Fostering and Teaching Comprehension

As I wrote in an earlier post, this summer I have really been making an effort to revisit and reflect on last school year in order to better plan (and teach) this year. I'll have four preps this fall: Global Perspectives, AICE Language--Level A, Dual Enrollment Composition, and Intensive Reading C. It's a lot to think about and, to be honest, the class that scares me the most is Intensive Reading (IR). The students in IR failed the FCAT, maybe once, maybe three times. The FCAT is gone--hooray! However, an unknown high-stakes exam will be replacing it. Yes, unknown because-a month away from school starting for teachers--we have no idea what the test will look like. Which means, you guessed, it no way to use the summer (when I am not teaching all day and grading at night) to prepare for it. Not that I teach to the test, but it would be nice to have some idea of what my students will face. The state did release some resources this week, such as item specifications and an online website to practice. Not much help at the moment, though. So, I am doing what any teacher does: I am going back to solid research to plan. One of my favorites that had been on my to read list is "Essential Elements of Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension" by Duke, Pearson, Strachan, and Billman, which came out in Samuels and Farstrup's (2011) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (4th ed.). In this chapter, the authors describe 10 essential elements to foster and teach reading comprehension. While most relate to elementary school students, I've been reading and commenting with secondary students in mind and the curricula I had to teach last year and may have to teach this year (We have not been told what curricula we will be using this year . . . that's an issue for another blog post). I want to focus on the author's first essential element: Building Disciplinary and World Knowledge. A couple of quotes need sharing: --" . . . reading, writing, and language are best developed when they are put to work as tools to help students acquire knowledge and inquiry skill in a specific domain" (p. 58) --"words are not the point of words; ideas are" (p. 58) --"when we link knowledge development to reading for comprehension, both knowledge and comprehension are the beneficiaries" (p. 58) --"by emphasizing generic reading instruction at the expense of disciplinary learning, we may be . . . cutting off our noses to spite our faces" (p. 58). When I really studied the above quotes and read them with my given curricula in mind, I realized that there was little match up. The implications for me are: (1) vocabulary instruction in reading classes, especially, cannot rest on weekly word lists and/or the words selected by the publisher (words, by the way, that I would NEVER have chose, but are mandatorily tested by my district. Those selected words are on the mandated test that I must administer because it is tracked by a computer program and the district looks at my students' scores) and (2) reading strategies need to be taught as part of "something." One of the two required programs that I had to teach (and which was tested) was not tied to inquiry nor was it thematically interesting. The other mandated program was computer-based non-fiction reading with multiple choice questions and vocabulary words to the side of the text. Each student read a slightly different version of the article (based on Lexiles) and was given different vocabulary words and different reading questions. It was hard to "teach" because the pressure was to get lots of articles completed. Inquiry could have been done but at the expense of the "number" of articles "they" (whoever they are) wanted us to get through. My point is that if "they" want us to help kids get better at reading and comprehending then we need to be given the time, freedom, and tools (because we are experts) in order for us to DO IT WELL. This year, the content and reading practices that my Cambridge courses employ are perfectly adaptable for the kids in my IR classes. Kids in IR classes deserve the same critical reading, thinking, and discussion opportunities that their "more advanced" peers receive on a daily basis.

You Need Sh&% to Make Things Grow

After last Wednesday's horrible department meeting I had much to think about, including reflecting on what I could do better in my reading classes. So, I created a power point with the title slide "Come to Jesus Meeting." [I realize that a religious reference may offend some, but since we also go over idioms/cliches, I thought this Southern phase might be one they could learn] After that slide I showed the bar graph and explained it. I then told them about the meeting and who was there, and I asked, "How do you think I felt?" Students offered up words such as: embarrassed, mad, frustrated, angry, disappointed. I told them that I was not angry with them, but I was embarrassed and frustrated. I explained that what what they did, or did not do, had consequences that went beyond their grades in my class. I then put up a list of bulleted questions and told them that whatever they said would not be repeated outside of class. I asked them why they thought they did so poorly on the computerized program. I also asked what I could do better. I asked about how they felt about reading in general and if they felt they had improved so far this year. They had some good ideas about how to motivate them. It was a very good discussion. I think they saw me more as a human with feelings. Taking all of this into account, I spent a small fortune at Target and Party City, getting together fun rewards (mini-tropies, fun hats, etc.) I also--and I had wanted to do this before the meeting and talk--put together good luck bags for them since they retake the FCAT next week. My tenth grade students helped, writing some creative, and often funny, quotes/inspirational statements.

And, it seemed to have worked. They did fantastic yesterday. The computer program is not everything, but they took it more seriously. And, I followed up with one of their requests, which was to show some kind of video that was related to the article they were going to read. Below is a graph comparing the percentage who scored 75% or greater on the article questions (August-September) and how they did yesterday. I had 9 students get a hundred on it.

So, maybe it took some sj&% going down to lead to some greater good?

The Purpose(s) of Reading Classes?

Today (actually yesterday and today) was tough and I left school feeling frustrated and dejected and wondering: What is the purpose(s) of reading classes in high school according to (a) state leaders, (b) district leaders, (c) school leaders, (d) fellow reading teachers, and (e) our students? In our district--and I am assuming across the state--we have two mandated "programs" (curriculum) that we are supposed to use. One is text based and groups two titles together (short story and poem, short story and interview, non-fiction essay with poem, etc.). We are supposed to take 4 weeks to cover each group--yes, four weeks to cover a short story and poem! Along with this "curriculum" we have a computer-based "curriculum" where students are assessed and then receive several articles to read each week (based on their lexile scores) and then answer multiple choice questions for. Both of these "programs" are expected to be used as 20-23 minute rotations/literacy centers along with whatever else we deem necessary/suitable for our students on a daily basis. Of course, leaders know that daily rotations are not always possible. Students, at least those in grades 11-12, are placed in these reading classes because they failed the mandated state graduation exam. They stay in reading classes until they pass this exam. There are also reading classes for 9th and 10th grade students--to be honest, I don't know what "scores" or "data" is used to make this decision. There are three different levels of reading classes depending on how (poorly) the student did on the high-stakes test. I have mid-level 11th and 12th graders. Today, in our department meeting, we were shown a graph of each teachers' students' progress on the computer-based program. Even though we all have different levels of students and grade levels of students (who have very different attendance patterns and levels of motivation) this chart was shown to all. Now, it was prefaced with "this is not meant to . . ." (as in embarrass, chastise, etc.). However, that is exactly what it did.

As you can see, I am at the bottom of this list. This computer program is just one component of a full reading class. What about the rest? Average data was used to compare teachers and their students. My dejected and often truant upperclassmen were compared to 9th grade students who are reading at higher levels. A teacher with one class of students was compared to another who teaches three classes. To pass out this chart serves what purpose? Is it to motivate us? Is it to tell us that we need to somehow get our kids to score above 75%? (I asked, frankly, how to do this. I talk about the importance of a 75% or higher every time we do it. What is there to truly motivate the kids to do it?) Where is the quality/quantity balance? (Because we were also given charts that show EVERYONE'S total usage). So what am I left wondering?: What about how much students love or hate to read? What about the other things we do that a computer program does not capture? What about the pressure to help them pass this stupid state graduation exam? What about the ones who have taken it (sometimes three times already) and failed every time? What about my dual language speakers who need so much more than I have time to give them? What about my kids who can't put books down they are so good? What about the kids who never come to class and thus ruin my "average"? What about reading in general? Do people really care?