Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Missouri Reader Journal of the MISSOURI READING ASSOCIATION
Volume 35, Number 2
Spring 2011
2
Teaching Literacy in the Content Area
Journal of the Volume 35 No. 2 Missouri Reading Association Spring 2011 Editor Assistant Editor
Kathryn Pole, Ph.D. Keisha Panagos, Ph.D. Saint Louis University Scott City R-‐1 School District
The Missouri Reader is available online from the Missouri State Council of the International Reading Association. The journal and newsletter are available on our website: www.missourireading.org.
3
Carla J. Bergstrom Dianne Koehnecke, Ph.D. Lee’s Summit School District Webster University Carolyn Brown Clover Noack University of Missouri – St. Louis University of Missouri – St. Louis
Jessica Simmons Marie Puett Scott City R-‐1 School District St. Joseph School District
Autumn Stevens Lou Sears Jackson R-‐2 School District Avila University Lauren Edmondson, Ed.D. Sarah Pruden Drury University Scott City R-‐1 School District Jennifer Day Fredrick Kara Swofford, Ph.D. Missouri Council, IRA College of the Ozarks Barbara Hiles Tamara Rhomberg Missouri Council, IRA Missouri IRA Beth Hurst, Ph.D. Paula Witkowski, Ph.D. Missouri State University Webster University Beth Kania-‐Gosche, Ph.D. Jennifer Stutzman Lindenwood University Saint Louis University
President ............................................................................................ Jeanie Cozens President-‐Elect ...................................................................................... Lorene Reid Vice President .......................................................................................Terry Sherer Recording & Corresponding Secretary ............................................. Barbara Ryczek State Coordinator............................................................................. Mary Jo Barker Treasurer...........................................................................................Nicole Costello Assistant Treasurer ..................................................................... Betty Porter Walls Past President ............................................................................... Linda McGlothlin Director of Membership Development............................................... Barbara Hiles Parliamentarian and Legislative ............................................................Sarah Valter The Missouri Reader Editor ................................................................... Kathryn Pole Missouri IRA Newsletter ..............................................................Laurie Edmondson Historian............................................................................................ Glenda Nugent Website Coordinator..............................................Mary Jo Barker and Terry Sherer Legislative Chair .....................................................................................Sarah Valter
Editorial Board
2010-‐2011
Executive Committee
Missouri Council, International Reading Association 2010-‐2011
4
The Missouri Reader is a peer-‐reviewed journal published twice per year by the Missouri State Council of the International Reading Association as a forum for thoughtful consideration of issues, practices, research, and ideas in the field of literacy. Its purpose is to serve teachers, parents, consultants, supervisors, administrators, college/university faculty, and others interested in promoting literacy.
Writing for The Missouri Reader You are invited to submit your writing for consideration in upcoming issues of The Missouri Reader.
Articles, book reviews, and both student and teacher original poetry not published or under consideration for publication elsewhere are welcome. Submissions may be sent electronically at any time. When submitting your manuscript, please send it as a Rich Text Format (RTF) or as a Microsoft Word e-‐mail attachment. Manuscripts must be submitted in a 12-‐point font, double-‐spaced, page numbered, and follow APA (6th edition) formatting. Clear photographs sent as electronic files are welcome. Strongest consideration will be given to materials related to the theme of a particular issue or one of the regular Departments of the journal. Your manuscript should include a front page with your name, position/occupation and affiliation, as well as your business and home addresses, phone numbers, email address, and a short (50 words or less) biography. Please indicate the theme or department for which your contribution is most appropriate. The Review Process Manuscripts submitted to The Missouri Reader are first reviewed internally by the editor. If it is determined that a manuscript fulfills the mission of MR, it is sent to at least two peers for review. Criterion for evaluating manuscripts are: 1) interest to readers; 2) clarity of writing; 3) content-‐fresh, accurate, consistent, well-‐reasoned; and 4) blend of theory and practice. Articles are the expression of the writers, and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the International Reading Association, the Missouri State Council, or The Missouri Reader editor or editorial advisory board. Advertising Donations: $200 for full page; $125 for half page; $75 for one-‐quarter page; and $50 for one-‐eighth page. The Editor must receive a check, made payable to MSC-‐IRA, plus a camera-‐ready copy by September 1 for the fall issue or March 1 for the spring issue. Electronic copy is required. Acceptance of advertising does not imply endorsement of a product or the views expressed. Contact Send manuscripts, ad copy, or questions about The Missouri Reader to: Kathryn Pole, Editor The Missouri Reader Department of Educational Studies Saint Louis University St. Louis, MO 63108 314-‐977-‐7107 Email: [email protected]
The Missouri Reader Vol. 35, No. 2 Spring 2011
The Missouri Reader
Fall 2011 Journal Theme: Motivating Literacy Learners Fall 2011 journal articles due:
August 1, 2011
Spring 2012 Journal Theme: Transitioning to Common Core Standards -‐ Impacts and Issues Spring 2012 journal articles due:
March 1, 2012
5
Editor’s Comments ......................................................................................6
Kathryn Pole, Ph.D.
Assistant Editor’s Comments .......................................................................7 Keisha Panagos, Ph.D.
Design and Philosophy of Various America Reads Sites: Findings and Dialogues ............................................................................................8 Richard M. Oldrieve, Ph.D. Common Strategies for all Content Areas to Create an Integrated Curriculum through the use of Various Literacies...............................17
Dianne Koehnecke, Ph.D. Content Area Literacy IS Teaching for Social Justice: Focusing on Unsuccessful Readers ........................................................................23 Carol Lloyd Rozansky, Ph.D. From Famine to Feast: Enriching Reading Instruction In Secondary Classrooms ..................................................................................... 32 Sara Crump & Karen J. Kindle, Ed.D. Literacy Centers in the Primary Classroom: Effective Management for Differentiated Instruction ........................................................ 38 Julie Ankrum, Ph.D. Games, Puzzles, and Riddles in Children’s Books: An Interview with Author Jody Feldman.............................................................. 45 Sharryn Larsen Walker, Ph.D.
The Missouri Reader Vol. 35, No. 2 Spring 2011
Promoting Literacy Through Various Genres
Contents
6
As I write this column, the students and teachers from the elementary down the street from my house are at the park across the street, celebrating the end to a school year, and probably most importantly, the beginning of summer vacation. The joyful noise floats through the neighborhood.
We know how kids look forward to summer. The relative lack of structure in the summer is both welcome and necessary. It is important for teachers, too! To people outside of schooling, the old joke is that teachers choose their career because of the months of June, July, and August. We know better – the nature of our work changes in the summer, but summer means time to think, organize, and plan for the coming year. To that end, here are some suggestions for your Summer 2011!
Take some time for yourself. Teaching is demanding work – focus on finding things that relax you.
Read a few good novels. Summer is the perfect time to catch up on the magic of reading for recreation – an attitude we want to be able to instill in our students. Savor a well-‐turned story, collect interesting words, and get lost for a bit in a life far away.
Read to learn, to perfect your craft of teaching. The International Reading Association (www.reading.org) and the National Council of Teachers of English (www.ncte.org) publish excellent and relevant books and journals that could recharge your work.
Take a class in something that interests you. Learn to garden. Study the craft of writing. Take a painting class. These things will all find a way into your classroom, and might be just what you need to connect with a student.
Hunt for lesson plans. There are a few good sites for these on the Internet. One of the very best is at ReadWriteThink.org, where you can find plans written and reviewed by teachers, using current research and best instructional practices.
Become politically aware and active. There are many things happening at local, state, and national levels that impact education. Spend time every day reading news, looking for articles that specifically focus on legislation and policy that impact education. Consider writing to your representatives to express your opinions. Teachers have, for far too long, been absent from these conversations – it's time to join in!
Write. I believe that the key to school improvement lies in teachers sharing their knowledge and good ideas with other teachers. There are many places you can publish your work, but I hope you consider The Missouri Reader!
I am pleased to present this issue of our Journal to you. In it, we have some gems that I hope will inspire and inform you. Maybe they will be the catalyst for your own research! After all, teachers are at the heart of teaching! Thank you to the authors we showcase in this issue, to the reviewers and proofreaders who help ensure quality, and to the newly-‐hooded Dr. Keisha Panagos, the assistant editor, who makes it all look so nice!
Happy Summer!
Editor’s Comments
Kathryn Pole, Ph.D.
7
I am excited to be releasing this issue, which explores various arenas in teaching literacy in the content areas. With the unique blend of practice and theory this issue will surely enlighten and enrich literacy lovers everywhere. Whether you are interested in national reading programs such as America Reads, embracing social justice through literacy, or finding new and creative ways to enhance literacy instruction this journal is for you. These articles span from early childhood to adult education and focus on ways to foster, enhance, and promote literacy in the classroom and beyond.
One of my favorite responsibilities of being the assistant editor is getting to read all of the submissions and being able to establish relationships with the authors on a personal level. Thank you to all the writers that submit your work to the journal. Without high-‐quality manuscript submissions we would be unable to provide such an excellent resource of literacy practices.
I want to say thank you to all the members of our Editorial Board for your hard work and dedication to the journal. Without your thought provoking and critical examinations of the submissions The Missouri Reader would be hard pressed to maintain the scholarly and practice based integrity that we strive so hard to achieve.
Thank you to the Editor, Dr. Kathryn Pole for allowing me this wonderful opportunity as Assistant Editor. I have enjoyed working with you over the past three years and look forward to working with you on the next issue of The Missouri Reader. Your guidance and love for research based literacy practices has been an inspiration and your guidance and mentorship is very much appreciated.
I look forward to the next issue of The Missouri Reader and encourage you to submit your manuscript. Manuscripts are welcome from academic professionals, graduate students, and teaching professionals. This is a wonderful way to showcase your ability to blend theory and practice as well as promote teacher leadership. Upcoming themes include: Motivating Literacy Learners, fall 2011 and Transitioning to Common Core Standards -‐ Impacts and Issues, spring 2012.
Sincerely,
Keisha Panagos
Assistant Editor’s Comments
Keisha Panagos, Ph.D.
8
For 14 years, Richard Oldrieve taught students with learning disabilities in Cleveland schools. This study sought sustainable America Reads programs that enable at-‐risk students to talk books and build fluency. Oldrieve earned his doctorate in Early Childhood Literacy from Kent State University. He currently teaches ECE Literacy Assessment and K-‐12 Phonics at Bowling Green State University.
In 1996, during a re-‐election rally held in Wyandotte, Michigan, President Clinton issued his
America Reads Challenge (America Reads, 2011). The setting, circumstances, and content of the August 26th, 1996 announcement were deliberately designed to conjure up allusions to President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 midnight campaign stop at the University of Michigan, where Kennedy issued his Peace Corps Challenge (Peace Corps, 2011). Much as Kennedy’s Peace Corps encouraged America’s youth to build democracy and human bridges in foreign lands, so Clinton’s America Reads Challenge encourages college students and other volunteers to build academic skills and mentoring relationships by tutoring at-‐risk students here in America. Like the Peace Corps, America Reads offers many tutors a small living stipend and tuition voucher through Vista/Americorps grants; others are paid an hourly wage as part of their work-‐study award. America Reads also encourages older, more mature executives and professionals to sign on as unpaid volunteers.
The most important similarity between America Reads Challenge and the Peace Corps
Challenge is that there is great potential for benefit for everyone involved. The tutees stand to gain because they can become better readers and garner the mentorship of an adult role model who is earning a college degree. The tutors stand to gain because they can get paid to experience the joys and tribulations of working with at-‐risk students. Society and the reading profession stand to gain because tutoring could help reduce the Matthew Effect (1996) that plagues at-‐risk students and school districts.
Fifteen years ago, the enthusiasm for America
Reads inspired many other politicians from across the political spectrum to propose and implement similar programs—for example even though both Kennedy and Clinton were Democratic Presidents, Republican governors such as Ohio’s Robert Taft promoted tutoring programs inspired by America Reads. Taft’s OhioReads tutoring program was part of a wider Literacy Initiative (Ohio Department of Education, 2000). Other states in the Mid West that developed tutoring programs based on the America Reads model include Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri.
The concept of uncertified adults tutoring students has its origins in Keith Topping’s work on
“Paired” or “Shared” reading (Oxley & Topping, 1990; Topping, 1998; & Topping. & Whiteley, 1990).
DESIGN AND PHILOSOPHY OF VARIOUS AMERICA READS SITES: FINDINGS AND DIALOGUES
Richard M. Oldrieve, Ph.D.
