Sara+Module+2+Response

Module 2 Response: wilkiesa@msu.edu

I was interested to learn more about the formal RTI model and the Tiers associated with the intervention process. This is something we’ve been working on in my district, but unless you are an identified reading specialist or a teacher of students in lower elementary, there is little opportunity to engage in conversation around the meaning, framework or response strategies. Working with the upper elementary students, I haven’t had an opportunity to share team meetings or discussions with those making specific plans to support and improve literacy progress. I am quite interested in learning more about the outcomes assessments and the process districts follow for determining when a student has improved to the degree they no longer require a specific Tier of intervention. (s // ee discussion thread: RTI) //
 * //Assessment Data to Inform Instruction (RTI)//**

From a broader perspective, using assessment data to truly inform instruction is something I imagine we all strive to do. I firmly believe this can lie at the center of differentiating instruction, but only when the assessments have been designed and are being implemented to effectively do just that, //inform instruction//. I often wonder if we’re really designing assessments to reflect our learning concepts, or outcomes (what we want our kids to know and be able to do)…and, if so, are we actually collecting, considering and applying that data to inform our instruction? Even performance-based assessments are often used to assess knowledge targets. We seem to continue to buy-in to the belief that sorting, stacking and ranking students is critical in the process of measuring successful schools or districts. Or is it more that we don't have the time necessary to adequately sort, interpret, consider, apply and reflect on the data we've collected from our students? (s // ee discussion thread: Collecting, Organizing & Connecting Student Data) //

Although not withstanding implementation challenges of it’s own, it appears the triad of formative, interim and summative assessments (Marion & Gong, 2009) offers a somewhat comprehensive approach to the development of a more accurate reader profile. When designed in concert with student self-assessment, and with particular attention to factors influencing student engagement and motivation, it would seem as though a balanced approach to assessment to inform instruction might be possible. I am anxious to think and read more about this and how the pieces best fit together. (s // ee discussion thread: Reader Profiles) //

“//However, because we are expert readers we no longer think about the processes we use to read//.” (Duffy, 2004). How often is the content so clear in our own minds that we teach right over our students’ heads?
 * //Our Expert Blindspots//**

I appreciated so much about this section, especially the recognition of the transfer gap between what is taught or practiced in isolation and the actual act or art of reading and writing (Taylor, 2008). I see this all of the time. My students deconstruct stories or passages with their Language Arts class, drawing on prior knowledge, determining the meaning of vocabulary, what they understand about the characters in the context of the novel, and what makes sense to them as readers and writers. However, when it comes to information or work they find on the Web, they seem to lose their common sense and all they’ve learned about decoding and deconstructing information. Afflerbach, Kim, Crassas, and Cho (2011), point out that Internet and hypertext have altered the landscape of “reading a text” and suggest teacher’s consider student’s efficiency and need in formats with both single and multiple sources of text. (s // ee discussion thread: Expert Blindspots) //

To this end, the students and I have spent a great deal of time looking at the range of media available to them and the various contexts in which they are developing fluency. We also discuss the reasons literacy skills are important, model a range of digital literacy concepts and strategies, and work through which strategies and concepts might be manageable for some to navigate independently and which might work best with a bit of support. Thinking and learning “out loud” through this kind of processing and scaffolding has enhanced our class culture, and promoted the idea that we have a great deal to learn with and from one another.

The framework for **Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction** is something we’ve used, as well, and has really helped students not only grasp the material a little more firmly, but take more responsibility for the content of their reading. When the students truly //want to know more// about a topic, it’s a wonderful vehicle for learning! Our strongest work has been done when I release control of the CORI framework to the students (Morrow & Gambrell p 425, Figure 17.3 ), allowing and supporting them as they make observations, personalize the content, lead the discussions and generate questions for further study. In the second phase, students share methods for finding answers to their questions and use a range of strategies for assessing their effort, progress and achievement. During what might be considered phase three, students work to synthesize their findings, think about their learning and understanding, identify the formal components of the process (essential question, central idea, supporting details, etc.), and support their work by adding additional resources, images and links to related content. Throughout the process, students rely on one another to offer critical feedback, ask probing questions about their topics and findings, challenge one another’s perspective, and check the validity of cited resources. It is a rich, complex and at times very arduous learning journey for our class. I have no doubt that we wouldn’t yield the same return if I were to ask students to invest the same energy and commitment to a topic or question of __my__choice. Using student interest and curiosity to drive learning has made an immeasurable difference! My eyes have been opened to an entirely different set of skills and strategies my students use when exploring or investigating something of authentic interest to them. I strive to offer students opportunities I know will motivate and engage them so their work more accurately reflects their true capacity for reading, writing, speaking, listening and demonstrating their understanding and knowledge. Without considering their out-of-school literacies, it’s nearly impossible to accurately assess the true capacity of any learner (Afflerbach, Kim, Crassas, and Cho, 2011). (s // ee discussion thread: CORI) //

