Listening to those who know your students best

As teachers, we are considered experts in our field. What we deem as important to a child's education is what we will teach them. While we may know how students learn, how to teach mini-lessons, how to correct punctuation, and how to push a student to the next level of reading or writing ability, can we say that we know our students the better than anyone else? In Connie L. White's article "'What He Wanted Was Real Stories, but No One Would Listen': a Child's Literacy, A Mother's Understandings", teachers' knowledge of their students is examined. As a teacher, White encountered parents, specifically mothers, that cared about their children's education and had concerns and knowledge about their children that previous teachers had ignored. The school "experts" considered their children behind in their reading abilities. Was it that? Or were the children just not interested in what they were being told to read and learn? 

White says that parental involvement is key in the classroom. Parent volunteers have become an expectation in many schools, and if parents are unable to volunteer, they are considered uncaring. She protests this argument, indicating that many parents who may want to be involved may be unable to do so because of their work schedules. With this in mind, though, parents who can get involved should be welcomed with open arms. Parents have spent the first years of their child's life with them; they most likely know their children better than the teachers who have them in class for about 7-8 months. Because of this, teachers should open their classrooms to parents and take into serious consideration the comments and questions parents have about their children. In a particular case that White examines, a woman named Betty was concerned about her son's interests because they were not up to par with what the school expected. He was interested in non-fiction. If it could not happen in real life, it made no sense to her son. Why should this be a cause of concern? He was able to read and had excellent farm literacy and experience with farm animals and techniques. How important is it that he enjoys "airy fairy" stories, as his mother called them? She was never interested in fairy tales either. This information greatly helped White reach out to Betty's son, and White was able to incorporate his interests into the curriculum. His unique interests also pointed out the flaws in White's curriculum. She was basing her book discussions on topics she deemed valuable but was not confirming that these topics also mattered to her students. 

To further aid her understanding of her students' home literacies, White met with several mothers once a month and used home-school journals that were written between her and interested mothers. By incorporating these practices, at the request of Betty, students' mothers became well acquainted, communication was formed between White and her students' parents, and White was able to adjust her curriculum to better fit students' unique interests. The home-school dialogue helped White to gain a deeper understanding of the literacy students encountered at home. She learned that several of her students were not "behind" because they were not read to at home because they were read to! They were simply uninterested in what White was teaching. This is not to say that teachers should never teach topics that not every student is interested in because this is just not possible. It merely suggests looking beyond our own interests and the interests of the majority to reach more students. If a student is going to best learn to read by reading non-fiction stories or realistic fiction, then that student should be reading those genres. Students should be exposed to multiple genres in order to help them discover their interests. Learning to read is not about learning to love what the teacher loves but to discover what each student loves and to help him or her learn more about those topics. This should be kept at the forefront of educational practices. Parents can help teachers do this by informing them of their children's interests, learning behaviors, and talents. Once the teacher knows this information, he or she can incorporate students' home literacies into the classroom. The boy interested in farming was able to discuss techniques and farm animals that his mother was able to bring to school. Other home literacies could also be brought into the classroom. This would help students get to know one another better, build confidence in the students who are experts on their home literacies, and teach many new ideas to the entire class in the process.   

Including parents in our instruction may be intimidating at first, but their involvement and knowledge of their children will help foster a class of diverse learners with unique interests and a sense that their education truly matters. 

Source: White, Connie L. (2009). What He Wanted Was Real Stories, but No One Would Listen": A Child's Literacy, a Mother's Understandings. Language Arts. 86(6), 431-439. 

"Vocabulary Practices in PreKindergarten and Kindergarten Classrooms"

Early vocabulary exposure has shown to predict literacy skills down the road. Rebecca Silverman and Jennifer DiBara Crandell sought to explore what prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers were implementing in their classrooms to help promote vocabulary growth and which practices had the greatest effects on children learning vocabulary. Additionally, they wanted to look at the timing of such practices, whether they were during read-aloud time or during non-read-aloud time, as well as which practices helped students with higher initial vocabulary skills and lower initial vocabulary skills. 