9
Topping’s approach emphasizes building a relationship between the tutor and tutee, helping the student to read and enjoy books, and familiarizing the student with the language of books through reading, discussing, and writing. In this line of tutor creating a friendly bond with the student, Connie Juel (1991) describes a program where college athletes were paired with elementary school children. Others have tried to teach parents to become the “paired” tutoring partner (Rasinski, 1995a, Rasinski, 1995b).
Other researchers developed programs that devote many hours to training tutors to use a structured
lesson plan that follows a set routine (Wasik, 1993; 1998a; 1998b; 1998c; and Williams, Rasco, Wilkinson, Morrow, Walker, Scherry, Robbins, Woo, Fitzgerald, & Gambrell, 1999). These programs with set routines generally were modeled on a study conducted by Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis (1994) which found that a half an hour tutoring session was most successful if 15 minutes of each session were devoted to students reading, discussing, and writing about the leveled books found in Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery, and the other 15 minutes were devoted to a systematic phonics program based on Bradley and Bryant’s (1983) system of having students link letter sounds both to pictures and plastic letters. In their study, Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis found that the students who received solely leveled books instruction got through more books than those with the mixed approach, yet those in the mixed approach did better on comprehension measures. Similarly, those who received phonics only lessons got through more phonics lessons than those enrolled in the mixed approach, yet these students faired no differently on measures of phonics and phonemic awareness than those enrolled in the mixed approach. A key factor in the Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis study is that the “tutors” were teachers trained to implement each of the four different interventions, while America Reads tutors are generally lay citizens, college students, or pre-‐service teachers enrolled in college.
Clinton’s America Reads initiative was designed to give tutoring programs the broader funding base of
targeted government grants without attempting to choose which methodology is best. The America Reads website even tries to bridge the reading wars by specifically asking local programs to devise their own emphasis and lesson plan format (America Reads, 2011). The America Reads program requires school districts and/or community action groups to submit grant proposals that reflect the wishes of local administrators. Most entities chose to focus on reading, but they could target math, homework, and/or other subjects with America Counts (2011) or Americorps (2011).
One study of a library offering after-‐school homework help, reported that the students who
participated in the program reported improvements in comprehension in content area classes. Furthermore, their test scores, grades, self-‐esteem, and attitudes towards school improved (Huffman & Rua, 2008; Rua, 2008). Another study found that a systematic approach that combined phonics and fluency helped students with learning disabilities do significantly better on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency and the basic reading assessment for the Woodcock-‐Johnson while students with Developmental disabilities did significantly better than comparison groups on the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (Osborn, Freeman, Burley, Wilson, Jones, Rychener, 2007). While a third study found that a commonly implemented, but initially expensive commercial tutoring program was easy to implement with high fidelity. Which was good news, because if implemented with a high fidelity, the program was more successful than if the program were implemented with low fidelity (Senesac & Burns, 2008). Finally, a systematic approach that utilized trained college students and that combined phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension components improved the phonemic awareness and nonsense word reading of first grade students (Allor & McCathren, 2004).
In deciding to conduct the qualitative study described in this article, my general interest was to
determine which types of tutoring programs and curricula were most prevalent in a large Midwestern urban school district and various suburban and rural locals surrounding the urban district. Additionally, I wished to determine whether a particular tutoring program generated a self-‐sustaining positive morale. Finally, I wanted
10
to know if the model were truly capable of being scaled up to levels where each at-‐risk student in the country could receive a tutor three to five times a week. This is because I felt it was easy for me to implement a large group phonemic awareness and phonics program (as in half of the Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis intervention) that could reach each student each day of the week. On the other hand, only once a week was it mathematically possible for me to listen to each child in my class read a book and for me to discuss it with him or her. And, I feel there is no better way to develop spoken and written language skills than to listen to a student read and discuss the book with the student. Consequently, my overarching research question was: “Are one-‐on-‐one tutoring programs configured so that they can be expanded to reach each and every at-‐risk child?” Methods
To get a broad overview of what types of tutoring programs existed in a major metropolitan area in a Midwest state, the researcher visited ten different America Reads sites, observed tutoring sessions, and conducted interviews with the program directors, site directors, supervising teachers, and tutors of ten different one-‐on-‐one reading tutoring programs. In order to limit the bias that tends to infiltrate qualitative interviews (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998; Virginia Olesen, 1999; and Norman K. Denzin, 1999), interviews were begun with the first grand tour question on the protocol list found in Appendix 1. Then questions were asked in an open-‐ended emergent pattern. At the end of the interview the list was reviewed to be sure all topics had been covered.
All interviewees were promised anonymity. Most first interviews were conducted in person. On one
occasion, scheduling and distance was such that a phone interview was conducted. On another, the director was so new and her community college program was so small that she answered only a few questions during an initiating phone contact before referring further questions to another university director who was serving as her mentor. One in-‐person interview lasted fifteen minutes, while the rest ranged from 45 minutes to two hours. Follow-‐up phone calls were made to confirm facts. During all interviews and observations, extensive notes were taken. About half of the interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone. Unfortunately, several interviewees requested not to be taped, while human error or equipment failure interfered with taping others.
Results
After spending six months interviewing directors of one-‐on-‐one tutoring programs, I found that through America Reads, President Clinton succeeded in capturing many of the benefits of the Peace Corps. The one theme that seemed impossible to ignore was that everyone involved had a passion for one-‐on-‐one tutoring. The tutors didn’t know how they could stop. Each director wanted to refer me to another program, a tutor, or a supervising teacher. One tutor commented, “I was planning on becoming an architect but decided I needed to help others by getting my degree in social work.” And in a follow-‐up discussion, one university department chair admitted that our discussions had rekindled her interest in one-‐on-‐one tutoring and that she was going to find out how she could volunteer. The motto of the Peace Corps seems to capture the morale best: “The toughest job you’ll ever love” (Peace Corps, 2011).
The programs succeeded in creating this enthusiasm through a variety of methods. Two large
community action agencies recruited, hired, and trained Americorps members and then subcontracted these members out to smaller community service agencies—in particular one-‐on-‐one tutoring programs. One community action agency created an esprit de corps by requiring members to wear colorful uniforms, to pledge to refrain from swearing or smoking while in uniform, and to meet as a group once a week in a variety of visible public areas to conduct loud and highly energetic calisthenics. The operations manual of a commercially produced and licensed tutoring program suggested that site facilitators maintain high morale by decorating work spaces with brightly colored posters, supplying tutors with free beverages and snacks, and
11
heaping tutors with praise and congratulatory certificates. A state university paid its work study tutors the prevailing wage of the largest college employer in the area—the United Parcel Service (UPS). Furthermore, for all the programs, the special mentoring relationship developed inherently through one-‐on-‐one tutoring and the social value of helping at-‐risk students served as intrinsic rewards.
Expectations, Curriculum, and Training
The various programs differed considerably in their expectations of what uncertificated tutors could accomplish. In most cases, the quantity and quality of training was commensurate with the quantity and complexity of material the tutors were supposed to convey in one lesson. A couple of others seemed to be expecting too much for the quantity of training given their tutors. For example some of the word study lessons were overly complicated and expected tutors to catch nuances in student usage.
Both community action agencies conducted their own training in appropriate behavior for public
service work and monitored said behavior. Then both agencies relied on the sub-‐contracting school or agency to train the students how to perform their tutoring duties for the various in-‐school or after-‐school tutoring programs that focused on reading, math, and/or homework. Nevertheless, the directors of both community action agencies weren’t laissez-‐faire with their charges once their in-‐house training was completed; both monitored their charges’ off-‐site behavior as well as their training, supervision, and job description to ensure that not only were their charges upholding the standards of their sponsoring agency, but that their charges were getting the leadership-‐building experiences they had signed on to receive. For example, one program director pulled his members from a job site and reassigned them to a different subcontractor after he discovered that a school principal was diverting tutors to help with bus and lunch duty. The other director pulled tutors from a sub-‐contracting agency when he saw that the on-‐site director couldn’t maintain the discipline of the tutees.
One of the community college America Reads programs relied upon honor society inductees to
volunteer to tutor area elementary school students. The tutors were given only three hours of training but were then responsible for tutoring only one student per year during one-‐half hour session per week and finding books that matched the child’s interests and reading abilities. Most of the tutoring time was devoted to the tutee’s reading the book to the tutor and then discussing the book, while parents were responsible for driving their children to the community college for the tutoring sessions.
On the other end of spectrum was a private college’s America Reads program where tutors were paid
to spend two hours per week attending training sessions, going to guest lectures by prominent educators, or reading pertinent articles and materials. For another 4 to 10 hours per week, each private college student worked under the direction of an assigned classroom teacher to tutor a set clientele of 1st, 2nd or 3rd grade students. These tutors were trained how to teach semi-‐scripted lessons. Nonetheless, their supervising classroom teachers were encouraged to ask them to teach materials and lessons that were better coordinated with classroom activities and lessons. In fact, one teacher said that she wouldn’t have permitted the tutors to work with her students if she didn’t have substantial input into what the tutors tutored.
Funding and administration
Of course, not everything about these programs was idyllic. A systemic and long-‐term danger was that the federal work-‐study program funded 100 percent of the salaries of tutors but allocated only a portion of the funds for America Reads directors. Some schools didn’t let this funding arrangement prevent them from offering adequate supervision. The private college had a previously established and funded community outreach director, and thus even though the America Reads coordinator was a two-‐year Americorps intern, the outreach director provided the continuity from one intern to the next. (It is important to point out that the
12
Americorps interns could supervise America Reads tutors who were being paid out of work-‐study funds, but Americorps interns could not supervise other Americorps interns who were functioning as America Reads tutors). Similarly, the community college put the America Reads program into the hands of the director of its pre-‐existing college-‐level academic tutoring program. This director expressed the hope that tutoring elementary school students would one day eliminate the need for her college level remedial tutoring program. Finally, one of the state universities hired a part-‐time professional director to conduct site visits, to establish the curriculum, and to supervise an Americorps intern who handled the paperwork.
However, the lack of funds to pay a professional director was most problematic at another state
university, where the program’s day-‐to-‐day administration was trusted to a year-‐to-‐year Americorps intern. The intern pointed out that she couldn’t place tutors at two of the college town’s seven elementary schools because the principals had such bad experiences with her predecessor. Furthermore, the intern complained that she didn’t have enough time to complete all the duties and paperwork assigned to her. She pointed out that even though the university had been allocated enough work-‐study money to fund 200 tutors, she had only enough time to recruit, train, and place 50 tutors.
Even though the commercial program relied upon volunteers, its startup cost was $40,000. This fee
paid for a large quantity of books and manipulatives, plus a computerized testing program that helped determine a tutee’s reading level and the materials that would be most appropriate. However, the purchase didn’t include the subset of books and materials that would have been most appropriate for urban students. Furthermore, the program relied on the district to pay one certified teacher per site to recruit, train, and supervise the volunteers. Nevertheless, the program was the most popular choice of schools and school districts that applied for state level grants.
Realities of Going to Scale
Although it was evident that one-‐to-‐one tutoring works on an emotional level and the research base suggests that it works on an academic level, my calculations indicate that none of the programs could be expanded to reach each and every urban at-‐risk student. The private college was easily reaching all the at-‐risk students in its small college town with a very good program. Likewise, if the rural state university ever got its priorities straightened out and succeeded in recruiting, training, and placing 200 tutors, it could not only serve the college town where it was located but several other nearby school districts as well. But for a large urban school district, none of the volunteer, community action agency based, or university based tutoring programs were configured in a way that could reach each and every child—the need is too great.
Even a state school with 1 administrator, 4 Americorps interns, and 200 tutors could reach only 600 to
1200 students—which is far less than the 10,000 or more first, second, and third graders in the urban school district. Similarly, it would be a monumental task to recruit, train, and supervise the 10,000 or more tutors needed for most volunteer programs. In fact, the commercial program expects a site-‐director to recruit 60 to 120 tutors to tutor only 30 to 60 students.
Furthermore, at my current institution, Bowling Green State University, the reading center employs a
coordinator of community outreach and two 10-‐hour per week graduate students who are responsible for overseeing several programs including America Reads. Funding for the tutors comes from a clause in the federal work study program that stipulates that seven percent of the work study monies be spent on community outreach. The Dean's Office of BGSU’s College of Education and Human Development funds the coordinator and the two graduate students. In some years, BGSU’s coordinator has overseen 100 to 120 students, but in the current year she has struggled to find 50 students to work as tutors. This means the university may lose work study funding next year. Our coordinator noted that one problem is transportation to
13
schools; another is that tutors need to schedule both their tutoring sessions and their university classes during the day. Yet, during those years when the reading center has been able to spend its total allotment, some school districts where BGSU places student teachers complain that the university does not supply them with enough America Reads tutors.
