Chopsticks and Reading Comprehension

Prior to attending class today I was avoiding blogging for this week; I had absolutely no idea what I was going to write about. My problem was I had read the two assigned texts for this week, Chopsticks and the Graves chapter on reading comprehension, as two entirely different entities. It was not until I began to work on the table in class, which connected how we used the key comprehension strategies to interpret Chopsticks. I found, as I went through the table and reflected on my reading that my answers varied greatly depending if I was focusing on the first or second time I read the book. Below I have included a table to show how my use of certain strategies discussed in Graves changed from my first time reading Chopsticks to my second.

Strategy	First Read	Second Read
Establishing Purpose for Reading	Purpose: Read this for class well enough to be able to discuss it.	Purpose: To answer all my questions from the first read.
Using prior knowledge	Using the back of the book which described it as a romance mystery.	Knowing that she descends into a mental illness and her father is abusive on SOME level
Asking and Answering Questions	Who are the main characters? How did they meet? Why isn’t Frank concerned for her mental stability? IS FRANK REAL?!	So many, but here are a few: Q: Is Frank real? A: Probably not Q: Is her dad sexually abusive? A: Maybe? Q: Was she a famous piano player? A: Probably not? Q: What’s the deal with the Crackin? A: No idea but it might represent evil Q: Why is Jo Ann Castle important? A: NO CLUE
Making Inferences	Her father might be abusive The couple’s relationship is unhealthy Maybe she is buckling under her father’s pressure	Frank is not real-she created this all in her head She is not a piano player-she is made it up as well Her father may be sexually abusive->Crakin is the abuse and some of those quotes are things her says to her, not Frank
Determining what is important	IMs, letters, quotes from conversations	Handwriting, symbols on letters, the back drop of one picture being The Bell Jar

Robust Vocabulary Instruction In A Readers Workshop

After going through our assigned reading for the week, I was excited to see vocabulary is the main point of discussion for this week. No matter what subject or grade level we end up teaching vocabulary will be the foundation of our curriculum and it is essential we are effective in teaching it.

I found the assigned article, "Robust Vocabulary Instruction in A Readers Workshop" particularly interesting as it was written by a teacher actually implementing vocabulary instruction in her classroom. What I especially liked about her vocabulary instruction is that she spent a week teaching the same ten vocabulary words using different modes of instruction. It has been found that a student with an average IQ requires 35 exposures to a new word for it to be registered in their long term memory, 40 for an at risk student (McCormick 1999). By dedicating 10 to 15 minutes of instructional time a day to the same words the students are getting this necessary exposure without being bored with five days worth of "drill and kill" direct instruction.

The only question issue I took with the author's procedure is the choice of vocabulary words being used. The shoebox activity is effective in giving students ownership over the words they are learning and the teacher specifically mentioned she made sure to pick a variety of tiered words, basic to complex, but how does the instructor ensure the vocabulary words being picked are used across subject matter? Are most of these words ones the students are encountering in their language arts lessons or math and science too? Vocabulary words of any subject can be taught in any lesson regardless of the setting. It would be extremely helpful for the students to incorporate words they are learning in science and math into this lesson as well.

Teachers refuse to give standardized tests at Seattle high schools

In class, on Friday, we read and discussed a Washington Post article in which Seattle area teachers boycotted giving the state required MAP test to their students. In this article the teachers listed multiple  reasons to not give the test including, questioning the validity of the assessment, claiming no benefit to ESL and Special Needs students and loss of valuable class time.

Of these listed the point that interested me the most was the validity of the test. How is it not valid? What is the margin of error at the high school level? It would be interesting to see the data that backs this. If it is true, that the test is not valid, then the teachers are completely within their right to boycott this assessment. Unless an assessment is valid, meaning it measures what it claims to measure, and reliable there is no purpose to it; the assessment is void.

Aside from reading the article, I enjoyed listening to every one's perspective in class. I liked how the adolescent group referred to standardized assessment as a "necessary evil" because, that's exactly what it is. Assessment is necessary to evaluate instruction, without it how would we as teachers know if our methods are effective? The issue that comes into play is, however, as of now our method of assessment is one high stakes test to evaluate the performance of entire school buildings and districts.

The question arises, are there other options? How do we prove effectiveness of instruction and standardization of curriculum without high stakes testing? Two options my group discussed were:

1. Finals given in each course subject are the same across the state, meaning everyone who took chemistry would take the same chemistry exam. Pros to this are, it would still serve to standardize the curriculum, even if teachers were teaching to the test they would be hitting all the standards in the Common Core and students wouldn't be tested on things they learned five years ago or have not yet learned. A con to this is something would still need to be done at the elementary grade level.

