Adolescent Literacy, Part II: Content Literacy and the Common Core

By Joan Sedita

PART 2

A major tenet of the Common Core State Standards for literacy in grades 6-12 is that content teachers outside of the English/Language Arts classroom emphasize literacy in their planning and instruction. One of the architects of the six major Common Core literacy shifts (Coleman, 2011) is that students should learn through domain-specific texts in science and social studies classrooms. Rather than referring to the text, they should be expected to learn from what they read. The title of the literacy standards, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, makes it clear that content teachers are key to ensuring that students have college- and career-ready literacy skills at graduation.

The most recent research on effective instruction for improving the literacy skills of adolescent students supports this emphasis on content literacy instruction. In the report Academic Literacy Instruction for Adolescents, Dr. Joseph Torgesen and colleagues (2007) noted that, in order to meet adolescent literacy goals, all teachers must be involved, especially since most middle and high school students spend most of their time in content-area classes and must learn to read expository, informational, content-area texts with greater proficiency. The report states: “Although reading strategies might be taught explicitly in a designated reading support class, students are unlikely to generalize them broadly to content areas unless teachers also explicitly support and elaborate the strategies’ use with content-area texts” (p. 12).

Reading Next (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006) identifies 15 elements of successful programs designed to improve adolescent literacy achievement in middle and high schools. Six of these elements directly address content literacy instruction: direct, explicit comprehension instruction; effective instructional principles embedded in content; extended time for literacy; text-based collaborative learning; diverse texts; and intensive writing.

In 2008, the Institute of Education Sciences published the practice guide Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices (Kamil et al.). The goal of the guide was to present specific and coherent evidence-based recommendations that educators can use to improve literacy levels among students in Grades 4–12. The report made five recommendations about improving practice, three of which directly address content literacy instruction: (1) provide explicit vocabulary instruction, (2) provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction, and (3) provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation.

Regarding content writing instruction, Writing Next (Graham & Perrin, 2007) summarized the results of a large-scale statistical review of research into the effects of specific types of writing instruction on adolescents’ writing proficiency. The report identified 11 elements of effective writing instruction, all of which represent instruction that can be embedded in content classroom instruction for all students: (1) writing strategies, (2) summarizing, (3) collaborative writing, (4) specific product goals, (5) word processing, (6) sentence combining, (7) prewriting, (8) inquiry activities, (9) process writing approach, (10) study of models, and (11) writing for content learning.

Content Literacy Alignment to Common Core State Standards

It is important to note that the Common Core literacy standards complement rather than replace content standards in subject areas. Content teachers need to keep literacy achievement goals in mind along with coverage of content information. Which Common Core literacy standards are most associated with content literacy instruction? That is, which 6-12 literature and informational text standards should content teachers be most focused on? Here are my suggestions:

Reading Standards

• #1 & #2: Students should be able to determine what texts say explicitly and to summarize them, make logical inferences, and cite textual evidence to support conclusions.
• #4: Students should be able to interpret words and phrases as they are used in text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings.
• #5: Students should be able to analyze the structure of text, including how sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of text affect meaning.
• #8: Students should be able to synthesize and compare information from print and digital sources and critically evaluate the reasoning and relevance of text evidence.
• # 10: Students should be able to read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently. 

Writing Standards

• #1, #2, & #3: Students should be able to write effective arguments, informative text, and narratives.
• #4, #5, & #6: Students should be able to use the writing process and make their writing appropriate to varying task demands, purposes, and audiences.
• # 10: Students should write routinely over extended and shorter time frames.

Language Standards

• #4:  Students should be able to determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases by using context clues, analyzing meaningful word parts, and reference materials.
• #5: Students should demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.
• #6: Students should acquire and use accurately a range of general academic and domain-specific words and phrases sufficient for reading, writing, speaking, and listening at the college and career readiness level, and demonstrate independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge.

In addition to the specific standards listed above, I think it is also important for content-area teachers to understand the focus of the Common Core on making sure students develop comprehension skills to understand steadily increasingly complex texts. Students must learn to read and learn from complex text because this is the demand that will be placed on them in college and career. For too many years, content teachers have avoided using text as the vehicle to learn information because student literacy skills were not sufficient. I like to use the metaphor that content teachers have been giving the students fish, but not teaching them how to fish. It is important for content teachers to understand that the Common Core asks that they not simply use more complex text but rather do the more difficult task of teaching students how to read and understand subject-area text.

Joan Sedita is a founding partner of  Keys to Literacy, a literacy professional development organization that focuses on adolescent literacy. She is also author of The Key Comprehension Routine and The Key Vocabulary Routine.  