As I have advocated in Reading Today and in several newspaper op-‐eds, I believe that to supply school
districts with all the tutors that are needed would require school districts to recruit, train, and administer a smaller number of full-‐time/quasi-‐permanent tutors. Thus, instead of paying one administrator to train, recruit, and supervise 60 to 120 volunteer tutors to reach only 30 to 60 students, this opposite end solution would have districts hire one trainer/administrator to administer two or three buildings, and hire 10 to 20 tutors per building to reach 200 to 300 students. To make the concept even more progressive and aligned with the preaching of Paulo Freire (1990), the tutors could be hired from within the neighborhood where the at-‐risk schools are located. Not only would a school day schedule be more appropriate for the parents who have children enrolled in the school than the typical breakfast or dinner hours, but the school day schedule could also align with the work schedules of other community leaders such as part-‐time clergy or city council members and their staffs. Furthermore, the tutors could be learning time management, personal discipline, and people skills that could help them progress up the educational ladder from GED to community college to state university and up the professional ladder from tutor to paraprofessional to teacher. Eventually, these tutors from within the community could encourage parents to attend workshops designed to help them tutor their own children.
Finally, the funding base for this type of tutoring program could be expanded from the usual school-‐
based grants or district funding to larger welfare-‐to-‐work programs. Further research would need to be conducted to determine whether these speculative benefits could be accrued from hiring tutors from within urban communities.
Conclusion
President Clinton proposed his America Reads as way to capture the progressive spirit of President Kennedy’s Peace Corps. His goal was to ensure that every student would learn how to read by the end of the third grade. I became interested in the program because as a former teacher in an urban school district, I saw the potential that one-‐on-‐one tutoring could help students in ways that a classroom teacher cannot. After conducting this study I have more faith that a variety of tutoring arrangements are fulfilling the needs of at-‐risk students. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that none of the current logistical arrangements seem capable of being expanded to reach every at-‐risk student. I have proposed that hiring tutors from within the neighborhood surrounding a school might enable every at-‐risk child to receive one-‐on-‐one tutoring. I hope that other researchers are proposing their own solutions and that one day research can prove that one tutoring arrangement or another is successful at helping all children to learn how to read by the end of the third grade. References Allor, J. & McCathren, R. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutoring program implemented by college
students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(2), 116–129. America Counts (2011). Retrieved February 23, 2011 at: www.ed.gov/americacounts America Reads (2011). Retrieved February 23, 2011: www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/ Americorps (2011). Retrieved February 23, 2011: http://www.americorps.gov/
14
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for education: An introduction to theory and methods
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Corporation for National Service (2011). Retrieved February 23, 2011:
http://www.nationalservice.gov/home/site_map/index.asp Denzin, N. K. (1998). The Art and Politics of Interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and
Interpreting Qualitative Research pp. (313-‐344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Freire, P. (1990,1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of
reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-‐57. Juel, Connie (1991). Cross-‐age tutoring between student athletes and at-‐risk children. The Reading Teacher,
45, 178-‐186. Ohio Department of Education (2000). One-‐Year Accomplishments. Retrieved February 22, 2011. Olesen, V. (1998). Feminisms and Models of Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
Landscape of Qualitative Research pp. (300-‐332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Opitz, M. & Rasinski, T. (1999). Goodbye round robin. Heineman. Osborn, J., Freeman, A., Burley, M., Wilson, R., Jones, E., Rychener, S. (2010). Effect of tutoring on reading
achievement for students with cognitive disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and students receiving Title I services. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 467-‐474.
Oxley, L. & Topping, K. (1990). Peer-‐tutored cued spelling with seven-‐ to nine-‐year-‐olds. British Educational
Research Journal, 16, 63-‐78. Peace Corps, (2011). Fiftieth Anniversary 1961-‐2011 Retrieve February 23, 2011 at:
http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=about.fiftieth Rasinski, T. V. (1995a). Fast Start: A parental involvement reading program for primary grade students. In
W.M. Linek & E.G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Generations of literacy: Seventeenth Yearbook: A Peer Reviewed Publication of the College Reading Association. pp. 301-‐322.
Rasinski, T. V. (Ed.) (1995b). Parents and Teachers: Helping Children Learn to Read and Write. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace and Co. Rua, Robert J. (2008). After-‐School SUCCESS Stories. American Libraries, 39 46-‐48. Senesac, B. V. & Burns, M. K. (2008). Theoretical soundness, proven effectiveness, and implementation fidelity
of the HOSTS language arts program among children identified as at-‐risk in urban elementary schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 212-‐221.
15
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-‐407.
Start early, Finish strong: how to help every child become a reader. (2011). U. S. Department of Education.
Retrieved February 23, 2011 at: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/execsum.html Topping, K. (1998). Effective tutoring in America Reads: A reply to Wasik. Reading Teacher 52, 42-‐50. Topping, K. & Whiteley, M. (1990). Participant evaluation of parent-‐tutored and peer-‐tutored projects in
reading. Educational Research, 32, 14-‐32. Venezky, R., Riley, R. W., & Rasco, C. (1997) Department of Education Literacy Initiative. Session presented at
the annual convention of the International Reading Association, Atlanta, GA. Wasik, B. A. (1998a). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practice. The Reading
Teacher, 51, 562-‐570. Wasik, B. A., (1998b). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly 33, 266-‐
292. Wasik, B. A. (1998c). Developing a common language: A response to Topping. The Reading Teacher, 52, 52-‐54. Wasik, B. A. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-‐to-‐one tutoring: A review of five programs.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-‐200. Williams, K. C., Rasco, C., Wilkinson, C. L., Morrow, M. L., Walker, B. J., Scherry, R., Robbins, J., Woo, D.,
Fitzgerald, J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1999). Designing America Reads volunteer tutoring programs: Practice and research. Session presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, San Diego, CA.
16
Appendix 1: Protocol for Interview Questions
I.) Administrators and Teachers:
A.) Describe the nuts and bolts of administering the tutoring program.
B.) Describe the training program.
C.) Describe the nuts and bolts of a typical tutoring session.
D.) What is the general philosophy of the tutoring program?
E.) What do you like best about the program?
F.) What do you find most problematic?
G.) What would you like to do differently?
H.) In a perfect world, how would you configure the tutoring program?
II.) Tutors:
A.) What motivated you to become a tutor?
B.) Now that you’ve been tutoring for a while, do you enjoy it?
C.) Describe the nuts and bolts of a typical tutoring session.
D.) Describe the training program.
E.) What is the educational philosophy of the tutoring program?
F.) What do you like best about the program?
G.) What do you find most problematic?
H.) What would you like to do differently?
I.) In a perfect world, how would you configure the tutoring program?
III.) Tutees:
A.) Do you enjoy the tutoring sessions?
B.) Do you think they are helpful to your schoolwork?
C.) In what ways are they helpful?
D.) What do you like best about the tutoring?
E.) What do you dislike?
F.) What would you change and how would you change it?
17
Dianne Koehnecke is an Associate Professor of Education at Webster University. She has a Ph.D. from St.
Louis University (1992) in Curriculum and Instruction with a minor in English. She also has her Reading Specialist and
MBTI (Myers-‐Briggs Type Inventory) certification. She teaches reading,
writing, and literature classes at Webster. She has written six young adult books for striving readers and
continues to write and review academic journals and books. She is currently working with a colleague on an e-‐book
about content area reading. She is also updating her young adult stories for reluctant readers.
Her hobbies are swimming, walking,
traveling, reading and writing.
One of the major problems in teaching young adult literature is that it is not regarded as necessary in all content areas. Teacher training programs in the secondary area do not help this situation; in fact, they may inhibit students’
progress in understanding and using young adult literature. Most secondary programs only require one course in content area reading. A Young Adult Literature course is required only for middle school students in language arts and secondary programs in English.
Often students struggle to comprehend their textbooks because they are usually not given any trade books to enhance
the material in the texts. Few students rave about a “wonderful textbook,” but many adolescents will share their enthusiasm about nonfiction and fiction books or interesting articles they
read in magazines, newspapers, or on the internet. Today, Young Adult Literature does not merely refer to trade books, but also includes a wide range of literacies other than the textbook. By
using these various literacies, teachers can enhance student understanding and appreciation in all content areas. When using a common reading strategy for different subjects, students
understand that their curriculum is integrated because they can use similar reading strategies for the various types of literacies they are reading, whether it be a newspaper article, an internet
article, an article from a library data base, or a fiction or nonfiction trade book. Unfortunately, many secondary teachers think the task of teaching reading and writing is the job of the
English teachers and say they don’t have the time to teach these skills. Ironically, English teachers have just as much specific content to teach as other areas and do not have any more time
than other content-‐area teachers do in teaching students how to read to learn (Irvin, Buehl, & Klemp, 2003).
Middle and high school students who struggle with reading usually fall into one of three groups (Schoenbach, Greenleaaf, Cziko, & Hurwitz, 1999). The first group has major deficiencies in reading that go back to never learning decoding skills. The second group generally understands enough phonics to painstakingly
COMMON STRATEGIES FOR ALL CONTENT AREAS TO CREATE AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM THROUGH THE USE OF VARIOUS LITERACIES
Dianne Koehnecke, Ph.D.
18
sound out words. Unfortunately, these students become so intent on decoding, they lose any sense of the meaning of the words and sentences.
However, the majority of students who have difficulty reading do not have poor decoding skills or no understanding of phonics. Instead, the majority of students who struggle with reading have limited vocabularies. They
may also lack basic background knowledge they can apply to their reading, which means that cannot create their own meaning from the text. Even though this category of reading difficulty is by far the highest, they are usually not recognized as struggling readers by content areas in middle and high school classrooms throughout the United States.
An additional group of students are aliterate, which means they can read but prefer to do other things, such as play sports, talk on their cell phones, or socialize with their friends and say they are just “too busy” to read.
Statistics indicate that young people today, at least in our country, are not keeping up with the demands of current literacy trends. The data also highlights disparities between racial and ethnic groups and among students coming
from different socioeconomic levels. For example, reading scores of 12th grade students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have remained static for the past 20 years (Darwin and Fleischman, April 2005, p. 85). For over 25 years, the gap between the scores of white and black students has widened in 8th and 12th grade (U.S.
Department of Education, 2000). Yet most teachers continue to use textbooks as the major printed source of the content area, even when the average student in secondary classrooms reads below the level of many content-‐area texts (Allington, 2002).
The way many teachers compensate for the students who cannot read their textbooks is often by using the
lecture method to help the students with key ideas and concepts (Darwin and Fleischman, p. 85). Unfortunately, the lecture method can thwart the students’ needs for improving their literacy skills, because instead of addressing the problem, it merely avoids it (Schoenback et al, 1999).
Although no one program can meet the needs of all adolescent readers, teachers in all content areas can present effective strategies that help students improve their reading. In a report from Reading Next: A Vision for Action
and Research in Middle and High School Literacy, Biancarosa and Snow (2004) recommend principals and teachers deal with diverse literacy needs of young adult readers in a seven step program that includes a school wide literacy focus targeted professional development and strong instructional leadership and giving increased opportunities for students
to choose books for pleasure reading during the school day.
Before reading, during reading, and after reading strategies are also effective in helping students understand
the process and product of comprehending and appreciating young adult literature. Good readers automatically use these strategies, but all readers, no matter what their readability level is, can benefit from this method. A useful reading strategy that can help students with this process is called KWL, which, literally means, what you already know, what you
want to know, and what you have learned.
Before reading During reading After reading
Check what you know Read to find out the Review what and what you want to know answers to what you was learned. by looking over a chapter. wanted to know
Use titles, pictures, subheads, graphs.
19
Educational Goals and Expectations
Although every content area uses standards, each teacher needs to review the goals from the content area being taught and then apply the KWL strategy to these guidelines. Some examples from four major content areas will be described under “National Standards.”
