology over more traditional delivery formats. According to Hewlett Packard’s 2013 study of college students, students appreciated the ease of use of e-books provided, but “contrary to what most would expect, the younger and supposedly tech-savvy students are not all that into e-textbooks. It runs counter to the push for paper-free digital classroom where e-books are often marketed (and touted) as the lower cost (and lower weight) option.” When we personalize learning, we have to take into account whether the manner in which instruction is delivered appeals to both student interests.


2. Students who have access know how to use it. My neighbor has two middle-schoolers. Her daughter is tethered to technology, regularly uploads on YouTube, creates sophisticated PowerPoints for school projects, writes blogs, and easily researches topics that interest her; my neighbor’s son, however, uses digital tools when necessary for writing school papers, but essentially creates a cut-and-paste product. Clearly, though living in the same access-available household, these two children have achieved different skill levels. Even though today’s students may have grown up with new technologies, they are not all whiz kids at using them, nor do they want to be.


3. Proficient print readers will be good e-readers. Not necessarily. A review of the research (Jabr, April 2013) concludes that comprehension of paper text is superior to text read on screen, attributing this to such factors as ease of navigation and sense of control. Additionally, reading paper text appears to be less mentally and physically taxing because e-texts require scrolling in addition to reading. As engineers work to make reading with new technologies similar to the experience of reading on paper, such differences may disappear.


4. Struggling readers will have higher achievement when teaching is enhanced by educational technology. Not all by itself. In a recent report out of Stanford University, Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, and Goldman (September 2014) cite three factors affecting outcomes for at-risk adolescent learners using educational technology: (1) interactive learning; (2) use of technology to explore and create rather than to “drill and kill;” and (3) the right blend of teachers and technology.


5. Students can do technology-based assignments at home. We’ve heard repeatedly that today’s students are more tech-savvy than their teachers. After all, they grew up with it and many teachers did not. This assumption ignores the digital divide in classrooms. Some students have had access at home since birth; many have not. Pew’s 2013 study on use of the Internet in the U.S. found 85% of Americans use the Internet but only 70% have broadband connections at home, and low-income households comprise the largest group without home access. In income-diverse classrooms, our students will not be on a level playing field if homework assignments are dependent on or advantaged by access.


6. Educational technology improves teaching. Technology itself doesn’t improve teaching. Teachers need classroom support and effective professional development to maximize the technologies; the hardware and software must be user-friendly and meet students’ needs; the pedagogy (which isn’t the technology) must demand high-quality interactions between students and teachers, and among students, with high expectations of all. Giving every student a laptop isn’t going to improve our teaching, and every student having a netbook isn’t an instructional model.

Budget priorities

Are significant dollars allocated to educational technology at the expense of other needed purchases? Tight school budgets require careful choices.

What guides decisions about educational technology? Will we purchase new band equipment to replace instruments that are un-playable, something that probably affects just a few students, or buy more devices for the computer lab, which benefits more students? If the latter, when do band students get needed instruments?

What about more devices for the school’s computer lab versus better adaptive technology for special needs students? Who decides? On what basis? Is there a long-term plan? Are teachers included in the decision making? I expect there’s a wide range of responses to these questions, but as one educator suggests, “Teachers should be designing their classrooms and schools and then discussing, with leaders and technologists, what devices can best support that design.”

School influencers

A quick rush to the clarion call for 21st century digital classrooms may come at a price beyond the cost of the technology itself. Several years ago, I was part of a team awarded a Striving Readers grant for adolescent learners, one of only eight grants awarded that year for this U.S. program. One condition of our receiving this award was that a specific computer-based program would serve as the instructional centerpiece. We had to accept one publisher’s product, unfamiliar to us, and had no opportunity to evaluate its appropriateness for our students.

A review of the research did find the program to have some positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement for adolescent learners, but this is not a guarantee of success for ALL students (and they did not all benefit in our program), but no alternatives were permitted.

In 2014, one large company describing its school-based grants explained, “Our grant programs are designed to apply [our] resources to specific projects and programs that fit within our targeted areas of interest ...” If schools are dependent on outside sources to fund technology, we should closely examine the strings that are attached to those monies.

We also cannot afford to mistake education entrepreneurs for educators. As one commentator suggests, “Philanthropy skews education policies to reflect the untested agendas of big donors.” For instance, between 2010–2012, Mark Zuckerburg donated $100 million to Newark, NJ, public schools primarily to support his preferences for charter schools and merit pay for teachers (based on performance and leading to layoffs). According to reports, significant donation dollars also went to consulting firms, reaching neither teachers nor classrooms.

Most of us probably acknowledge, accept, and maybe even admire and applaud the contribution education technology makes to student learning. If we use it judiciously and strategically, examining some of our assumptions and priorities as we plan instruction, our students and our teaching will surely benefit.

Jill Lewis-Spector (jlewisprof1@yahoo.com) is the ILA president and a professor emerita from New Jersey City University.

photo credit: World Bank Photo Collection via photopin cc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained Silent Reading Assessment

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

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

Writing With and Without Assistive Technology

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

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

Accommodations

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

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

Your Turn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Create a Topic List

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

Provide Extended Writing Time

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

Teach with Data-Driven Mini-Lessons

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

Provide Choice

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

Provide Opportunities to Share               

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

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

photo credit: cybrarian77 via photopin cc

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

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

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

What, then, defines the gifted reader?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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