Book Review: Literacy is Not Enough

Title:Literacy is Not Enough: 21^st Century Fluencies for the Digital Age

Authors: Lee Crocket, Ian Jukes, Andrew Churches

Publisher:21^st Century Fluency Project with Corwin Press.

Date: 2011

ISBN: 978-1-4129-8780-6

Pages: 232

As the title states, literacy is not enough. Literacy, in the traditional definition, means the ability to read and write. According to The World Fact book, which uses this most basic definition, the United States has a literacy rate of 99%. That sounds really good. However, according to the latest International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS), between 21% and 24% of U.S. adults performed at the lowest level on three literacy scales: document literacy, prose literacy and quantitative (number) literacy – which leads to lower salaries and work hours and greater rates of incarceration and use of food stamps. But, the authors highlight other issues – even routine cognitive work is being outsource (ie reading MIRs and other medical diagnostics). To continue to be competitive students need to learn to be problem solvers, creative, analytical, collaborative, communicative, and ethical and the authors propose a focus on five fluencies rather than literacies to guide long-term planning in education. In other words, “We need to rethink what our definition of literate is, because a person who is literate by the standards of the 20^th century may be illiterate in the culture of the 21^st century” (p. 57).

Here is some interesting food for thought:

“How we teach problem solving in classrooms today isn't really working for us. Presenting a problem, then giving students the answer by showing them how we got it, and then repeating the process over and over by giving them a series of similar problems to solve doesn't cut it. When we do this, we aren't teaching them anything other than how smart we are. We are cultivating dependency, not independent though and the ability to analyze and solve problems.” p. 23

So, the authors present 5 Fluencies and their components skills:

Solution Fluency

• Define the problem
• Discover the context of the problem and availability of information
• Dream about solutions
• Design a plan
• Deliver the plan
• Debrief about process and results

Information Fluency

• Ask good questions
• Acquire multiple sources and types of information
• Analyze, authenticate and arrange the information
• Apply knowledge
• Assess the process and results

Creative Fluency

• Identify problem
• Inspire yourself through seeking information, ideas, connections etc
• Interpolate (find patterns) in the information
• Imagine what is possible
• Inspect idea – evaluate and assess

Media Fluency

• Listen
  • To the message – verbalize and verify
  • To the medium – the form, flow and alignment
• Leverage
  • The message – content and outcome
  • The medium – audience, ability and criteria

Collaboration Fluency

• Establish the group, norms, roles, responsibilities, etc
• Envision the purpose and outcome
• Engineer the steps needed
• Execute the plan
• Examine the process and outcome

The authors draw from Daniel Pink (2006), who concluded that often education is the process of teaching us what we can't do. Which, I think, does happen in too many classrooms, because proficiency is celebrated with grades and recognition, but risk-taking and trying yet not completely succeeding is avoided (by both teachers and students).

Beyond the Fluencies, the authors discuss Global Digital Citizenship. Since “we stay so connected to our friends [across time and space] it's like we have one long conversation that never ends; it just has some very long pauses” (p.79). In other words, whether we like it or not, we are all global citizens, because the daily events and happenings from around the world are deposited into our consciousnesses through social media and commercial media instantaneously and steadily. This requires teaching students to have particular awareness and responsibility to:

• Respect themselves
• Protect themselves
• Respect others
• Protect others
• Respect intellectual property
• Protect intellectual property (p. 81)

Most schools and businesses require users to sign an Acceptable User Policy (AUP) for the computer network. However, the authors argue that most of these policies for on the restriction of use, rather than supporting and teaching responsible use of technology. They provide a Digital Citizenship Agreement, that could replace the AUP using the foundations of respect and protect

The last part of the book has some unit plans for various grade and subject areas with a focus on developing the various fluencies through real-life simulations and project-based learning, along with a short discussion about assessment with more formative, self and peer assessment and reflection being key.

So, what is the essential pedagogical guidelines for 21st Century Learning? Velcro Learning!

• Make it sticky 
• Draw from the past 
• Repeat - often 
• Give positive feedback - frequently

Here are some online resources:

21^st Century Fluency Project

http://www.fluency21.com/index.cfm

The Partnership for 21^st Century Skills

http://www.p21.org/

Online Professional Development - It's easier now!

When I first began teaching overseas, I craved the interactive professional development of conferences and well-planned in-services.  However, there was a dearth of both for various reasons - time, money, small teaching staff etc.  But, I found several resources to fill the gap.  One summer at NECC (now ISTE's annual conference), I won a year's worth of classes through Classroom Connect Connected University.  Again, remember, this was ten years ago when online learning was still uncommon.  It was so amazing and fun.  I took classes on communicating with parents with technology, creating good internet projects, and infusing technology across the curriculum.  I also found my way to MiddleWeb, which has had various incarnations since its early days.  I loved having the ability to post a question to countless colleagues around the world and have multiple answers within hours.  Now, I realize this doesn't sound surprising, but in the early 2000s, social networking was still new. 

But now?  Wow - there are so many resources online for teachers to continue their professional development.  One that I'm especially keen about this the Teachers Teaching Teachers Technology Virtual Conference (4TVirtualCon) which has FREE registration!  Last year I attended and presented on creating an  internet projects that ROCKS.  This year, I'm interested in the 4T's mulitple sessions about QR codes in the classroom.