National standards: Find reading standards in your content area that apply to what you have been reading using the KWL method. For example: English/Language Arts and Reading:
Reviews a wide range of texts to communicate ideas. (Standard 1) Encourages students to experience different kinds of texts, uses their phonological awareness (their
understanding the words can be broken into separate sounds) and uses critical thinking to identify elements in the text and create meaning. (Standard 3)
Encourages students to participate as critical members of a literacy community. (Standard 11) Encourages students to use language to accomplish their own purpose for understanding. (Standard 12)
Math: Helps students understand patterns, relations, and function, as they represent, analyze, and generalize a variety
of different word patterns. (Algebra standard) Helps students organize and consolidate mathematical thinking through communication as they communicate
mathematical thoughts coherently and clearly to other students and the teacher. (Communication standard) Helps students analyze and evaluate the mathematical problem-‐solving type of thinking and strategies of others
using the language of mathematics to state ideas clearly and concisely. (Communication standard) Helps students to build mathematical knowledge through solving problems that occur in mathematics and other
contexts and to apply and adapt different appropriate strategies to solve problems as they reflect on the process of mathematical problem solving. (Problem-‐Solving standard)
Helps students use representations (KWL) to organize, record, and communicate mathematical ideas and use representations to model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical phenomena. (Representation standard)
Science Students identify questions (form questions about what they want to know and look for answers to these
questions) that can be answered through scientific investigations; students form questions that are relevant and meaningful; students become a community of learners when they collaborate in their search. (Science as inquiry standard)
Students read to find answers in relationship to both personal and social perspectives. (Science in personal and social perspectives standard)
Social Studies Include readings that allow for the study of culture and cultural diversity. (Social studies standard I. Culture
standard) Include readings that show how humans see themselves in and over time. (Social studies standard II. Time,
continuity, and change standard) Include readings that study people, places, and environments. (Social studies standard III. People, places, and
environments standard) Relate reading to your own experiences. (Social studies standard IV. Individual development and identity) Have students make global connections based on what they have learned. (Social Studies standard IX: Global
connections) Music and Art standards can also be applied by using literature about musical and visual artists, and after doing a KWL,
listen to and appreciate the music of the artist or view pictures painted by the artist.
20
State standards: Find your state’s standards and apply to what you have been reading
Teacher standards: Create your own goals. How will students benefit from learning and applying the KWL theory? Student expectations: Have each student write or discuss how they can use the KWL strategy on a wide variety of
reading materials material. Give them several practice sessions, because students sometimes feel overwhelmed if they are only given a strategy one time and it doesn’t work for them. Once it becomes familiar, it can be part of the routine for the class. For example, when reading one of the Harry Potter books aloud, a successful class activity
involved starting the day reviewing, sometimes as an entire class, other times as groups, what had been read the day before. Students described favorite parts, what they liked or disliked about certain characters, and what they thought was going to happen next. At the beginning of each chapter, the title was read and discussed as students
attempted to predict what was going to happen in the chapter. Students also looked carefully at the picture at the beginning of each chapter and tried to figure out what it was. Once the read-‐aloud began, students were looking to find answers to their questions about the picture, the title, and what they thought might happen next, based on what we
they previewed. While reading aloud, students who had trouble listening were encouraged to draw picture, in sequence, of what they were hearing. This method was helpful to students who tended to be easily distracted or who preferred learning spatially. Many of the students purchased the books and read ahead, just to find out for themselves
what was going to happen next. Others bought books so they could follow along while the teacher was reading. Middle school students who were supervised over a two-‐year period read the Harry Potter books 8 to 10 times. Even though they knew what was going to happen, they loved to hear the story again and again. The power of storytelling can be
just as effective with middle and high school students as it is with young children. Nonfiction is especially conducive to the KWL theory. For every article, film, or trade book used in a classroom, the teacher can do an oral KWL. When
students read the chapter, they will be reading to learn based on their overview. Their expectations about what they will learn increase, because they are reading for a purpose.
Using Young Adult Literature in all Content Areas
Use the KWL in English to read a biography of a person.
Use the KWL in Math to read about how to solve specific word problems. The word problems could come from
the biography read in their English class.
Use the KWL in Science to study and apply the scientific method to the biography.
Use the KWL in Social Studies to read about the particular culture of the person in the biography who is being described.
Use the KWL in Music to study the music of the period in which the person in the biography lived and to
determine whether or not the music of that era influenced the person.
Use the KWL in Art to study famous painters who created their art during the time of the person in the biography; then view the painter’s works.
21
Genres
Realistic Fiction Drama Historical Fiction Poetry
Fantasy and Science Fiction Nonfiction Multicultural (Diversity) Global
Useful Reading Strategies
• Power point Presentations: Used to present various genres. • Book talks: Students pick a favorite fiction or nonfiction young adult book and that relates to material being
studied. They include background information on the author and the book and then tell enough of the story to obtain class interest.
• Literature circles: The purpose of literature or inquiry circles, according to & Harvey, S. & Daniels, H., (2009), is to create a special activity where teachers reallocate large amounts of class time to genuine student-‐led, small-‐group book discussions. The teacher serves as a facilitator. Literature or inquiry circles can be used in all content areas with a variety of trade books specific to the content area. Allow four to five students to choose one of several trade books for the class and organize a book club format for sharing. Each student in the literature circle has a specific task in addition to an introduction, where the group describes the author and the book. The different roles used could include:
Discussion Director: Responsible for asking questions (strategy) Connector: Responsible for making connections (strategy) that include personal connections, text to
text connections, and global connections
Illustrator: Responsible for drawing or bringing pictures of different parts of the story, or showing visuals if in a smart classroom setting (visualizing strategy)
Vocabulary Finder (or Enricher): Responsible for finding different words in the book that are unknown,
unusual, interesting, funny, or different (strategy of noticing the author’s craft) Literary Laminator: Selects different paragraphs from the text to share with the class and explain why
they are meaningful (strategy of determining importance)
All of these reading strategies can be used within every content area to not only help students comprehend material, but to become active readers who are able to make meaning from a variety of literacies. Each class session
one of the books will be chosen and students assigned to the book will sit at different tables. The rest of the class will move from table to table to participate with the leader of each particular role (i.e. Discussion Director,
Illustrator, etc.). In addition, teachers can work together in content areas based on similar themes for students to be able to see the relationships of looking at a common piece of material based on understanding (English), history (Social Studies), an artist (Art), a musician (Music), changes in environments (Social Studies) and various ways of
solving environmental problems (Math). Reading material for different purposes is the mark of an advanced reader. Yet often students see subjects as
isolated components. Teachers who work together to create common strategies, themes, and literacies help students understand that they are a part of an integrated curriculum and their learning improves. In addition, understanding and application of the various young adult literacies presented through the use of specific common
strategies offers students connections to the various subjects because they recognize they can use the same techniques to interpret meaning in different courses. When teachers work to relate their material to other subjects, whether it is in a specific piece of work or a specific strategy, not only are they integrating their curriculum, but they
are offering their students a way to view their courses as a whole, rather than separate components in isolation.
22
References: Allington, R.L. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann. Biancarosa, G & Snow, C.E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Darwin, M. & and Fleischman. S. (April 2005). Fostering adolescent literacy. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 85-‐87.
Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension and collaboration: Inquiry circles in action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Irvin, J.L., Buehl, D.R. & Klemp, R.M. (2006). Reading and the high school student: Strategies to enhance literacy (2nd Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schoenbach, R., [et al]. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Josey Bass.
23
Carol Lloyd Rozansky is a professor of literacy education and urban education with an emphasis on critical pedagogy. Her teaching and research focus on educational equity. She was formerly a middle and high school reading specialist and science teacher.
Abstract When adolescent students have difficulties reading, we have traditionally focused on identifying and remediating the skills and strategies they do not have and simultaneously place them in low-‐level academic courses. However, learned skills and strategies in remedial reading classes rarely transfer to academic courses. This paper suggests a reconceptualized examination and application of content area literacy strategies that are framed in schema theory, culturally relevant pedagogy, motivation to read, and liberatory education. Examples from various content areas are included.
When adolescent students have difficulties reading, we have traditionally focused on
identifying and remediating the skills and strategies they do not have. We have changed their label from “struggling readers,” which includes students in grades three and above, to “struggling/striving” or just “striving” readers in grades four or above (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). We have noted the rising complexities of their textbooks, especially as they move into middle and then high schools, with an associated increase in content area literacy skills required for school success (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010).
We have also looked beyond skills and strategies, asking important questions about adolescents’ motivation to read (Pitcher et al. 2007; Scales, Akers, & Stout, 2009). Reading educators and researchers have also gained much awareness of the relationships between students’ cultural backgrounds and education practices. Sometimes we integrate motivation and students’ cultures into remedial reading classes and low-‐level academic classes, but typically we focus on skills and strategies first, often missing the type of assistance these readers actually need (Pitcher et al. 2010). Something else is going on that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. Most adolescents live in neighborhoods and attend schools that are stratified by race and economics. Today, public schools are more racially segregated for African American and Latino students than during the time of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Supreme Court case that concluded that separate schools for different races did not constitute equal education (Orfield, 2009; Orfield,
CONTENT AREA LITERACY IS TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE: FOCUSING ON UNSUCCESSFUL READERS
Carol Lloyd Rozansky, Ph.D.
24
Frankenberg, & Lee, 2002/2003). Students of color and those living in poverty are most likely to be behind in reading and other subject areas. Therefore, they are also most likely to be in low-‐level classes that are designed to remediate students’ deficits (Oakes & Lipton, 2003), including reading classes designed to improve their reading skills. We see some of the impact of these conditions in the most current national comparisons: 12th graders’ 2009 reading performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) increased slightly from 2006 but was lower than in 1992 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). And, the gap in scores between whites and blacks and whites and Latinos remained statistically the same as in 1992. Eighth-‐graders’ scores were similar. Let’s connect the dots. Students of color and those living in poverty have lower reading achievement than their white or economically stable counterparts; low-‐achieving students, who tend to be students of color and/or living in poverty, do not demonstrate adequate content-‐area literacy skills; low-‐achieving students receive skill and strategy-‐based reading instruction. And – this is the kicker – low-‐achieving students who receive remedial reading classes rarely transfer what they learn to their content classes (Allington, 2007). In other words, even though we think we are doing the right thing by identifying the skills and strategies struggling/striving readers lack and teaching these to them, this rarely makes a difference in their academic success (Lloyd, 2002). The outcome is that lots of adolescents, particularly those of color and who live in poverty, do not succeed in courses that heavily rely on understanding and producing (i.e., composing) texts. When students do not succeed in algebra or biology or world history or language arts or other content-‐area courses, their choices in life are limited.
In contrast to looking for and remediating students’ reading deficits, I describe the intersections between content area literacy and social justice. In other words, I focus on how we can connect content-‐area literacy strategies to adolescent learners such that they will have the tools to succeed in their courses and thus be able to have expanded and expansive choices about their futures. Similarly, I ask how we can provide equitable educational opportunities for all students so they will be successful and contributing citizens to our democracy. Hence the first part of my title: “Content Area Literacy IS Teaching for Social Justice.”
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS In my reconceptualization of content area reading strategies, I rely on four theoretical frameworks: schema theory, culturally relevant pedagogy, motivation to read, and liberatory education. Schema Theory Schema theory describes how we organize information, make inferences, and retrieve information (Anderson, 1994). People create categories of ideas and then group related ideas in these categories in their long-‐term memories. When we read effectively, we connect the ideas in the text with something that is similar that we have stored in our background knowledge. This background knowledge is organized into units called “schemata” or schemas.
25
Whether or not teachers know the term schema theory, they often implement teaching practices that are based on this theory. These practices may develop essential background knowledge or encourage students to connect their prior knowledge to the ideas in the text. Before students read, teachers may ask students what they already know about a topic. Teachers may demonstrate an abstract concept such as directing a small group of chemistry students to stand in a circle around a table and roll marbles toward the center, demonstrating collisions of atoms or molecules. To facilitate students’ connections of text-‐based concepts to their background knowledge, teachers may provide students with a skeletal hierarchical graphic organizer to which they add information while reading. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy Culturally relevant pedagogy was identified and named by Gloria Ladson-‐Billings (1995) to describe the pedagogy of excellent teachers of African American students. Three components to this successful teaching are: academic excellence (high expectations), cultural competence and respect through building on and valuing students’ cultures, and critical consciousness that encourages students to question the status quo that often privileges some over others. Though Ladson-‐Billings’ (1995) examples of effective teaching are often met by comments such as “but, that’s just good teaching” (p. 159), or shock that her suggestions are “like some rather routine teaching strategies” (p. 159), she asks “why so little of it seems to be occurring in the classrooms populated by African American students” (p. 159). Those who study classrooms with Latinos or Native Americans point out the same problem. Remedial reading classes that focus on skills and strategies rarely consider students’ cultures. Instead, they tend to operate from a bottom-‐up framework that identifies a hierarchy of reading skills that must be mastered before students can progress. Culture does not play a part in this framework. Motivation to Read Common sense and personal experiences inform us about the importance of motivation. We are less likely to do something – be it cleaning our desk, cooking dinner, or walking the dog – if we are not motivated. Yet in remedial reading classes or low-‐level content area classes, we tend not to consider students’ intrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation comes from within the learner. Students who are intrinsically motivated read because they want to: they read for curiosity, for challenge, and for involvement with ideas in texts (Guthrie, 2004). The more they read the better readers they become and thus develop self-‐efficacy (i.e., the ability to successfully complete a task) about themselves as readers. They are persistent in their attempts at reaching their goal. Since remedial reading and low-‐level content area classes tend to focus on low-‐level tasks, intrinsic motivation is rarely considered in these classrooms. Instead, teachers in these classrooms often find themselves trying to coerce students into completing tasks. It is not unusual for these classes to have more behavior problems than higher-‐level courses that are more motivating.