In their article "Vocabulary Practices in PreKindergarten and Kindergarten Classrooms," Silverman and DiBara Crandell first reviewed a great deal of research on what vocabulary practices were being implemented in early elementary classrooms. They grouped about seventeen practices into five general categories of practices that teachers used, during read-aloud, non-read-aloud, or both times. The practices included: acting or illustrating to support learning the word (AI), analyzing the word by comparing and contrasting the word, looking at multiple meanings, or providing synonyms and antonyms (AN), contextualizing the word by guiding children to use the word in different contexts than in which the word was introduced (CN), explicitly defining the word in the context in which in appears (DF), and word study in which children are prompted to use a vocabulary word in instruction of spelling, phonics, or writing practice (WS). 244 four-, five-, and six- year olds at 16 different prekindergarten and kindergarten classrooms participated in the study over the course of the year. 16 teachers participated in the study. The teachers attended a presentation on the reviews that Sliverman and DiBara Crandell had found on vocabulary practices and were asked to use certain books (based on teacher recommendation) and focus on target vocabulary words during their instruction. Teachers were asked to teach as they normally would but just to include the requested books and vocabulary words. To pretest and test the students, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III was administered in the fall and spring to participating students (children were shown four pictures and asked to point to the picture that represented the word). 

Silverman and DiBara Crandell found that Contextualizing (1) and Defining (2) were used the most during read-aloud and non-read-aloud times. Word Study happened frequently during read-aloud time as well as non-read-aloud time while Acting/Illustrating, Analyzing, and Defining occurred more frequently during non-read-aloud time. Acting/Illustrating was positively related to vocabulary growth for students with low initial vocabulary knowledge but not for students with high initial vocabulary knowledge. Analyzing words was used the least, so researchers felt that they could not determine its effects on students' learning. They predicted that analyzing words might be beneficial with students of higher initial vocabulary knowledge because of the exploration of the word and prior word knowledge necessary to do so. Contextualizing benefited both students with high and low initial vocabulary knowledge but had a greater benefit for those students with high initial vocabulary knowledge. Defining words benefited students in the same way that contextualizing words did: benefiting both groups of students but having a greater benefit for students with high initial vocabulary knowledge. Word study benefitted both groups of students when utilized in both read-aloud and non-read-aloud times. Students with low initial vocabulary skills seemed to benefit more from Acting/Illustrating during read-aloud time whereas students with high initial vocabulary skills seemed to benefit more from Contextualizing and Defining during non-read-aloud time. 

Silverman and DiBara Crandell's goals were to add to the research showing effective vocabulary instruction during read-aloud and non-read-aloud times. Based on their findings it is important for teachers not only to consider which practices work for all students (Contextualizing, Defining, and Word Study) but which practices works the best for different students and at which times (Acting/Illustrating during read-aloud for low initial vocabulary knowledge; Contextualizing and Defining during non-read-aloud for high initial vocabulary knowledge). By implementing multiple types of practices in the classroom, more students can benefit from vocabulary instruction in greater ways than if only using one or two vocabulary practices. Since Analyzing words could potentially be another highly beneficial vocabulary practice, more research should be conducted on Analyzing words to help with vocabulary instruction. This practice was shown to be used widely in other studies but was not used enough in this study to indicate its usefulness in increasing vocabulary knowledge. 

Source: Silverman, R., & DiBara Crandell, J. (2010). Vocabulary Practices in Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly. 45(3), 318-340. 

Teaching tips:

-Always try to help all students improve their vocabulary, not just students with low initial vocabulary skills. 
-Ask students what helps them learn!
-Implement various vocabulary practices during each vocabulary lesson so that each students can receive the instruction that works best for them. 

High stakes

This week's readings were all about the craze of high stakes testing. Allington and Pearson discuss the lack of scientifically based evidence in support of certain assessments, like DIBELS. Even DIBELS' own website says that the assessments should not be used as a "diagnostic tool". Assessments like DIBELS were developed after the NRP reported on the importance of scientifically based research, but then schools were handed a seeming ruse. DIBELS, originally intended for progress monitoring, assesses students on their ability to read nonsense words to check students' reading ability. As far as I know, I do not ever recall having to read nonsense words as an student or adult. Not only is DIBELS using unauthentic assessment, its perpetuation has distracted teachers and administrators from actual research-based practice. Additionally, the focus on progress monitoring has taken away time for the rich text discussion that is so important to students' learning and reading comprehension. The frustration and burn-out for teachers having to administer these types of tests with such frequency is causing a massive decline in the number of years that teachers remain in the field. 