Twitter has also become my goto space for connections with colleagues. If you don't know what this is all about, check out Teachers on Twitter: It's All About the Hashtag.  As a teacher, I attend Twitter chat sessions for English teachers #engchat on Monday nights.  As a research and academic, I also follow #phdchat (Wed  and #gradschool. There is a good overview of Twitter for Academics from the University of Evansville.  I also found Using Twitter in University Research, Teaching and Impact Activities.

I often hear about people's predictions about what the classrooms of the future will look like.  However, in just thinking about how the opportunities for teacher professional development have changed over just the last decade, I think the better question is, what should the classrooms of today be using to prepare students for the world of the future.  We certainly can't accurately predict what the new technologies will be.  Somehow, I've learned to adapt and embrace the changes of the last few years, but how? I have to admit, it is a lot of trite proverbs:

* If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

* Treat others as you would like to be treated.

* Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.

* Faith sees a beautiful blossom in a bulb, a lovely garden in a seed, and a giant oak in an acorn. William Arthur Ward 

* Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of old ones.  

* If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.-Isaac Newton

* Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant. -Mitchell Kapor

 

Teachers as Continual, Collaborative Learners: A Case-study of Implementing New Practices

I'm presenting another poster at  Division K - Teaching and Teacher Education / Section 8: Teacher Professional Development: Impact on Teacher Practices and Student Learning.  

Several years ago, I was supervising a student teacher at a middle school and the CT was using literature circles.  I was curious how the practice got started in the school because I have often seen individual teachers use literature circles, but I haven't often seen an entire school adopt the practice.  I am a strong supporter of the use of literature circles and have given numerous workshops to introduce and refine the use of peer-led book discussions.  However, I also often hear things like, "I tried literature circles and they didn't work."  In my own experience,  the first time I used literature circles, I also encountered several problems that I had to resolve to make the discussions rich and meaningful.  I wondered how this particular school sustained the practice over time.  So, I decided to talk to some of the teachers currently using literature circles.  Here is an outline of my research and poster:

Abstract

This exploratory case-study of a small Midwestern middle school seeks to understand how and why one school moved toward implementing student-led literature discussions. Data was collected through interviews with three teachers and analyzed using thematic analysis and constant comparison. Several themes emerged focusing on professional development, which indicate that professional development practices need to: encourage the development of teacher-leaders; support collaboration; recognize that teachers are adult learners; be embedded in daily practice; recognize that to truly embrace a new practice, teachers may initially struggle with the practice.

The research question is:

• What professional development support structures are needed to give teachers the knowledge base and confidence to implement and refine the use of student-led literature discussions in their classrooms?

Data Sources & Analysis

• 3 focused teacher interviews of 60-90 mins.
• Thematic analysis & constant comparison

Analysis (Support structures needed)

• Teacher-leaders
  • Sally introduced & championed lit. circles
    • Inspired teachers to take risks
  • Current – librarian support
    • Lunch book club & adult book club
    • Supports teachers in acquiring books
• Collaboration
  • Reflecting with each other
  • Team teaching
  • Articulating ideas
• Recognition of the needs of adult learners(the teachers)
  • Identified need for differentiation
  • Choose the pedagogy
  • Worked together to build practice
• Embedded in Practice
  • Daily contact with practice & teachers
  • Constant reflection & refinement during practice
  • Applied to own context
• Struggle & Refinement
  • Struggled with:
    • Assessment
    • Finding books
    • Preparation for discussion (roles)
  • But, were given time, space & support to refine
  • Identified areas for modifications

Conclusion

In this study, the three teachers spoke extensively about the teacher-leader who introduced them to student-led literature discussions and the support she gave as they were learning. Even after her departure, her legacy continued, as the initial teachers are passing the practice to new teachers. Traditionally schools tend to look to the principal, curriculum director or other specialists to provide the leadership and direction for professional development, however, more teachers are becoming informal teacher-leaders in their schools, especially when the formal processes of leadership have been ineffective. If there is recognition that teachers are adult learners, with unique needs and issues, then the deficit model of professional development can be eliminated. Instead, by focusing on the strengths and expertise already existing in schools and providing time and space for collaborative reflection that is embedded in daily practice, professional development can be relevant, empowering and influential in changing practice.

Navigating Essential Tensions While Adopting New Practices

This week I've been working through the outline for another article based on my dissertation work.  I'm creating a poster for the AERA Annual Conference in Vancouver .  I've been invited to participate in the Division K Teacher and Teacher Education Graduate Seminar.

Abstract

Teachers have been using the reading workshop format since the late 1980s. Research supports the underlying prospects of the reading workshops such as self-selected reading (Allington, 2006; Krashen, 2004) and extensive reading (Allington, 1983; Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1988; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). There are multiple books, courses, workshops and videos to help teachers implement the method and philosophy in classrooms from early childhood through high school, however, teachers still struggle with implementing the workshop approach. The goal of this study was to document and understand the experiences of two third grade teachers as they implement a reading workshop approach to teaching reading in their classrooms. The lens of activity theory (AT) and contradictions provides a tool to inquire into various aspects of pedagogical change, taking into account individual perspectives and context as well as evolution over time. AT and its principle of contradictions provide insights into how transformation occur with the adoption of new practices and the tensions between conventional classroom practices and dialogic pedagogy.

Theoretical Framework

• Activity theory (Engeström, 1987, 1993)
  • Activity system analysis
  • Expensive learning
• Collaborative reflection (Rodgers, 2002)
• Reading workshop (Atkins 1998; Calkins 2001; Reif 1992)

Methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1983; Scriven, 1983; Stake, 1983).