26
Liberatory Education Schooling is not neutral (McLaren, 2007) because it distributes power and opportunities unequally and inequitably to students (Kincheloe, 2004). Evidence of this can be seen at the macro-‐level, such as funding schools through property taxes, a practice that benefits students living in affluent communities. We also see inequality at the micro-‐level, such as giving students who are behind less to learn and tasks that require more literal-‐level understandings than understandings that require synthesis and evaluation of ideas. Paulo Freire (1993) contrasts two types of educational practices: the banking model and liberatory education. In a banking model, teachers hold the knowledge and decide when to disburse it and to whom. This type of pedagogy is typically enacted in low-‐level classes. In contrast, Freire describes problem-‐posing pedagogy. In this type of classroom, teachers base their instruction on the students – what they know, who they are, what their questions are – for the purposes of gaining knowledge and power so they can be subjects of their lives. A liberatory context is a classroom that encourages students to explore ideas and to both pose and solve problems (Freire, 1993). A critical context is a classroom that encourages students to ask critical questions (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). RECONCEPTUALIZING CONTENT AREA LITERACY STRATEGIES You will likely recognize the content area reading strategies I describe in the next section of this paper. However, what distinguishes these from typical content area reading strategies is that they are framed in some or all of the theoretical bases described above: schema theory, culturally relevant pedagogy, motivation to read, and liberatory education. In my descriptions of these literacy strategies, I have also included the concepts or ideas that students would be expected to learn. This is to reinforce the notion that these strategies are not means to the end of “being a better reader.” Rather, these are tools to contribute to students’ understandings of important ideas in their content area classes. I present examples from academic courses since they represent high stakes for students, though these could also be adapted for the arts and physical education. As you read these examples, consider how each builds on one or more of the four theoretical frameworks described above: (a) encourages students to consider and connect to their existing knowledge (schema theory), (b) honors the experiences of marginalized groups while demonstrating high expectations (culturally relevant pedagogy), (c) sets up interesting or provocative questions to explore (motivation to read), and (d) provides multiple opportunities for students to engage in high-‐level explorations of concepts and the necessary skills and strategies to accomplish this. Social Sciences Examples These examples come from various units likely to be taught in U.S. History classes. One example of a concept that would guide all or part of a unit is People migrate or move and settle for many different reasons. To begin this unit, ask students to do a quick/free write: “Write whatever comes to mind when you think about reasons that people move to new places.” This encourages students to consider their relevant background knowledge and emphasize that they have ideas and experiences to contribute. The teacher can explicitly encourage students to consider the experiences of their grandparents, great-‐grandparents, and
27
other ancestors since all families in the United States experienced either forced or voluntary migration. Explore ways in which their ancestors were treated during these migrations, focusing on the power relationships between them and other groups. For students of color, this information honors their cultures since these migrations are rarely presented in any depth or in relationship to the oppression many groups faced. As students see themselves and their families in the unit, their motivation to learn more will increase. Another concept likely to be included in a U.S. History class is The Industrial Revolution was a defining time for industry, business, transportation, and communication across the United States. A well-‐known strategy is a concept card. Typically, one side of a 5X8 card or a half sheet of paper names the topic. The other side lists the main points. Here is an example:
The Industrial Revolution:
MASS PRODUCTION
(Front of Card)
1. A system of producing large numbers of identical items.
2. Lowers costs for consumers and allows them to enjoy a higher standard of living.
3. Henry Ford assembly line.
4. Work was made easier through mass production.
However, imagine the possibilities if, in addition to the typically uncritical way this time in history is presented, students create concept cards on a larger card or an entire sheet of paper. In this added space, students would answer critical questions about the treatment of workers during this time, the role of women and children, and opportunities for people of color looking for jobs. No longer are students memorizing information, but they are using texts – probably multiple texts, including trade books and the internet – to find answers to interesting, critical questions. If the main concept is how The Vietnam War was a turbulent time in our country’s history, song lyrics provide texts that students can read and respond to (Lloyd, 2003). For example, Marvin Gaye, an African American musician, wrote and performed “What’s Going on?” as a response to his brother’s experiences in the Vietnam War. This song examines the war and can be a take-‐off point to critically analyze ways in which people of color were affected by this war. Students might question whether or not things have changed, finding relevant texts to answer this question. Math Examples Reading math books is often an obstacle for struggling/striving readers. Again, reading strategies can help make the text more understandable. A concept that might be addressed in geometry is,There are relationships between lines and angles formed by transversals, and complementary and supplementary angles. To help students understand this difficult concept, the teacher could begin by reading a children’s book about
28
a farm. The book shows the farmer building a fence for his animals. Students, with the teacher, identify the different lines and angles, and the relations between them from the pictures. As the teacher and students delve deeper into this concept, the children’s book could be referred to again. This math concept can be made more accessible by using cooking as an analogy: The real numbers and their two operations of addition and multiplication are governed by properties. Students could create a chart to compare the properties of the real number system with cooking. The students will be able to relate to basic ideas in cooking that are analogous to the properties of the real number system. For example, adding eggs and then flour will be the same as adding flour and then the eggs – the commutative property of addition or multiplication. Mixing flour with the eggs, and then adding milk, will be the same adding flour to a mixture of eggs and milk – the associative property of addition or multiplication. English/Language Arts Examples Any poetry unit, regardless of the specific concept to be taught about poetry, can begin with an analogy to the songs students are currently listening to. An effective way to begin a unit is to ask students to bring in samples of songs (with clear parameters of the types of song lyrics that may not be used). Lyrics for these songs are usually available on the internet, which teachers can copy and paste onto a powerpoint or overhead slide. Another way to use an analogy is for a unit about tragedy with a guiding concept such as, Tragedy involves the descent of a great man to defeat or death. The analogy would be presented first and come from a current news article that describes something tragic, such as an earthquake that devastated a town or a local event such as a gang shooting or deadly car accident. The teacher could bring 1-‐3 examples as models and then have students find others. Next, the teacher would connect their developing understanding of tragedy to the reading assignment. Questioning the author can contribute to students’ understandings of bias: Many forms of writing contain biases by authors that should be recognized and questioned. For example, students could read something current from a magazine such as Rolling Stone, blogs, and newspapers. They could analyze the authors’ arguments and any possible biases they might have. The teacher would create a worksheet containing initiating queries, such as “What is the author trying to say?” and “What bias does the author show?” and follow-‐up queries, such as “Does the author explain his or her argument clearly?” and “What is the author’s reasoning?” Biology Examples Biology textbooks are very difficult for struggling/striving readers. In a unit focusing on the concept, Living things either adapt to change or become extinct, the teacher could create a discussion web that encourages students to use their prior knowledge and gives them specific purposes for their readings. The central statement on this discussion web might be, “Since extinction is a natural process, people do not have much impact on the extinction of plants or animals.” In addition to focusing on the content area concepts, this particular question also encourages students to consider their responsibility as citizens to the future of our planet.
29
Selective reading guides are specifically designed to help students for whom the text is very difficult. For example, a selective reading guide might be appropriate for a unit that examines the concept, All living things ultimately depend on the sun for their energy. To assist students in their reading of their textbook, they would receive a selective reading guide prepared by the teacher specifically for the chapter about the ways animals and plants get energy. The guide would consist of about ten short-‐answer questions focusing on the main points. It is likely that the guide would refer to page numbers and sections of the chapter. The questions would all be relevant to the main concept and would include literal, inferential, and application questions. The students would also create a flowchart to demonstrate how the sun’s energy gets into plants, the plants’ energy into the animals, and how animals give off energy. Their final question would require them to apply the concept by explaining what would happen if the sun ran out of fuel or if it was somehow blocked and the light could no longer reach earth. Chemistry Examples Struggling/striving readers often have a lot of difficulty in chemistry classes in part because chemistry is abstract. Students have to understand processes that they can rarely see since they are at the molecular, atomic, and subatomic levels. Analogies can be very helpful here, since the analogy represents the relevant background knowledge students have. In an earlier section, I gave the example of students rolling marbles to understand how atoms or molecules collide, an important concept in understanding chemical reactions. Animations on the internet provide excellent visual representations of chemical processes. Googling the topic is likely to produce several animations to choose from. Obviously, they require availability of at least one computer that can be projected onto a screen and resources may not be available in every school. CONTENT LITERACY IS SOCIAL JUSTICE As you consider these various content area literacy strategies, keep in mind that though they are ones you probably know about or use in your classrooms, I have reconceptualized them within four specific theoretical frameworks that contribute to social justice. They contribute to social justice because they are specifically designed to provide the academic, culturally responsive, motivational, and liberatory stances toward the education of struggling/striving readers. Most of these students have been marginalized in their educational experiences by virtue of their race and economic status (McLaren, 2007). When teachers intertwine students’ cultural and historical backgrounds with content concepts, students become motivated to learn. When they see teachers have high academic expectations of them while simultaneously providing academic supports so that they might catch up with their peers, they feel respected. And, as they see themselves succeed, their self-‐efficacy about school-‐based tasks, including reading in content areas, increases.
Our traditional responses to adolescents who do not succeed as readers and as learners are to provide remedial reading assistance, usually in the form of a remedial reading class, and to track or group them into low-‐level academic courses. These measures are rarely effective. From a social justice perspective, these behaviors on the part of educators “prevent the development of the critical thinking that enables one to ‘read the world’ critically and to understand the reasons and linkages behind the facts” (Macedo, 1994, p. 16). This is what Macedo calls “literacy for stupidification” (p. 9) because it does not prepare students to question the
30
world around them. Students in these low-‐level tracks rarely learn enough to move into more rigorous classes (Oakes & Lipton, 2003). Our seemingly logical response to the needs of struggling/striving readers is ineffective. But we can reconceptualize those content area strategies we use to purposely integrate students’ prior knowledge, cultures, motivation, and liberatory educational practices to develop knowledgeable, critical, successful students. References Allington, R. L. (2007). Intervention all day long: New hope for struggling readers. Voices from the Middle,
14(4), 7-‐14. Anderson, R. C. (1994). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. B. Ruddell,
M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 469-‐482). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent
literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Retrieved from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Main.pdf
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2009). What's hot, what's not for 2010. Reading Today, 27(3), 1, 8–9. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1-‐30. Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy: Primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Ladson-‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into
Practice, 34(3), 159-‐165. Lloyd, C. V. (2002). Literacy instruction (inadvertently) oppresses some students. The Indiana Reading Journal
34(3), 53-‐60. Lloyd, C. V. (2003, June). Song lyrics as texts to develop critical literacy. Reading Online, 6(10). Retrieved from
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=lloyd/index.html
Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press. McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
31
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension: Expanding reader response. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52-‐62.
National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics
2009 National and Pilot State Results (NCES 2011–455). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011455.asp#section1
Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2003). Teaching to change the world (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-‐Hill. Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated Society: A 21st century challenge, Los Angeles, CA: The
Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E. D., & Lee, C. (2003). The resurgence of school segregation. Educational Leadership,
60(4), 16-‐20. Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K, Mogge, S., Dunston, P. J. (20 07).
Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378-‐396. Pitcher, S. M., Martinez, G., Dicembre, E. A., Fewster, D., & McCormick, M. K. (2010). The literacy needs of
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 636-‐645. Scales, K. B., Akers, K. M., & Stout, L. M. (2009). Generating interest and engagement in adolescent readers.
The Missouri Reader, 33(2), 49-‐56. U.S. Department of Education (2010). Striving readers programs. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html
32
Sara Crump, a public educator for 19 years, teaches 10th, 11th and 12th grade English classes at Blue Springs High School in Blue Springs, MO. She is a doctoral student at the University of Missouri-‐Kansas City where she teaches methods courses in reading and English.