2. Teachers are expected to collect data on their students' learning progress through out the year and submit it to their superiors. I would like to note another classmate stated that if this would be implemented it would not be standardize because teachers would all use different measurements. I did not explain this example thoroughly in class. In this system teachers would all use the same data collection system, as they are doing now in elementary schools with the TRC data. Pros to this include teachers getting immediate feedback on their instruction early in the year so they can make changes if needed, puts less pressure on students because they are doing much smaller assessments and it shows student growth through out the year. The downside to this however, is it will take a lot more time and work on the teachers' part, teachers would have to learn how to accurately assess and track students' progress and this would end up being on somewhat of an honor system where we trust schools to not skew data and as we have learned from the Columbus City Schools attendance scandal, districts are not always honest, especially when there is funding on the line.

As seen there are draw backs to any system put in place. Does anyone have any other ideas on effective measures to replace high stakes testing?

Side Note: Many of us mentioned in class how pointless it was to take the OGT our sophomore year, because we still had two more years left of high school. This measure seems pointless to us because we all passed it without issue, however there are many students that do not, which is why it is given our sophomore year so these students get as many opportunities to pass it as possible.

Interventions and Support for Struggling Adolescents'

In this chapter Ivery and Fisher discuss how to support struggling readers. I appreciated how through out the chapter the authors continued to push for small group, data driven, intentional instruction while pointing out the flaws in many of the expensive "quick fix" reading programs districts implement at an attempt to raise standardized test scores.

One quote that I contemplated through out the text was "If schools are going to make a difference with struggling readers then they must make it possible for the best teachers to get up close and personal with  those readers on the individual level" pg. 73-74.  This quote reminded me of experiences I have had working at Hamilton STEM Academy in the city's South Linden neighborhood.

Last semester I worked with the two third grade teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Houltein, (yes, they are married) doing RTI with some of their students in both reading and math. Both teachers were extremely  good at what they did, Mr. Houltein taught reading and Ms. Houltein taught math. Mr. Houltein followed Ivery and Fisher's mantra to a T and the results were amazing. He divided his class of 26 into 5 small homogeneous groups based on reading level. He spent 30 minutes with each group each day working on specific reading skills that needed to be developed by the students in that group. While he worked in one small group the other four worked in stations of independent silent reading, essay writing based off of a daily story starter, a short history or geography passage with comprehension question that varied depending on a students' reading level and a computer station with a assigned short "research assignment" or computer game where the students worked in pairs.

What I just describe is a text book scenarios for how to run a reading curriculum, however, implementing the program is much more complex than it seems. There a are a number of reasons why Mr. Houltein's system was so effective, yet not every teacher could pull it off. Below I have briefly listed some of the components to his success and why this system could not be used by all teachers.

Data Collection: Mr. Houltein collected weekly data on each student's progress. He then used this data as the basis for the next's week instruction. Often teachers, especially general ed, do not take the time to collect data on their students, meaning they cannot actually show if their instruction is effective or not.

Phonics Knowledge: Mr. Houltein had extensive knowledge of phonics and how to implement it into classroom lessons. To be Highly Qualified in Reading in the state of Ohio, you simply need to take 12 credits on teaching reading, one phonics class and pass the Reading exam. Many programs provide these courses, but do not provide the proper instruction for teachers to actually master phonics. To be completely honest, I have taken the required Phonics course at OSU and learned little that could help me in the classroom, yet I received over 100% in the class. I learned academic buzzword definitions, but none of the specific sounds in the English Language, which not be helpful to any struggling readers.

Use of Direct Instruction: Mr. Houltein used DI in all of the small groups he worked with. Many districts and teachers shy away from this,yet Project Follow Through, one of the largest, most comprehensive studies on education found DI to be the most efficient program used in classrooms.

Classroom Management: Mr. Houltein had great command of his class, which is needed when you spend your morning interacting with small groups of students. He set very clear and very high expectations for his students both behaviorally and academically. He was also extremely explicit with his directions. At any moment one could walk up to any student and they would be able to tell you what they were expected to be working on at that time. A teacher would less classroom control could not pull this system off.

To close this extremely long post, these are just a list of things to consider when attempting to implement an effective reading program in your classroom. Our text books, courses and professors offer great advice and guidance as to how to be an effective teacher, but implementing this advice is not easy.