• Instrumental case study
• Naturalistic inquiry
• Grounded interpretations

Data & Participants

• Two third-grade teachers
  • Classroom observation & field notes
  • Interviews
  • Collaborative reflection sessions

Essential Tensions Exhibited

• Teacher as Expert vs. Teachers as Learner (Subject/Community)
• Traditional Core Novel Approach vs. Reading Workshop Approach (Tool/Objective)
• Monologic Interactions vs. Dialogic Interactions (Division of Labor)
• Commercial Curriculum Program  vs. Contextualizing Curriculum (Rules/Authority)

Conclusion

Prophetically, Bond and Dykstra realized that reading education needs to focus on the “teacher and learning situation characteristics rather than method and materials” (1967, p.123) and because of the variety of students in any classroom, “it is necessary to train better teachers of reading rather than to expect a panacea in the form of materials” (p. 123). Research and teacher training needs to focus on the decision making and reflective process of teachers in context not just the implementation of a program or curriculum. In this study, the teachers struggled with reconciling their old practices, expectations and perceptions with the new pedagogical demands inherent in the workshop approach. As Wold observed, “Deep-level literacy implementation requires strategic decision making and action. The process of becoming an exemplary literacy practitioner requires deliberate, long-term attention to and reflection on practice” (2002, p. 91). Even with a mandated or scripted curriculum, teachers are constantly making decisions about which content to teach, how to structure the lesson, which materials to use, and how to respond to students. Over time, the two teachers in this study experimented with different approaches and reflected on the process, which illuminated some of the underlying tensions of philosophy, practice, and expectations that influenced the classroom culture and through the reconciliation of the old and the new, the teachers have transformed their teaching.

Why do we have to learn this?

How often have you heard your own students say these words? I've heard it from middle schoolers through graduate level. When I was a kid, I was told, “Because.” As a teacher, I know that if I hear this question, I missed something in my lesson – I haven't helped the students connect their learning to their own experiences or project how it could be useful in the future. Making learning relevant seems to be official term, but I just have the small voice of a 6^th grader in my head, guiding my lesson planning, “Why do we have to learn this?”

So, this vignette is for the math teachers who might stumble on an English teacher's blog, and I swear, this actually happened.

I stopped at Little Caesar’s to pick up dinner for tonight (hopefully the health teachers aren't reading). The cashier was asking if anyone could tell her how to make a real number out of 21%, or what 21% would mean.

Since I had to wait for my pizza any way, I decided to enter the conversation. I asked, “What are you trying to figure out?”

“How much is 21%?” asked the cashier.

“Well,” I said, “If you have 21% of 100, that would be 21.”

“Okay,” said the cashier.

“Let's take some round numbers. So, think about paying tip at a restaurant. If the bill is 20 dollars, 10% would be 1 dollar, 20% would be 2 dollars.”

“Oh,” exclaimed the cashier, “That makes sense.”

“But, you can only know the percent out of something, so what is the something number?”

The cashier looked downcast, “We didn't make our upsell by 21%, but we don't actually know what that means.”

“So, how many pizzas were you suppose to sell?” I asked.

“77.”

“10% of 77 would be 7.7, so 20% would be double that, so about 15.”

“We were short 15 pizzas. So, why didn't they say that! I like you lady, you're a smart customer. I usually use my cellphone to figure stuff like that out,” said the delighted cashier as she turned to her co-workers in the back and explained what being 21% short on their upsell meant.

As I got in my car, with pizza in hand, I wondered why math wasn't relevant to this person when she went through school. But, being the teacher I am, I wondered to myself how often I failed to make my lessons relevant to my students. Just recently I had to fly through 100 years of history in less than four weeks and constantly struggled over coverage (according to the official syllabus) and depth (teaching for understanding, my philosophy). It was like going to Baskin Robbins and getting to taste every one of the 31 flavors, but using one of those itty-bitty plastic spoons – you get a flavor, but not a real taste. If I felt that as the teacher, how did my students feel?

But, making teaching and learning relevant involves multiple aspects – student motivation, choice of content, learning activities, knowledge of students, projected future possible lives of students, teacher enthusiasm, and supportive academic relationships. Weaving these aspects together is the art of teaching.

Re-Imagining Teaching and Learning

Lately I've had many discussions with my pre-service teachers about what it means to be a teacher and what teaching looks like. So many students grow up in schools with very traditional views of what it means to be a teacher. The traditional view is that the teacher “is in charge” of the classroom. This means the teacher talks, the student listens – the teacher assigns, the students do (or do not and get punished) – the teacher determines the course of study, the students follow. I found this interesting “rules of the classroom” from Matusov that illustrates the unstated expectations of the traditional classroom. He says:

Conventional student agency is usually assumed to involve the student's willingness to participate in the following major actions:

1. Do unconditionally what the teacher asks you to do (behaviorally, educationally, intellectually, relationally, morally, and so on).
2. Try to understand what the teacher wants from you.
3. Put your efforts, industry, eagerness, intelligence, and diligence toward what the teacher assigns as well and as much as possible, based on the teacher's judgment of what “well” means.
4. Censor your own agendas, desires, genres, and actions that are not sanctioned by the teacher.
5. Restrain and do not support other students who disrupt and deviate from the teacher's assignments.
6. Postpone your self-actualization and goal-defining processes until the ""grown-up" future, when education is over (or at least when the school day is over and you are outside of the school time and space, outside of the school Assignment Chronotope) (student as "a halfbeing"; see Sidorkin, 2002).
7. Actively desire to do 1-6 (Fendler, 1998).