Karen Kindle is an assistant professor of literacy and reading education at the University of Missouri-‐Kansas City. Her work at UMKC builds on 18 years of experience as a teacher and reading specialist in Texas public schools.
Reflective teachers have moments that disrupt their teaching equilibrium-‐those moments when “business as usual” is challenged and which result in thoughtful consideration about one’s practice. For me, one of these moments happened a few years ago during a class discussion. My students, high school juniors, were studying Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and MT Anderson’s Feed that semester. Frustrated by their lack of engagement, I posed a question for the class to consider, never anticipating that my students’ responses would cause me to grow as a practitioner and transform my interactions with students and texts in the classroom. I glanced about the 29 faces and said, “Who can tell me why the discussions of Titus and his motivations in Feed are so animated and lively, and the only time we had energy like that during Huckleberry Finn was during our class debate?”
For an uncomfortable minute or two, there was silence. Then Megan (pseudonym) bravely said,
“Well, we like Feed because it’s about teenagers like us. I’m pretty sure most everyone in here read that book while I’d bet no one finished Huck Finn past chapter 10. I know that’s where I stopped reading.” Megan took an impromptu survey asking who had finished Huckleberry Finn in its entirety. Out of 29 students, only 3 had read the novel. Needless to say, this was not what I was expecting. But if you don’t want to hear the answer, you shouldn’t ask the question. I realized my practices needed to change immediately and drastically. My efforts to prepare a feast of meaningful literary experiences were falling short and my students were starving as I continued to “force-‐feed” the classic canon using traditional methods. Like many educators, I thought that I was doing a good job of teaching reading. I used all of the standard methods: graphic organizers, before-‐during-‐and-‐after reading strategies, and making relevant connections to the curriculum. Megan’s comments challenged me to examine my practice more closely. In reality, I was assigning chapters and students were doing a great job faking their way through literary discussions because I was asking loaded questions with a single acceptable answer in mind. This pattern of instruction was not only ineffectual; it was counter-‐productive to developing critical thinking skills, and to develop a reading flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991, as cited in Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000) wherein students are highly involved in the reading and engaged with text, becoming independent and critical thinkers.
FROM FAMINE TO FEAST: ENRICHING READING INSTRUCTION IN SECONDARY CLASSROOMS
Sara L. Crump & Karen J. Kindle, Ed.D.
33
In classrooms today, teachers need to learn how to motivate their students to comprehend texts for both scholarly purposes and for pleasure, abandoning instructional practices that are out-‐dated and ineffectual. If teachers can discover how to engage students in academic discourse by appealing to students’ interests, rather than dissecting texts for regurgitation of facts and superficial details, we will transform the paradigm of reading instruction from literary famine to a literary feast with a rich variety of aesthetically appealing, high-‐quality relevant texts, served with instructional strategies that promote critical thinking and lifelong learning. Practices that Result in Literacy Famine High-‐stakes testing and accountability have contributed to the literary famine seen in many secondary classrooms. The bureaucratic nature of schools places pressure on test scores and high-‐stakes performance causing many teachers to feel pressure and even fear for their jobs if their students don’t perform well on standardized tests. Most school districts disaggregate data to determine which teachers are effective in preparing students for high-‐stakes tests and which are not. Teachers become fearful of this public acknowledgement of test results which are easily misinterpreted when removed from context and are often equated with teaching aptitude in the classroom. Such concerns result in instruction that focuses on test preparation and quick improvement in scores rather than in constructs that are not easily measured but vitally important such as motivation for reading and developing life-‐long readers. The current famine in reading instruction is evident in an examination of educational statistics and suggests that the need for change in secondary reading instruction in today’s classroom is at a critical point. Despite increased efforts to improve reading ability in adolescents, results from the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicate significant numbers of secondary school students read below proficient levels and that the literacy scores of high school graduates actually dropped in the decade of the 90s (NAEP, 2005). The achievement gap between racial/ethnic/economic groups continues to be significant (NCTE, 2006) and one in four secondary students is unable to read and comprehend the material in their textbooks independently (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004). Only half of the students who took the 2005 ACT Readiness for Reading Benchmark were ready for college-‐level reading, and more significantly, that number had declined from previous years (NCTE, 2006 ).
Many school districts place emphasis on ‘reading scores’ and showing improvement on state-‐mandated standardized tests, but few school districts actually train teachers in effective reading instruction and strategies that create life-‐long, independent readers (Gallagher, 2009). Test-‐taking skills are important for students to master, but instruction should not be restricted to this subset of reading objectives. As Gallagher (2009) points out, “the overemphasis of teaching reading through the lens of preparing students for the state-‐mandated tests has become so completely unbalanced that it is drowning any chance our adolescents have of developing into lifelong readers” (p.7). Instruction with such a narrow focus is dry and tasteless to students and certainly does not create an appetite for more reading. We may develop proficient test-‐takers with this approach, but not proficient and motivated readers (Gallagher, 2009).
Because the accountability emphasis of the age where “No Child Left Behind” era still governs
education, school districts focus on test scores rather than building independent readers. Instruction of this type led Gallagher (2009) to coin the word, “readicide” which he defined as “the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-‐numbing practices found in schools” ( p. 2).
Some school districts have tried to help assist the students who are hesitant readers by implementing computer-‐assisted reading programs such as Accelerated Reader ® or Reading Counts®. In a study of a small
34
group of high school students who participated in computer-‐assisted reading programs, researchers found that participation in Accelerated Reader® actually decreased the students’ desires to read and impacted them negatively rather than positively (Thompson, 2008). Unfortunately, as many school districts make the decision for implementation of computer-‐assisted reading programs to increase comprehension skills and critical thinking skills, they neglect to address a student’s self-‐efficacy as a reader and his or her desire to read. Computer-‐assisted reading programs have good intentions but may have detrimental effects on students and their attitudes toward reading. Instead of spending money on programs such as Accelerated Reader, school districts should instruct their teachers in reading strategies and building independence in their students as readers. Re-‐envisioning the Ingredients for a Literacy Feast
To attain the goal of transforming reading instruction, it is critical to identify skills and thinking patterns that we are assessing in our practices. Most educators function like I did during our study of Huckleberry Finn by utilizing a before-‐during–after reading approach, analyzing the symbolism and Twain’s purposes in the novel and stopping to complete study guide discussion questions as well as learning activities. As the teacher, I was generating the thinking and not my students. Thus, I was essentially assessing what the students remembered of my understanding of the text, but was not assessing what meanings the students were able to construct independently. Educational philosopher and psychologist Robert J. Sternberg (2008) believes that the current skill-‐driven mode of assessment meant to reward good memorizers needs to evolve to an assessment of thinking so that all students of every ethnic background may find success in thinking and processing rather than filling in bubbles on a Scantron® answer sheet (p. 21). Sternberg (2008) asserts that students should be assessed based on their responses to thinking activities rather than rote, memory tests that have driven education for decades insisting that his process and structure ensures a culturally responsive mode of assessment in a society that has changed and progressed in depth and diversity.
Sternberg (2008) suggests that memorization or ‘fact-‐check’ tests and quizzes don’t measure true understanding and abilities of a student’s knowledge, propensity to learn and to think critically. He shares that when he was an undergraduate student, he earned grades of C in an introductory psychology course because the facts drove the assessment of the class’ expectations not true thinking. Thirty-‐five years later, Sternberg became the president of the American Psychologist’s Association. The point in his story is that drill-‐and-‐skill assessment doesn’t really assess anything valuable in a student’s thinking or intellectual abilities. In education, too often, we focus on the minutia, the small, insignificant details of a study. What did Huck say to Jim on page 250 and what does it mean? Nothing. We ignore the real concepts of a study or a social movement and fall back on teaching methods that are outdated, outmoded and don’t allow our students to think independently. When we teach facts only, we teach students how to become out of date rather than how to respond intellectually, intuitively and responsibly in our society today (Sternberg, 2008). We need to concentrate on the students’ thinking daily-‐from text-‐to-‐self to text-‐to-‐world connections-‐that is, we should shape their responses to the pedagogy offered in our classrooms.
Sternberg (2008) has devised a model to facilitate the movement toward teaching thinking rather than assessing ‘do-‐tasks.’ The model is called WICS, an acronym for wisdom, intelligence, creativity and synthesis (p. 21). Sternberg (2008)’s model explains the underlying message of this ideology and justifies its effectiveness. Its practicality and modality offer students a matrix for thinking. If used for reading instruction and in any discipline, students could think on their own to make critical connections to the text. The WICS model allows each student to interact with text individually by bringing his or her own cultural background to the text which is a culturally responsive strategy. Through their expertise as reading theorists and practitioners, Gallagher (2009) and Sternberg (2008) believe differentiated approaches like WICS are important methods in today’s classrooms. Students need to learn to think for themselves whether they are
35
reading Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher independently or Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain with their classmates and teacher.
Instructional Strategies for Reformed Reading: Hunger No More Transformational pedagogy, such as that suggested by Sternberg (2008) and Gallagher (2009) requires teachers to shed their staid practices to inspire critical thinking, and is essential in the paradigm shift. Instructional strategies that transform reading instruction should feature choice, text deconstruction and framing. Eliminate Famine with Choice
It is not impossible to deviate from the ‘one book for everyone’ study according to Robb (2008). When students have a choice about what they read, they will more than likely engage in the book they selected. It is this empowerment that is so critical in differentiated instruction. Robb’s (2008) differentiation model involves on-‐going literacy assessment since “the only way to reach every learner and help him or her improve is to identify student’s strengths and his or her areas of need that require extra support. The ongoing assessments should include students’ written work, oral presentations, quizzes, tests, conferences with students and the observational notes you collect as students read, discuss and write and speak” (p.24). The teacher is interactive and engaging daily to teach in a differentiating style.
Robb (2008) suggests that students read 60 minutes a day to learn to engage in a reading flow.
Students should be reading independently in addition to studies in a classroom that are suited for everyone. Choice allows students to gravitate toward their own interests, learn to think about the content of a story and what it means to them. In addition to choice, for reform to be effective, the instructional method and approaches to reading are vital to the success of a study.
Fullness of the Feast: Framing Students do need structure for a study, but there is a way to craft such an experience with the freedom for the students to think independently and interact, observe and make critical connections without killing the joy of reading for them through such an over-‐zealous study. Gallagher (2009) finds that it is necessary to ‘frame’ a study so students will find the text engaging. The notion of ‘framing’ is different than a ‘before-‐during-‐after’ approach to a study. For example, a teacher might frame the study with visual rhetoric from the time period of the novel and ask students to observe and question the montage of pictures. Listen to a song from the culture of the students that addresses themes that are similar to the text or songs from past decades to show them that the novel studied is timeless. Ask the students to engage in a Socratic Method seminar or an anticipation guide that poses questions relevant to the literature. This method is highly effective because the students take ownership in the topics, have a vested opinion and get to participate in their learning (Gallagher, 2009, p.109).
Gallagher (2009) suggests framing to start a study as best practice, starting with the essay question for the test so that students predict and analyze the deeper levels of meaning before the study of the novel. That way, they can see how the concepts fit together from beginning to end. All of these strategies are a bit more involved that just a ‘before’ activity and then jumping right into the text.
Deconstruct-‐the-‐text: Never Feel the Famine Again
When I ask the students to deconstruct-‐the-‐text of a reading completed in class or during the study of a novel, I ask the students to generate essential questions the work begs. Although it is important for students to think of original, scholarly questions regarding a text, it is still effective practice for the instructor to assert central questions to frame a study. For our study of Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, the work begs
36
two questions. These two questions are entertained throughout Crichton’s thriller and the students have a frame for how to think about the pedagogy and ‘real world’ themes represented. In each of these framing techniques, the students are involved, engaged and their interactions and contributions help to shape the study. The ‘deconstruct-‐the-‐text’ structure is largely based on Sternberg’s (2008) WICS model, but has been developed for more specific points of analysis. To deconstruct-‐the-‐text, the students generate questions, observe symbols, motifs and themes as well as analyze the psychology, sociology and critical connections to our world that the work asks. That element, ironically, has been a missing link in most current practices. We think we involve students by assigning worksheets, ‘match the symbol to its meaning’ activities, etc, but we are really factoring out students out instead.