We have done some form of literature circles since I began teaching nearly eighteen years ago (gasp!). A piece that seems fundamental to me but that appeared to be missing in some of the models I reviewed is the process of students developing questions about what they’ve read. For years, I ran literature circles with an intense focus on students sharing connections to the book, identifying passages or characters of interest, supporting their connections with evidence from the text, identifying main ideas and supporting details, developing quality responses to assigned questions, listening and even offering feedback to their peers (Peterson and Eeds, 1990). It has only been in the last several years that I’ve added student questioning to the mix. Encouraging students to think about and question their reading: for clarity, purpose, meaning, interest, connections to related ideas, etc. seems to be a natural way to extend the reach of their experience. I am very interested in considering the role of questioning shapes the learning of developing readers. "//The quality of our thinking is given in the quality of our questions//" - Linda Elder (s // ee discussion thread: Questioning) //
 * //Literature Circles//**

The entire contents of Best Practices chapter resonated with the experiences I’ve had as a learner and a teacher. The introduction to the chapter, however, directly related to what I’ve observed as an instructional coach and mentor of teacher learners. A bit of a sideways response, my notes here reflect the discussions I’ve had with a wide range of teachers who are who are committed to learning with and from their students.
 * //Best Practices: for all learners? Using Assessment to Inform Instruction//**

At the close of the first page, the authors write about the process of becoming literate. They draw specific attention to the developmental path most teachers recognize as the core of this process: “from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the symbolic, from the conventional to the unconventional…”. This statement caused me to re-read the opening section, in its entirety, and draw distinct connections to the process of becoming literate in any discipline or area, for any learner. Recognizing the increasingly diverse learning environments in which we all teach and learn, the question the authors raise of how to differentiate instruction is of critical importance for all (Gregory & Chapman, 2006). It has been my experience that teachers often feel rushed and called upon to attend to a wide range of things at any given time. This pushes many to move past this fundamental question without taking the time to a) adequately consider the range of possibilities in instruction, or b) identify and incorporate the essential elements that will ensure an effective differentiated instructional approach to literacy, and/or other areas.

Perhaps in an effort to be more efficient we often reach for what I call a “binder curriculum” for new and even existing content, approaches and initiatives. I’ve learned, as highlighted in this chapter, that this kind of cookie-cutter approach does not meet the needs of all learners (Raphael et al., 2003; Tyner, 2009). If we’re simply handing out binders of curriculum and asking teachers to differentiate their instruction, without providing time and opportunity for them to consider, collaborate, implement, reflect, iterate and try again, or to become literate in the process of creating a differentiated learning environment, are we serving them any better than they can realistically serve their developing readers? I believe the truth of the matter is that successful classroom-based reading assessment demands teacher expertise – something that is not found in a binder or boxed curriculum, but through protected time for professional development, building and district support and accountability, and a personal commitment to being an “educated consumer” of assessment instruction (Afflerbach, Kim, Crassas, and Cho, 2011).

More time consuming in thought, process and perhaps even resources, the model to which the authors refer in the introduction of chapter 17 includes components I’ve found to be critical to most learning environments: small group instructional models that use a range of instructional differentiation strategies and that may be gradually expanded toward increasing complexity. It is through this model that teachers are learning through best practices, including explanations, modeling and scaffolding (Morrow & Gambrell, p 417). In addition, teachers must be committed to finding authentic ways to work with their students, as well as to educate themselves on effective assessment instruction (Afflerbach, Kim, Crassas, and Cho, 2011). (s // ee discussion thread: Teachers As Learners) //