Matusov, E. (2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In E. J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Put in these terms, the classroom doesn't sound like a very nice place to be, but this scenario is being played out in classrooms around the nation. I have a front row seat to many of them. In this type of classroom the goal seems to be “teaching” - going through the motions of what teaching should look like, without asking the basic question of, “What are the students learning?” If they are learning the above rules, then they are learning to play school and play the game. If they don't learn to do the above, then they are determined to be at-risk, struggling, or in need of special services. How many students are not reaching their full potential, because their potential is being determined by the restrictive clauses of obedience and fulfillment of duty?

I had a pre-service teacher talk about the frustration of trying to help individual students or small groups of students in the face of being “in charge” of a particular classroom activity. “How am I supposed to get everyone involved if I'm busy being in charge of the class?” I agree, many teachers feel pulled in multiple directions when faced with 25 or more students, all with different needs. But, my first questions was, “Why do you need to be in charge?” I think the pre-service teacher thought I was teasing. I was questioning the foundational principle of being a teacher, which means being in charge. The pre-service teacher blinked a few times, with head shaking and said, “What do you mean?” Again, I asked, “Why do you need to be in charge? What other alternatives are there to that image? Why couldn't a student lead the activity? Why couldn't you use small groups? How could the students be more actively involved with the knowledge and activity, freeing you up to check-in with students?”

This leads to a second issue – that of perception – the teacher's perception of what the community expects the classroom to look like. Having been through 16+ years of schooling, mostly in a traditional manner, many teachers believe that is what parents want and administrator expect. In my own experience, I've had parents say, “Well, I had to memorize it, so my student should too!” Or, “His sister had a vocabulary list, why doesn't he?” Its the old adage of “If it was good enough for me, it should be good enough for today's student. I had to read Huck Finn, so she should too!” This means, that as teachers, we need to recognize and elicit what our parents/students believe the classroom should look like (based on outdated models) and help them re-imagine what is needed for the 21^st century. And, in actuality, we need to help current teachers re-imagine this too.

This leads to a third issue – that of trust – trusting that students already posses knowledge and skills that can be built upon, rather than empty receptacles awaiting for the elixir of information to pour forth from the teacher. When teachers trust that students have something to contribute, and give them tools to articulate their knowledge and experiences, the shared learning that happens can be tremendous. Yes, I'm going all Vygotsky on you now, but I emphatically believe that learning is a social activity that requires the participation of each individual to expand the capacity of the group.

Shifting Stances: The Researcher's Role in Formative Design

Shifting Stances: The Researcher's Role in Formative Design on Prezi

Share/Listen/Connect: PechaKucha Presentation Night

• Date Today, Oct. 26
• Time 6-8 p.m.
• Location: TITU, Union South
• Description: At this PechaKucha-style event, graduate students will get the chance to present to their peers in a relaxed and fun atmosphere. Presentations will be followed by time to discuss, network, and socialize. Food and drinks will be provided. Registration appreciated. If you wish to give a short presentation, or would like more information, please write to gsc@grad.wisc.edu.

Teacher Decision Making and Reflective Practice in Reading Workshop

Almost a half-century ago, in a seminal study on reading instruction in first grade, Bond and Dykstra (1967) reported that the future in research in reading education needed to focus on the “teacher and learning situation characteristics rather than method and materials” (p.123). They also stated that because of the variety of students in any classroom, “ it is necessary to train better teachers of reading rather than to expect a panacea in the form of materials” (p. 123). This would indicate a need for a focus on the decision making and reflective process of teachers in context not just the implementation of a program or curriculum. As Wold observed, “Deep-level literacy implementation requires strategic decision making and action. The process of becoming an exemplary literacy practitioner requires deliberate, long-term attention to and reflection on practice” (2002, p. 91). Even with a mandated or scripted curriculum, teachers are constantly making decisions about what content to teach, how to structure the lesson, which materials to use, and how to respond to students. Reading workshop teachers make these decisions also, but since one of the advantages of using a reading workshop framework is individualization of curriculum, it also means that teachers are making instructional decisions constantly for each child, each small group, and each day – without a teacher's manual for direction.

 

“Reflection is an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull over and evaluate it. It is this working with experience that is important in learning” (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985, p. 43). Grounded in the work of Dewey (1933), Schön (1983) ties action and reflection together in his reflective practice model. Knowing-in-action is the tacit professional knowledge which produces reflex-like actions in a situation. Experienced teachers often act on this intuitive level with their students. When a situation occurs that can't be immediately, reflexively responded to, then reflection-in-action occurs and a conscious, but not necessarily articulated decision about action is made. After the situation, reflection-on-action may occur, which is deliberate, articulated and possibly recorded in some form. Reflecting-on-action provides an opportunity to examine underlying philosophies, understandings or theories evident in the action and analysis these assumptions in order to plan for similar situations in the future. For a workshop approach to flow smoothly, teachers need to cultivate all three practices – with 20+ students in a classroom, some routines and actions need to be automatic and some need thought, but teachers need to know the difference between the two.

Reflection and reflective practice are considered a cornerstone of teacher education and professional development because “the main objective of reflective practice is to ensure a more accurate and relevant understanding of a situation such that professionally designed action in that situation is more likely to produce effective, relevant action which will facilitate the occurrence of more desired and effective outcomes” (Bright, 1993, p. 177). In short, teacher action influences student learning (Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005). Therefore, more effective teaching may result from continued reflective practice. 