Conclusions Often, classroom teachers get caught in a routine that doesn’t allow for critical thinking on the part of the students. The concerns lie in high-‐stakes test scores, preparation for the ACT or SAT or state level exams and we lose sight that we are preparing students to be ‘outdated’ as Sternberg (2008) finds. The next step in instruction is to move from this literacy famine in our rooms to a literacy feast by changing the way that we teach texts. By offering choice, by framing studies aptly and in engaging ways and by deconstructing-‐the-‐text, teachers today can tap into the minds of their students rather than going through the motions without really considering the thinking of each student in the classroom. The day Megan taught me that the students were going through the motions during our study of Mark Twain’s classic, Huckleberry Finn, changed my pedagogical philosophies and practices for the better. Megan showed me not to ‘go through the motions’ as a teacher anymore, but to implement the ideologies of Gallagher (2009), Robb (2008) and Sternberg (2008) daily. In a few words, she caused me to realize that students need choice. They need help deconstructing the text of Huckleberry Finn to make difficult texts relevant to their world. They need to be allowed to choose to read the Hunger Games and to share their thoughts about Suzanne Collins’s writing style, societal messages and character development. Their approaches, philosophies and practices allow more for critical thinking and treating students as individual learners instead of test-‐takers than any prefabricated teacher guide could. References Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Reading Next: A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy. Available online at http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf.
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Candlewick Press, 2002. Asher, J. Thirteen Reasons Why. Penguin Group, 2007. Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. Scholastic Press, 2008. Crichton, Michael. Jurassic Park. Random House Publishing Group, 1990.
Gallagher, K. (2009). Readacide. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 403-‐422). New York: Erlbaum.
37
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council Teachers of English. (2006). NCTE Principals of Adolescent Literacy Reform: A Policy Research
Brief. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Robb, L. (2008). Differentiating Reading Instruction. New York: Scholastic.
Sternberg, R. (2008). Assessing what matters. Educational Leadership, 65, (4), 20-‐25.
Thompson, M. M. (2008). How the Accelerated Reader program can become counterproductive for high school students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, (7), 550-‐580.
Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Sterling Publishing, 2006.
38
Julie Ankrum, an assistant professor at
the University of Pittsburgh-‐Johnstown, teaches methods courses in literacy instruction. Her research interests
include exemplary small group instruction and effective profession development for in-‐service teachers. Dr.
Ankrum was a classroom teacher for nine years prior to her current position.
Many teachers are currently faced with a new request from their administrator or literacy coach: explain the manner in which you meet the needs of the different learners in the classroom. One instructional approach that is designed to teach readers of all levels in the classroom is differentiated reading instruction. Simply put, differentiated reading instruction is providing different lessons based on the needs and strengths of the learners. One common question that teachers ask is how do I meet the needs of all learners in a classroom of twenty-‐five or more students?
Small Group Differentiated Reading Instruction Research has shown that the best way to teach students is to design lessons that build on
individual strengths and address weaknesses (Allington, 1983; McGill-‐Franzen, Zmach, Solic, & Zeig, 2006; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2005). Further, research has demonstrated that students learn best when the text is matched to their instructional reading level (Allington, 2005; Allington, 2006; McGill-‐Franzen et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 2006). Still, today’s elementary school classrooms are filled with children of different ability levels. Therefore, small group instruction is essential to differentiated reading instruction.
Teaching children in small groups is a complex task (Ankrum, 2006). According to Schumm,
Moody, and Vaughn (2000) many teachers who value differentiated instruction still favor whole class teaching to small group differentiated instruction, because they find it easier to manage one large group rather than many small groups. Teachers who find this aspect of teaching literacy difficult may want to consider planning a variety of simple, yet meaningful, small group literacy activities to keep the children engaged in learning while the teacher meets with other children.
Literacy Centers
One common technique that teachers use to manage the class during small group instruction is called literacy centers. Literacy centers are simply areas in the classroom that are arranged to allow children to work independently or collaboratively on literacy tasks. Activities in the centers are designed by the teacher to reinforce, extend, and enrich skills and strategies previously taught
LITERACY CENTERS IN THE PRIMARY CLASSROOM: EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
Julie W. Ankrum, Ph.D.
39
during whole class and small group instruction. For example, if a teacher introduces the class to a comprehension strategy, such as making connections with characters, students may practice this strategy by reading a self-‐selected text and writing about a connection they share with the main character in the story. The Value of Literacy Centers
Literacy centers are not the only way to manage the children who are not meeting with the teacher. Teachers sometimes assign independent seat work (e.g., worksheets) for students to complete. This too can provide individuals with opportunities to practice skills and strategies taught in class during previous lessons. Other teachers assign students to read independently while the teacher meets with a small group. Independent reading is one way for students to actually apply reading skills and strategies to authentic texts. While these management ideas may prove effective for some, seat work and independent reading often do not keep students actively engaged in literacy tasks long enough for extended learning, or for the teacher to provide effective small group instruction. According to Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and Walpole (2000) the most accomplished teachers of literacy have over 95% of the class actively engaged in literacy instruction. Literacy centers are designed to maintain student engagement through interesting and motivating activities.
Literacy centers, if well planned, provide varied opportunities for students to practice authentic
reading and writing. Because center tasks are often assigned to small groups, they are collaborative in nature. Collaboration allows students to learn from one another; more knowledgeable students can help the struggling learners extend their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) while deepening their own understanding of skills and strategies.
While literacy center activities are often collaborative, they also require independent application of
strategies. Students may be required to read a text independently and respond to the text at one center. Students are encouraged to problem solve as they work, rather than seeking teacher assistance. If a child does find difficulty completing a task, he can collaborate with a peer. Independent practice is essential to all learning, especially in literacy (Duke & Pearson, 2002).
Because students complete their literacy practice without the help of an adult, literacy centers foster a
sense of responsibility. Independent and responsible students are consistently found in the most effective classrooms (Pressley, Allington, Wharton-‐McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001.) If students are actively engaged in their own learning, and know how to solve problems independently, teachers are free to tailor instruction to fit the needs of individuals and small groups of students.
Content area integration is another benefit of incorporating literacy centers into the instructional
schedule. There is so much content to introduce and teach in today’s classrooms; it is nearly impossible to teach it all well. However, if students work in small groups to conduct a simple science experiment (e.g. does it sink or does it float?) and then write about their observations, science and literacy knowledge are both enhanced.
40
Getting Started with Literacy Centers Research demonstrates that although teachers would like to differentiate reading instruction,
managing the other students is often an overwhelming task (Schumm et al., 2000). It is important to keep activities simple, for the students, as well as for the teacher. If a teacher spends too much time planning multiple activities, there is little time left for planning the small group reading lessons. Also, if students are given too much choice, or too many activities to complete, they may lose focus and accomplish little.
Keep it simple! Before jumping right into using literacy centers, it is helpful to plan a small number of
consistent literacy centers that can be used each week. While the task inside the center changes weekly, the general theme of the center is consistent. This allows students to become familiar with the routines in the center, so only the new task must be learned each week. Examples of basic literacy centers are provided in Figure 1. It is helpful to provide a consistent space in the classroom for students to complete the center tasks, as well. For example, a specific table may be set aside to serve as the writing center. If a small unit of shelves or ‘cubbies’ are placed at one end of the table, students can easily access any materials need for the writing center. Providing a special place for each center highlights the importance of the work at the center, and allows ample space for student collaboration. While it is helpful to provide definite spaces for learning center activities, the spaces do not need to be large.
Keep it real! Center activities are most engaging when they are open-‐ended and authentic. It is important for teachers to resist the urge to put old worksheets in a new space; this will not hold the students’ attention. The goal is to provide meaningful literacy practice that will keep students engaged long enough to meet with a small group of students. Therefore, assignments that require students to read or to write at their independent level are necessary. For example, in a kindergarten writing center students may be required to write about a special memory from a recent field trip. ALL students can complete this task to some degree. Some may draw a picture and color it. Others may write letter like forms to accompany their pictures. Still other students may write words and/or sentences about the trip. The same is true for older children. Each will complete the task as well as he can. Figure 2 provides examples of additional authentic literacy centers that may be added to a classroom once the students are familiar with basic centers.
Keep it going! It is common for students to rush through an activity and exclaim, “I’m done!” Literacy
centers work best when teachers make this an impossible claim. Teachers can provide many additional activities in each center to avoid the possibility of ever finishing. For example, once a child finishes an assigned task in the writing center, he may choose any other materials in the center and write something else-‐anything else! Students who finish building assigned words in the word building center may then write the word with pencil and then with markers. They can also create new words that they find in the room or know how to spell already.
Building the centers. It is often difficult to start centers because of a lack of materials. It should not cost a great deal of money to create literacy centers in the classroom. Teachers can begin by deciding which centers they want to have in the room at the beginning of the school year. Once the area is selected that will house each center, storage areas for the materials can be created. For each center area, teachers should consider the types of materials currently have in their possession. For example, teachers can collect markers,
41
crayons, pencils, chalk, mini whiteboards, mini chalkboards, wordless picture books (for prompts), magazine pictures (more prompts), paper of all sizes, clipboards, and anything else in the classroom that students can write with or write on. These items could be placed cubbies or shelves near a table with 4-‐6 chairs. The table could be located near a large chalkboard or white board. Voila: a writing center! If teachers simply rearrange all of their stored materials, putting them into the appropriate literacy center, they may be surprised by what the materials on hand. Once the materials are reorganized, classroom teachers may need to start shopping for inexpensive materials to supplement the literacy materials collection. Garage sales offer opportunities to purchase letter and word games at minimal cost. Book order bonus points can be used to stock the “Book Nook” and provide materials for independent reading. Clearance sales are great times to stock up on writing materials.
Establish routines. For any classroom to run smoothly, routines are necessary. Effective classrooms are complex; a variety of activities happen simultaneously. If students do not understand how to complete activities, where to access materials, and how to clean up, the classroom will become a disaster area before small group instruction can take place. It is important to anticipate challenges, and clearly explain expectations for behavior. Explicit modeling of tasks, as well as cleaning up, helps immensely. It is also helpful to practice routines for transitions (e.g. 5 minute clean up warning, where to meet when center time ends) before starting literacy centers.
Trust. Often the strongest barrier to implementing literacy centers isthe inability to give up control.
Teachers often do not believe that students will learn without direct instruction. Indeed, humans learn through trial and error, applied practice, and collaborative efforts. For example, we cannot possibly teach a young child EVERY word in our spoken language; yet, most children do learn to speak without direct instruction. Students need time away from the teacher to practice and apply the strategies they have learned. Teachers need to step back and allow the children to work. It is true that some children will avoid completing tasks, and logical consequences can be provided as necessary. However, for the most part, children want to complete engaging tasks independently or with friends.
Baby steps. Start out slowly! It is vital to introduce one center at a time to students. It can be effective
to invite the entire class over to the center, show the children the materials, model the assignment, and discuss expectations. It is also essential to make sure that the activity is simple enough for all students to experience independent success for this first attempt. The teacher could ask four or five children to “try out” the assigned activity, while the rest of the children watch. This could be followed with a class discussion about what went well and what could be improved. The next day, the teacher could add a second center, and repeat the process. Providing an additional ten to fifteen minutes for two new groups to try the new centers, while the rest of the class reads independently, ensures practice for each small group each day. On day three, the teacher could open a third center, and so on. Eventually enough centers will be open to host 4-‐6 students; then the classroom is ready for all children to practice center activities simultaneously. Although this does take time, children of all ages benefit from explicit instruction in how to work at independent centers. By investing in this initial practice, teachers can avoid many difficulties that occur when students are unsure of how to work in student-‐centered activities.
42
It is often helpful to limit the amount of time at centers to about 15 minutes for the first few weeks;
this will prevent students from losing interest. It will also allow the teacher time to teach the children what to do when they complete an assigned task. It is necessary at some point to stand back and observe students as they work; this will allow the students to gain independence. The most effective teachers only provide help when students cannot solve problems amongst themselves.
Final Thoughts to Consider The main purpose for literacy centers is to allow the teacher ample time to work with small groups of children or individuals. Thus it is important that the children learn to work at centers without interrupting the teacher. This can take up to six full weeks, with the teacher gradually pulling support away from center activities. It is important to devote this time to ‘training’ the students. Only after this independence has been established should small group instruction begin. Otherwise, the teacher and the students may become frustrated by the resulting chaos.
Once the routines have been established, students are successful in the basic literacy centers, and small group instruction has been incorporated into the routine, teachers may want to add additional centers to their repertoire. Figure 2 provides additional center ideas that may work in the classroom as well. Figure 1. Basic literacy centers. (Adapted from Ankrum, 2008).