Dr. Caitlin Dooley says that in response to high stakes testing and non-scientifically research based monitoring, teachers, parents, and administrators need to pay attention to the legislation being passed on these kinds of tests. By collaborating with one another, educators can work toward ridding their schools of these harmful practices and replace them with authentic assessment. Keeping up with legislators and current legislation can also prepare parents and educators to defend their students' and children's rights to a sound education. All that extra monitoring is just taking time away from the wholesome activities students need to learn. High stakes testing does not give the whole picture of a student's progress, but the tests are being used as if they do. Rather than making judgments based solely on these kinds of tests, the student's progress in class and the teachers remarks should be taken into consideration. This is a more authentic and realistic picture of how students have improved over time. Besides, NCLB laws (that ignited many of the high stakes testing) were intended to aid those students who may fall behind their classmates without additional help. If we, as educators, actually want to help these students, shouldn't we be doing what's best for them rather than allowing an unauthentic assessment create a greater gap in learning achievement?

Allington, R., and Pearson, P. D. (2011). The Casualties of Policy on Early Literacy Development. Language Arts 89(1), 70-74.

Baker, E. A., & Dooley, C.(2010, March 1). Teaching language arts in a high stakes era. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org. 

A is for Assessment

Sometimes it seems like all educators are talking about is assessment. Whether it is the state mandated standardized tests or quarterly fluency tests assigned by a particular school, fluency, words read per minute, self-correction, and many other concepts seem to be constantly tested. What is the purpose for all this testing? I think the true purpose is often forgotten. Assessment is for teachers. By assessing their students, teachers are able to gain a better grasp on how they can help their students. Assessment should not be about grading, competition, or leveling students. It should be about recognizing students’ strengths, building upon those strengths, and helping students gain strategies for meaning making and engaging writing. With the current standardized testing and leveling crazes, as teachers, we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the purpose of assessment.

Pat Johnson and Katie Keier take time to discuss assessing students in Catching Readers Before They Fall. Although some take assessment to unnecessary and even harmful extremes, assessment does have an important place in the classroom. Without assessment, teachers would have no way of knowing how to help their students grow in their reading and writing skills. I am using assessment as a broad definition. Having conversations about texts, having students write and draw and act out a text, reading and analyzing students’ free writing, and listening to students read aloud are all forms of assessment. These activities are not always graded strictly, but they do inform teachers of many aspects of students’ learning. Comprehension, reading fluency, recall, writing voice, spelling, and grammar can all be evaluated from these activities without forcing students to sit for hours in a silent room, unable to receive answers to their questions, or try to prove that they are learning and growing.

When teachers assess their students, there is a great deal of information that they receive in a short period of time. To make recording and compiling this information easier so teachers can review and decide the next discussion to have with their students, many assessment forms have been developed. Johnson and Keier provide several excellent forms for teachers to use for easy organization in recording commentary on their students. Some examples are provided below.

Reading conference list

Sample reading conference list

Sample reading assessment grid

Reading assessment grid

These forms can help teachers see what group mini-lessons may be good topics for group discussion or individual conferences. As teachers, one of our goals should be to help students become excited about learning. One way to destroy this excitement in our students is to level them in a way that degrades the students and targets them at “low” or “high” levels. All students have room for improvement, and charting students’ expertise and areas for improvement can help show areas in which students have had various levels of exposure. Students come from so many backgrounds, so it seems completely reasonable that they would have had different degrees of interaction with literacy and other subjects. Charting transforms this information into a visual representation for teachers and should not be used to say that one child is smarter or more advanced than another. Assessment is critical for teachers to understand what level of understanding their students are at and should be used in a way to help teachers help their students instead of targeting students as “at risk.”