 

Reflection is not necessarily a solo endeavor; “Reflective practice, while often confused with reflection, is neither a solitary nor a relaxed meditative process. To the contrary, reflective practice is a challenging, demanding, and often trying process that is most successful as a collaborative effort” (Karen, Osterman & Kott, 1993, p.19). Again, drawing on Vygotskian (1978) social development theory, reflective practice is more often a social, collaborative practice – whether informal (a chat in the teacher's lounge) or formal (literacy coaching model). Besides providing a sounding board for ideas, a reflective partner can provide a different perspective and possible challenge the teacher's ideas which leads to greater depth of reflection (Bright, 1996).

Based on the work of Rogers (2002), Woodcock, Lassonde, and Rutten (2004) provide a model for collaborative reflection, which is rooted in building trusting relationships with the partner or group (Figure 1). In this reflective cycle the practitioner describes the experience and analyzes the experience, but through the conversation with others, the practitioner becomes more aware of her beliefs and theories (meta-awareness of self) which leads to informed action. Baird contends, “Better teaching requires that teachers reflect on themselves and their practice, that this reflection should be set within a process of systematic enquiry, and that both reflection and enquiry should proceed by collaboration among members of a group” (1992, pp. 32-33).

Figure 1: Woodcock, Lassonde, & Rutten (2004) Collaborative Reflective Process

Effectiveness of Reading Workshop

Many of the components of the reading workshop reflect the ten evidence-based best practices of comprehensive literacy instruction as identified by Gambrell et al. (2007), illustrated in the table below (Table 1).

Evidence-Based Practice (Gambrell et al., 2007, p. 19)	Component of Reading Workshop (Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 2001)
Create a classroom culture that fosters literacy motivation.	Student choice of text; positive teacher attitude; large classroom library; book clubs
Teach reading for meaning-making literacy experiences, for pleasure, to be informed, and to perform a task	Authentic literature; mini-lesson topics; book clubs
Provide students with scaffolded instruction in phonemic awareness, phonic, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension to promote independent reading	Workshop time; individual conferences; small group instruction; mini-lessons
Give students plenty of time to read in class.	Workshop time
High quality literature	Authentic literature; large classroom library
Use multiple texts to link and expand vocabulary and concepts	Mini-lessons; small groups
Build a whole-class community that emphasizes important concepts and build upon prior knowledge	Mini-lessons; sharing time
Balance teacher- and student-led discussions	Small groups; book club
Use technologies to link and expand concepts	Mini-lessons
Use a variety of assessment techniques to inform instruction	Individual conferences; small groups; reading responses; sharing time
Table 1: Linking Reading Workshop to Effective Practices

The reading workshop approach to teaching reading combines many of the practices known to create better readers. Atwell (1987), Calkins (2001), and Rief (1994) all report that their students become more interested, engaged, motivated and better readers within the context of their classroom reading workshops. However, there have been few large sample or longitudinal empirical studies documenting the effectiveness of the reading workshop approach specifically. A few teachers and researchers report from their own classrooms or case studies that a reading workshop approach is effective in creating opportunities for more flexible teaching and individualization (Reutzel & Cooter, 1991; Towle, 2000), increasing student engagement in and motivation to read (Greer, 1994; Reutzel & Cooter, 1991) and instilling a love of reading (Lause, 2004). In addition, some studies report on the effectiveness of a reading workshop with targeted population such as improving attitude toward reading for students classified as learning disabled (Oberlin & Shurgarman, 1989), supporting adolescent at-risk students in constructing meaning from reading and developing an identity as a reader (Mueller, 2001; Taylor & Nesheim, 2000) and increasing comprehension for struggling readers (Williams, 2001).

Reading Workshop

According to Serafini (2001), the reading workshop is a “single block of time dedicated to the exploration of literature and the development of children’s reading processes” (p. 4). Although several authors have advanced their own version of the reading workshop (Atwell 1987/1998; Calkins; 2001; Keene & Zimmermann, 1997; Rief, 1992; Serafini, 2001), there are several components that are common: read aloud, mini-lesson, workshop time, and sharing time. Each component will be discussed further. 

Read Aloud

Many authors advocate for reading aloud to students, even at the secondary level. One of the most well-known advocates has been Jim Trelease with his The Read-Aloud Handbook published in 1982. As a general practice in any literacy classroom, it has been supported by research to build success in reading (Allen, 2000; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott & Wilkinson, 1985; Harvey & Goudvis, 2005), Atwell observed, “Everyone is enthralled by a good read-aloud. Hearing language brings it to life and fills the classroom with an author's language. The teachers' voice become a bridge for kids, taking them into territories they might never have explored” (1998, p. 144). Besides bring the words to life, a good read aloud will provide a model of fluent reading, a shared reading experience and text, an opportunity to model literate thinking, and build background knowledge (Allen, 2000; Atwell, 1998; Beers & Samuels, 1998; Combs, 1996; Rief, 1992). Although referring to read alouds between parents and their children, the findings from Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson et al, 1985) state, “The single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children (p. 23)” and “It is a practice that should continue throughout the grades” (p. 51). Since that report was published, research continues to show that effective read alouds promote vocabulary acquisition and comprehension skills (Beck & McKeown, 2001; Brabham & Lynch-Brown, 2002). 