• Writing Center: Quite simply a table, some chairs, and various supplies to write with and write on. Markers, crayons, colored pencils, and paper of all sizes can be stored here; mini-‐dry erase boards and chalkboards work well. Some weeks the assignment can be “draw a picture and write about it.” Other weeks a direct a prompt, such as, “write a book of facts about the pilgrims,” might be provided. Another idea could be “write three haikus in the writing center this week.” The focus could change with each unit of study! • Book Nook: This can be located in any corner of the room. Stock it with books of all genres and levels. Large pillows, chairs, or other comfortable seating make this a place students want to hang out. Allow students a chance to browse and relax. Students can practice reading books on their level, as well as browse books that might of interest, yet too hard for instructional time. • ABC/Word Building Center: Materials here will vary depending on the developmental level of the students. Store magnetic letters, ABC cards, alphabet puzzles and games on shelves for preschool or kindergarten students. More advanced students can use letter tiles, magnets, and cards to build and explore words. This is a great place and time to practice for spelling words! At first you can assign the materials (e.g. magnetic letters) and the task (‘build’ rhyming words); later you can provide choice of materials with assigned tasks. • Listening Center: Students of all ages love this classic center! Any type of audio equipment will work: a CD player, MP3 player, a headset, and audio texts. The assignment can vary between reading along with assigned or self-‐selected books. Don’t forget the informational texts! • Computers: Both reading and writing can be enhanced through the use of computers. A variety of free software is readily available online. This can be an engaging method to help build reading skills and strategies.
43
Word-‐processing software is useful in motivating students to compose and publish stories. You can assign a specific task for practice or provide choices; this can change from week to week. • Researcher’s Lab: Located at a consistent space within the classroom, the only thing that needs to change is the assigned task, which can vary with your current science unit. All that is needed is some space at a table, clipboards, and a variety of materials to observe or explore. You can assign students to record observations and simply write about their discoveries. One easy assignment is to require students to observe and record seasonal changes viewed from a classroom window. Figure 2. Additional Literacy Center Ideas • Creation Station: A variety of art materials and/or donated scraps can be placed on shelves near the
classroom sink. Students can be assigned to follow directions to create a specific project (great application of reading procedural text) or can create unique projects on their own. At the end of each session students can write about their creation.
• Read/Write the Room: Younger children can carry clipboards and small ‘pointers’ as they move around the room. As children read familiar words and/or sentences, they can write them on the paper in their clipboard. These lists of words/sentences can be shared with people at home, allowing students to demonstrate their beginning reading! (It is particularly important to model appropriate use of the pointer and how to navigate the classroom so others are not disturbed.)
• Overhead Projector: Dust off that old projector and place it on the floor. Students can write on blank transparencies, sequence familiar poems on transparency strips, or even build spelling words with transparent letters.
• Big Books: Big books can be displayed near the Book Nook by hanging them on a coat rack. This is a great opportunity for students to practice reading fluency with a partner or independently. Younger students can look for known words or letters in the big books; older students can search for homophones, antonyms, or use the table of contents.
• Book Buddies: Familiar or easy books can be placed into individual boxes for students; these can be used for partner reading in a similar manner to the big books described above.
• Poetry Box: Students can build fluency by reading familiar poems. Place a large box in a location with easy student access. Record poems and nursery rhymes poster board or simply print on tag board. Students can visit this center to read and re-‐read their favorites.
• Math Fun: Integrate math into literacy center time! Students can write and/or solve word problems in this center. Teachers can keep this area filled with math manipulatives to explore, and students can record the ‘number sentences’ they create. Another idea is to ask young children to write a description of a pattern they create in the center; for example: yellow, yellow, red may be come mustard, mustard, ketchup. Encouraging invented spelling will allow developing readers and writers to practice letter sound correspondence with their math practice.
44
References Allington, R.L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83 (5), 548-‐559.
Allington, R.L. (2005). The other five “pillars” of effective reading instruction. Reading Today, 22(6), 3. Allington, R.L. (2006). Research and the three tier model. Reading Today, 23(5), 20. Ankrum, J.W. (2006). Differentiated reading instruction in one exemplary teacher’s classroom: A case study. UMI Number 3250978. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company Ankrum, J.W. & Bean, R. (January/February, 2008). Differentiated reading instruction: What and how. Reading Horizons, 48 (2), 133-‐146. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, (pp.205-‐242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McGill-‐Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J.L. (2006). The confluence of two policy mandates:core
reading programs and third grade retention in Florida. Elementary School Journal, 107 (1) 67-‐91. Pressley, M., Allington, R. L, Wharton-‐McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-‐grade classrooms. New York: Guilford.
Schumm, J.S., Moody, S.W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities 33, 5, (477-‐488). Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K.F., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-‐grade reading instruction in low-‐ income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-‐164.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA School Change Framework: An evidence–based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40-‐60. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45
Sharryn Larsen Walker is an assistant professor of Literacy in the Department of Education at Central Washington University. She primarily teaches courses in children’s literature and literacy methods. Previously she served as faculty at Stephens College and as a clinical associate at the University of Missouri.
Jody Feldman, author of The Gollywhopper Games Abstract After reading Jody Feldman’s book, The Gollywhopper Games, the pre-‐service teachers enrolled in a children’s literature course, interviewed her by telephone or through Skype. In small groups, the pre-‐service teachers first brainstormed questions to ask. Then, as a class, the pre-‐service teachers and their instructor interviewed Jody during one class period. Presented here is a compilation of the interviews from six different sections of the course. After reading the award-‐winning book, The Gollywhopper Games, pre-‐service teachers interviewed St. Louis children’s author Jody Feldman through telephone and Skype. This collaboration between a children’s author, a college professor, and pre-‐service teachers is one that has excited and motivated all the participants to read more children’s literature, and to examine how one writer hones her craft.
Jody began each interview with a description of her background and how she came to write children’s books. From there, the interview was guided by the questions posed by both the pre-‐service teachers and their instructor. Presented here is a compilation of six interviews over a one-‐year period.
JF: I often begin my school visits by asking the audience to choose their future relationship with writing. By a show of hands, I ask for those who want to be writers when they grow up, those who want to incorporate writing into their occupations, those who’d rather take jobs where they didn’t have to write, and those who’d choose to never write anything ever again. I disclose that when I was in school, I didn’t want to write again. So when I started college, I majored in psychology. I was good at helping my friends with their problems, so what could have been more perfect? But after taking a couple courses, I was bored out of my mind. I thought about different degree options. Since I was at the University of Missouri, with one of the best journalism schools in the country, I decided to take advantage of that program. The disconnect here, however, was in journalism, one has to write. I decided to focus on the advertising end of the program, which didn’t seem as intimidating, and I found I was good at it.
GAMES, PUZZLES, AND RIDDLES IN CHILDREN’S BOOLS: AN INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR JODY FELDMAN
Sharryn Larsen Walker, Ph.D.
46
When I began my first job in advertising, I was so quick at writing advertising copy, I ran out of work before I ran out of day. To kill time and because I liked to play with words, I began writing “Dr. Seuss-‐type” poems. I soon realized there was only one Dr. Seuss and I needed to find my own niche. I began writing other picture books, but I realized I had far too many words in me. So I experimented with the gamut of novels from chapter to edgy young adult books, but found my stride in writing for tweens. SW: How did The Gollywhopper Games come about? JF: As I mentioned in the Acknowledgments of the book, I was volunteering in my daughter’s school library when a fifth grader came in looking for a book just like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. The librarian searched for something which might interest him, but he left totally unsatisfied. That’s when I decided to write a book that he, or other kids like him, might want to read after Charlie. It took a lot of pacing and several discarded ideas before I got excited about basing my book on toys and games. After that, I spent time walking in a daze, contemplating character, setting, plot, theme, and premise. I wrote the book, sent it off to publishers, and received a file folder full of rejections. I abandoned that manuscript and started working on other writing projects, honing my craft as a writer. About a decade later, I took that book out of its drawer and dusted it off. After revising it greatly, I was able to secure an agent who helped me get it into the hands of a publisher. The Gollywhopper Games was published in 2008. SW: Were you ever able to tell the boy in the library about the book? JF: I never knew his name, and after all this time (he would be an adult now) the librarian didn’t even remember that incident. It was important to me, but not to her. Still, I do thank him for the inspiration. SW: How do you come up with the puzzles and games found in The Gollywhopper Games and now in the recently published The Seventh Level? JF: I have always been interested in word play. I think that is why I found writing advertising so easy. Also, I have been a subscriber to Games magazine since its first edition. I’ve spent countless hours working the magazine’s puzzles, riddles, and brainteasers. This has given me a solid foundation for creating puzzles of my own. When I brainstorm puzzle ideas, I start with an 11 x 17 sheet of paper and a set of colored pens, and I open my mind, always keeping plot and character stashed somewhere in there. I doodle, draw, make word connections and suddenly, instinctively, intuitively (I apologize for not having a better explanation than this), the puzzles start to take shape. Then I bring the story elements into focus to make sure whichever puzzles I’m creating fit into the context of the plot and characters.
While we’re this subject of brainstorming, I should mention that the process I use to name my characters is much the same. I sit with paper and pens again, this time, with a baby-‐naming book and take great care that the personality of the character relates to his or her name.
As an aside, I have the TV on during most every brainstorming session. The spoken words and visual
images give me some great ideas. Teachers and parents don’t necessarily like me telling that to kids, but that’s what works for me; it’s how I think.
SW: It sounds as if you pay attention to your own learning style when you write. How does that notion play a part in your writing?
47
JF: Learning styles of people are important in both The Gollywhopper Games and The Seventh Level. In The Gollywhopper Games, Gil, the main character, needs to be smart enough to solve the puzzles to have a chance to win. In the Seventh Level Travis seems to be in the wrong place at the wrong time so often that the people around him, as well as Travis himself, lose sight of his abilities. I like to think of him as possibly having ADHD, but is not medicated for it. Near the opening of the book, we witness Travis hanging off the roof of his school. He has his reasons – reasons which provide a catalyst for the story -‐-‐ but the adults in the book don’t see them. When I write puzzle books, each of my characters show a different kind of smart, and with the help of others or by necessarily digging deep into their own reservoirs, they can often find the tools to solve the puzzles. I purposely write different types of puzzles to speak to the different strengths in all of us and also to play to the different strengths that each child brings to the reading experience. SW: What advice do you have for teachers who are helping their students to write? JF: For me, writing the puzzles is easy; writing plot is hard. Writing in general is hard. The words start bright and shiny in your brain, but often lose their magic when they make it onto paper. When I’m crafting a plot, I rely on my background in journalism and especially the basic questions we all learn early on. I have to decide who my character is, where the story takes place (setting), when it occurs. Those are the easy ones -‐-‐ relatively, at least. It’s the what, the why and the how which provide the true backbone to story. What does the character want? Why does the character want it? And how will the character achieve that (or how will he fail to achieve?) If I keep those in mind, my story will be cohesive and satisfying, and I know I will have done my job of exploring the possibilities. I tell students – and it’s something you can tell them as a teacher – that when they don’t know where to start or get stuck when they’re writing a paper, a story, or to a test prompt, they can focus their ideas by keeping the basic questions (the 5W’s and one H) in mind. The other element I like to speak to is revision. Almost all writers will tell you that writing is all about revising. That includes small and large fixes, from getting individual verbs right to making sure dialogue sounds realistic to throwing out entire scenes when they neither move the plot nor deepen character development. When I visit schools, I show a two-‐foot stack of different versions of The Gollywhopper Games to illustrate just how much work goes into writing one book. I’ve had teachers tell me how much they appreciate that one visual, how they feel better equipped to remind their students how important the revision process is within assignments. And it’s nothing to fear. SW: What are you working on now? JF: I am working on my third novel, but I don’t like to discuss details before it’s done. When I finish, I’ll submit it to my agent. And if it passes her muster, she’ll ship it off to my editors. If they accept it, the new book will come out in about a year or more. The timetable depends on many factors including how much revision the story needs and what’s already on their publishing schedule. SW: Any final words? JF: In order to be a better writer; you have to be a reader. Ideas for writing come from reading. So I would repeat the old writers’ mantra of, “read, read, read, write, write, write.”
Jody Feldman is the author of The Gollywhopper Games (2008) and The Seventh Level (2010). As of this writing, The Gollywhopper Games has been chosen for inclusion on 12 state reading lists. She hopes The Seventh Level will follow suit. Jody frequently speaks in schools and at conferences on her reading and writing
48
experiences. When you ask her if she’s working on anything new, the answer is always, “Yes.” To learn more about Jody, you can visit her website at http://www.jodyfeldman.com
Children’s Books Cited
Dahl, R. (1964). Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Feldman, J. (2008). The Gollywhopper Games. New York: Greenwillow. Feldman, J. (2010). The Seventh Level. New York: Greenwillow.