Mini-lesson

A mini-lesson is a short (5-10 minutes), focused lesson on a skill, strategy, or routine that will help students become better readers and work within the format of a workshop that will be immediately applicable to the students' individual work (Angelillo, 2008; Calkins, & Tolan, 2010; Combs, 1996). Calkins stated that “minilessons are the best forum teachers have for pulling the classroom community together to take on a problem” (2001, p. 82). The topic for mini-lessons could be a routine for the workshop such as how to select a book, or a specific skill or strategy in reading such as figuring out a work from context or how to visualize a scene. Generally, in the beginning of the year, the topics of the mini-lessons focus on structures and routines of the workshop. As students settle into the structure, the mini-lesson topics tend to become more responsive to the specific needs of the group of students.

Many authors and teachers (Angelillo, 2008; Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1986; Orehovec & Alley, 2003) have written about the components of a mini-lesson, but they tend to have a similar structure. In synthesizing the a fore mentioned authors, the typical mini-lesson would include most of the following components:

• Invitation - The teacher draws the students together to focus introduce the topic or concept.
• Connection – The teacher locates the topic within the group's current work through reviewing previous lessons and setting a purpose for learning the topic of concept.
• Teaching – The teacher demonstrates the routine, skill or strategy through the use of a think aloud while reading or modeling the skill or strategy through the teacher's own reading and response.
• Practice – The students practices the routine, skill or strategy, through active involvement, often with a partner, as the teacher assesses for understanding.
• Revisit – The teacher reinforces or reteaches the concept through sharing of what student practiced or what the teacher observed.
• Charge to the class – The teacher reminds students what they should be doing during workshop time and links the mini-lesson concept to their own work.

Once the mini-lesson is completed, the students are sent off to work independently. When Atwell (1987) originally wrote about the mini-lesson, she emphasized the brevity of the mini-lesson, 10-15 minutes. However, since that time, she has revised her opinion on the length of the mini-lesson. After having relied on individual conferences to move students forward in their thinking and reading, Atwell (1998) realized that through thoughtful, interactive mini-lessons, students would be able to share their thinking and work and expand their perspectives. She felt that the extra time needed to provide students with opportunities to talk and share during the mini-lesson was worth an additional ten minutes - it reduced the pressure she felt to confer with every student, every day during workshop time. Robb agreed, referring to the the mini-lessons she models in her book Teaching Reading in the Middle School, “Many of the mini-lessons, which I call Strategy Lessons . . . will last 15-25 minutes, especially when you reserve time for students' questions and exchange of ideas” (2000, p. 67). Whether the mini-lesson is five minutes, or twenty five, the point is to allow students the opportunity to see and experience the concept in practice, before applying it to their independent work – which should happen within the same class period.

The topics of the mini-lessons can focus on a variety of issues. Although there are numerous texts giving suggestions for mini-lessons, Calkins states, “the minilesson is not a free-standing structure. Instead, the topic of the minilesson weaves its way into much of the community's reading work” (2001, p. 83). Atwell organized the topics she uses into four broad categories: procedural aspects of the workshop, the crafting of literature, the conventions of language, and strategies of good readers. According to Reutzel & Cooter (1991) mini-lesson topics can be drawn from the needs of the students found during individual conferences, teacher-selected skills taken from the mandated curriculum or preparation for new books or genres. 

Workshop Time

The largest block of time in the reading workshop is devoted to students' independent reading. During this time, students read authentic literature of their own choice and may respond to their reading in a variety of methods such as reading response logs or placing sticky notes in the book. In addition, during workshop time, the teacher can conference with students individually or pull small groups together to work on specific skills or strategies the group needs.

Independent, student-selected reading is a fundamental of the workshop approach, which contrasts sharply with the traditional whole-class model of reading. According to Anderson et al. “independent reading, whether in school or out of school, is associated with gains in reading achievement” (1985, p. 119). In addition, student self-selection of texts promotes positive attitudes toward reading and motivation to read (Palmer, Codling & Gambrell, 1994;Wood & Jones, 1997; Worthy,1998). According to Atwell, "If we want our adolescent students to grow to appreciate literature, another first step is allowing them to exert ownership and choose the literature they will read" (1987, p. 161). Some teachers may ask students to respond to their independent reading through reading logs, a daily reading record, or independent projects.

Small groups, in the reading workshop, can be flexible in both purpose, length and structure. Groups of students may be brought together to work on skills together. In the elementary years, this small group work may resemble Guided Reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1991) though Calkins (2010) recommends developing “a more expensive repertoire of ways of working with small groups” (p. 73) because, according to Calkins “the whole point is to be personal, to be intimate, and to be responsive” (p. 72). In many ways, the small group instruction preparation and structure resembles the mini-lesson, just with a targeted, small group of students. The teacher begins with a topic of instruction, provides a model and time for practice, revisits the topic and sends the students off to work independently (Calkins, 2010). Literature discussion groups may also be scheduled during workshop time to give students the opportunity to respond to their reading with others. There are various formats for discussions such as Grand Conversations (Eeds & Well, 1989), Book Clubs (Raphael & McMahon, 1994), and Literature Circles (Daniels, 1994) which all model how to have conversations about books.

Individualized feedback is the keystone of conferencing with students during their workshop time (Allen, 2009). In Atwell's (1987) workshop, much of the individual feedback occurs through reading response letters exchanged between the teacher and student. Acknowledging the tremendous paper load this created, she has also supported exchanging response letters between students, under her supervision (1998), and more recently, she has incorporated reading conferences rooted in her experiences with writing conferences (2007). This bears out Allen's (2009) observation that “teachers were talking to children about their writing, but not always taking the time to have the short, meaningful types of reading conferences” which he feels is “one of the most important and beneficial instructional moves I make with my students” (p. 8). He goes on to elaborate the multiple purposes for his conferences with students which include getting to know them as readers, strategy instruction, building rapport, assessment of student strategy use, goal setting, highlighting progress, and challenging students to move forward in their reading. In an individual conference, Calkins (2010) believes the teacher should act as a coach, drawing on the assessment of the student in previous conferences and small groups, recognition of the demands of the particular genre and level of text, and an understanding of the student as a person and a reader. 

 

Having a predictable structure to the conference can help the conference be more effective, efficient and enjoyable (Allen, 2009; Calkins, 2001; Miller, 2005). RIP is the memorable acronym Allen (2009) suggests which stands for: R – review, read aloud, record; I – instruction, insights, intrigue; P – plan, progress, purpose. Research-Decide-Teach is Calkins (2010) architecture for a conference which includes researching the child's needs before the conference, deciding on a helpful lesson for the child, build on the child's strengths and teaching the child something new. Whatever the structure of the conference, “your primary purpose is to listen to what students can teach you about the way they think and make meaning. You may focus the talk or probe for more information, but you cannot learn from them unless you listen” (Combs, 1996, p. 42). 

Share Time

Quite often the reading workshop time will end with a sharing time in which students can share what they accomplished and learned. Building on Vygotsky's notion of social development, “Share time provides a social context for students to share their work with their teachers and peers” (Dorn & Soffos, 2005, p. 67). In addition, this is an opportunity for the teacher to revisit the mini-lesson concept and assess students' understanding and application (Calkins, 2010). By setting a purpose during the mini-lesson such as “Bring an example of … to share time”, students who need more direction will have a focus during independent reading (Orehovec & Alley, 2003). It may also be an opportunity for small groups to present projects on their book club books or individual students to give book talks about completed reading.

A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary. - Thomas Carruthers

I taught the class, Introduction to Literature, which was an adult accelerated class with a institutionalized syllabus. This meant that a typical semester-long class was condensed into only four weeks – with the expectation that the students complete approximately 20 hours a week of study outside of class and consolidate their learning in a 4 hour face to face class. It was a fast-paced survey course of short stories, poetry, Greek drama and modern drama. The lesson in the first week of class was focused on short stories. The students were required to read ten different short stories and be prepared to discussion them. Recognizing that the students would need support in both analyzing and discussing the stories, I decided to use the Jigsaw Technique to give the students the opportunity to gain confidence in leading the discussion of a particular story through their expert group and then discuss five of the stories through the jigsaw group. After a break, the students completed the final five stories using the same procedure.

Instructions to Students

Discussing the Stories

Expert Groups

• Talk through the assigned story, focusing on the literary elements
• Prepare to lead the discussion on your assigned story in small groups
• Write down some topics/questions for the group
• Approximately 15 minutes

Jigsaw Groups

• Each person is a leader for one story
• One person should be a “secretary” for each story
• Write down important ideas, comments and/or questions
• Post the page under the story title on the wall
• Have your books and notes open
• All members should participate when discussing each story
• Approximately 10-15 minutes/story

Reflection

Reading ten short stories in a week and attempting to discuss all ten is a Herculean task, yet in this course, it was required. Since the students were also required to turn in their notes from reading the short stories, I thought most students would have completed the reading of each of the stories, but probably didn't spend much time analyzing the stories for their literary elements, which was an objective of the course.

I choose the Jigsaw Technique for several reasons. First, it focused the activity on the students, not me, the teacher. I believe that in a class discussion, the students should be doing most of the questioning and responding. With small groups, more students have the opportunity to discuss, especially compared to a whole class discussion. Second, it provided support for the students to gain confidence in leading the discussion. Recognizing that most students probably completed a cursory reading of the stories, the expert groups provided an opportunity for the students to clarify their understanding and create good discussion questions which would increase their confidence in leading a small group discussion. Finally, it is an efficient method to discuss a large amount of readings.

By including a written component, where each jigsaw group had to produce a summary of each discussion of each short story, I could quickly assess each group's progress and understanding. In addition, by consolidating all groups' summarizes, as a whole class we could gauge the major points of each story at the end of all the discussions.

After working all day, sitting in a four hour class can be daunting. However, students commented at the end of class that they were surprised how quickly the time flew by. One student said that he was dreading this class because he was anticipating having to sit and listen to a lecture for hours, but with the groupings there was a lot of activity and mental engagement so it “wasn't so bad.”

The Jigsaw Technique -Barbara Tewksbury, Hamilton College - http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/coursedesign/tutorial/jigsaw.html

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Proposition 2: Teachers Know the Subjects They Teach and How to Teach Those Subjects to Students.

How do literacy coaches think about and perform their jobs?

Years ago, I was introduced to the concept of Teaching for Understanding (TfU), which has been the cornerstone of my classroom instruction. In using a TfU framework, I ask four major questions 1) What topics are worth understanding? (Generative Topic) 2)What about these topics needs to be understood? (Understanding goals) 3) How can I foster understanding in my students? (Performances of understanding) 4) How can I tell what students understand? (Ongoing assessment)

As I moved into higher education, I found that the framework continued to apply to adult learners. In building my curriculum for the master level course Supervision of Instruction, I began with a generative topic of – How do literacy coaches think about and perform their work? In other words, I wanted my students to think and act like a literacy coach during the class.

To accomplish this, I needed to create authentic experiences for the student that embodied the major tasks of a literacy coach. In brief, a literacy coach's job is to help support teaching and learning in a school through finding solutions to problems or needs. For the culminating project of the course, each student created a needs assessment for their school and identified an area of need. After identifying the need, the student conducted a literature review to identify possible solutions and the positive and negatives of each solution. Formulating an action plan, they wrote a position paper, written as the literacy coach, and presented it to class as if it were a presentation to a school board. This is a realistic simulation of the work of actual literacy coaches. Therefore, the major understanding goals were:

1. How do literacy coaches identify needs within their schools?
2. How do literacy coaches critically read and use research?

2. How do literacy coaches create a plan of action?
3. How do literacy coaches cultivate support?

Throughout the semester, each understanding goal was addressed through different activities. The first weeks I provided models of needs assessments and students worked together to create and implement a needs assessment for their own school. Students then generate a list of needs, prioritized the importance of each and made both short term and long term plans for improvement. From this list, the students chose one topic to advocate for in a position paper. Having been accustomed to just summarizing research articles, I provided models and activities to support more critical reading of published research, which were incorporated into the position paper. Each performance of understanding (activity) helped students gain the skills and thinking processes needed to complete the full project and provided for ongoing assessment.

In summary, I would describe my approach to curriculum planning in a two short phrases – “begin with the end in mind” and “set students up for success”.

 Dr. L. Dee Fink - www.wcu.edu/WebFiles/PDFs/facultycenter_SignificantLearning.pdf

Presidential Invited Address: Intervening to Shape the Future

These are very rough notes from the session.

Scheduled Time: Sat, Apr 9 - 4:05pm - 6:05pm Building/Room: Sheraton, Floor Third Level

Session Participants:

Participant: Yrjö H. Engeström (University of Helsinki)

Discussant: Jan Derry (Institute of Education - London)

Chair: Barbara Rogoff (University of California - Santa Cruz)

Discussant: James G. Greeno (University of Pittsburgh)

Discussant: Hugh Mehan (University of California - San Diego)

Dewey – 1927 Experimental thinking vs absolutist thinking

• Systematic knowledge is shaped and tested as tools of inquiry
• social action is a working hypothesis.
• Much of the problems that ppl are facing now, it that fact that we try to have complete control – which we can't. We need to accept that our actions have unexpected consequences – and figure out what that may be. We can not push thru complete designs – without adaptation.
• Cultivate tentative solutions by means fo experimentation, first locally and then generalizing them through dialogue and further experimentation

Bronfenbrenner 1977

• Naturalistic studies are limited by presently located systems
• In the USSR, we are looking to see what children can become. (rather then in the US, where we look at what he come from).
• Transforming experiments – how to change what a child is

Formative interventions (trans-formative experiments) – not micro study of a few subjects, but entire schools or organizations.

Why intervention research?

• All research intervenes anyway – we should be transparent about this
• Interventions are going on anyway – not just the researchers
• Intervening deliberately and methodically generates possibility knowledge, so we need to stop being satisfied with categorical knowledge about what already exists.

These ideas come from Newman 1990 and Cobb et al 2003, Long 2001.

The actors in our interventions, influence the intervention, sometimes works against. We need to recognize the agency of the actors/participants.

Two Vygotskian Principles – leads to agency

1. Volitional action
2. Double stimulation

A thought experiment of Vygotsky's – bring a subject into a room, and then leave. Do not interact. What do the subjects do? If there is a clock, the subject can make deals – when it gets to be 2pm, I'll leave. Without a clock, they don't know how long to wait, or if they are waiting. First stimulus, the contradictory task of waiting for an experiment. Second stimulus, the clock. Give agency, or action to the subject. Volitional action is not simple 1) Preparation (fan take a long time 2) Execution is smooth. Looks like a conditioned response.

Agency must be built through the creation of double stimulation

Learning activity – starts with sensory concrete experience and builds up to expanding conceptual concreteness. There are demanding learning actions in the process. 7 learning actions – which looks linear in the model, but it isn't.

1. Questioning
2. Analysis
3. Modeling the new solution
4. Examining and testing the new model
5. Implementing the new model
6. Reflecting on the model
7. Consolidating the new model

This is called expensive learning. Used in Engstrom's learning

1^st stimulus – mirror, recurring roles

2^nd stimulus – Model or vision

In between, the participants move between the past, present and future.

Used within situations that are facing contradictions and crisis without a clear directions for the future.

Discussant

Location of work – experimental and naturalistic work. All research, is reflexively related to the context and the people within it. Even the act of setting up a clean experiment, that too is an intervention. We need to make this recognition clear – no matter what type of research we do.

In defense of design research. In relation to formative intervention.

• There are many of the same qualities.
• Design research, does have agency in it, as the practitioner/researcher relationship. This is in response to the researcher designing a program, and the teacher implementing, which has been the traditional paradigm. This is shifting to a joint construction of research – the goals, the problems etc. Results should be jointly prepared and presented. Not only should research build knowledge, but also be useful.
• This is deep ethnographic work – in it for the long term, which gives us the insights we need.
• Yes, knowledge is distributed, but also concentrated
• Collaborative work is not a smooth research design. There are personalities, conflict of goals etc. When the results are not positive, it makes many people uncomfortable.
• Through the process of working with researchers, teachers learn new ways of viewing and articulating their practices, which can help them in their work.
• At the same time, researchers become more sensitive to the realities of teaching. Yet, to be careful of “going native” and becoming to assertive and supportive of the work as to lose credibility.