About Joan Sedita

Books by Joan Sedita: Keys to Literacy

References

Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Coleman, D. (2011). Common core instructional shifts. Retrieved from: http://engageny.org/resource/common-core-shifts/

Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). Writing next—Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE#2008-4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., et al. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Adolescent Literacy, Part 1: School-Wide Literacy Planning

By Joan Sedita

PART 1

In recent years there has been a growing interest in adolescent literacy, especially as Americans become more concerned about the economic and civic health of the nation. Literacy skills are necessary more than ever to succeed in college and work, as well as to manage the everyday life demands of an increasingly more complex society and world economy. The best example of this focus is the tagline “college and career ready” from the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

More middle and high school leaders are beginning to acknowledge that they must develop a school-wide approach to teaching literacy skills­ that includes two tiers of instruction. The first tier is content literacy instruction for all students that is delivered in regular classes, including history, science, math, and English/language arts. The second tier is literacy instruction for struggling readers that is delivered partly in regular content classes and partly in intervention settings (including extended English/language arts blocks and individual/small-group settings).

A school-wide approach to literacy instruction must involve all teachers in the delivery of reading and writing instruction, including content-area teachers and staff who work with special populations. This is a major tenet of the literacy CCSS. A successful school-wide plan must also have strong, committed leadership that provides ongoing support for literacy instruction.

A Literacy Planning Model

I have worked with numerous schools and districts to help develop literacy plans using a planning model that addresses six components:

1. Establishment of a literacy planning team

2. Assessment planning for screening, guiding instruction, and progress monitoring

3. Literacy instruction in the content classroom

4. Interventions for struggling readers that address phonics, word study, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills

5. Flexible scheduling to allow for grouping based on instructional needs

6. Professional development planning

A key first step is to assemble a literacy planning team that is representative of the major stakeholders who will have to implement the plan. Members of the team should include teachers of all subject areas, interventionists, parents, reading specialists, and administrators. It is important to recognize that literacy planning is a process, not an event. Like most school-wide initiatives, developing and executing a literacy plan will take time and sustained effort; literacy planning teams should be prepared for the process to take 1–3 years.

Once a planning team is assembled, the first step is to take stock of what is already in place in relation to the six components. This includes gathering information that answers questions such as:

• What assessments are currently used to identify good and struggling readers?
• What assessments are used to identify specific needs of individual struggling readers? What reading instruction is already taking place in content classrooms, and what professional development do content teachers and others need in order to effectively address all reading components?
• What reading interventions and supplemental reading programs are currently offered for struggling readers?
• What information and professional development do the teachers of struggling readers need?
• Is the scheduling process flexible enough to accommodate different grouping patterns for struggling readers?

After information has been collected to answer these questions, the planning team can set and prioritize goals and action steps for each of the six components. Some action steps are like low-hanging fruit—easy to accomplish quickly and with minimal expense. Other action steps will take longer to address. A concrete plan for addressing the action steps throughout the coming year or two is essential to keep the process moving forward.

A literacy assessment plan is key to successfully implementing a school-wide literacy plan. Screening literacy assessments provide the data to determine which students are struggling, while diagnostic assessments help determine why they struggle, and progress monitoring assessments determine if instruction is working in both content classrooms (Tier I) and with supplemental instruction (Tier II)

The six planning components are interrelated. Action steps for one component need to be related to action steps for the other components. For example, decisions about both tiers of instruction should be based on assessment data, along with how to group students and schedule supplemental instruction. Plans for professional development should be made based on the needs of teachers and other members of the team.

Middle and high school administrators must make the acquisition of literacy skills a priority and provide adequate time in the school schedule for reading and writing instruction. They must also be willing to use flexible grouping patterns when scheduling students in order to implement a two-tiered model for delivering reading instruction in both content classes and intervention settings. Professional development for content teachers and specialists is also essential.

The time, effort, and expertise necessary to develop a school-wide plan for providing effective literacy instruction to all students present a challenge for most middle and high schools. The challenge is worth taking, as there is an urgent need to improve the reading, writing, and comprehension skills of these students.

Learn more about adolescent literacy, literacy planning, and literacy assessment models here.

Joan Sedita is a founding partner of Keys to Literacy, a literacy professional development organization that focuses on adolescent literacy. She is also author of The Key Comprehension Routine and The Key Vocabulary Routine.

Reference

Sedita, J. (2011). Adolescent literacy: Addressing the needs of students in grades 4-12. In J.R. Birsh (Ed). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

About Joan Sedita

Books by Joan Sedita: Keys to Literacy

Battling Bullying and Exclusion with Acceptance and Belonging

By Dr. Steven Richfield 

Despite increased awareness of the various forms of bullying, and school-based programs to combat it, countless children continue to perpetuate intentional mean-spirited actions directed at peers and adults. Whether it takes place in the home, school bus, carpool, playground, or classroom, preying upon sensitivities of others and/or harsh rejecting efforts aimed to exclude others have become commonplace. Perhaps it’s time for parents and teachers to coach children in practicing socially inclusive behaviors that create conditions where bullying and exclusion are not reinforced by peers.

So how can we coach social inclusion behaviors to children so that they demonstrate acceptance and belonging towards others? Here are a few ideas:

Speak to the verbal and nonverbal messages that children send to one another, and the likely interpretations others arrive at about them. Emphasize how a smile or the lack thereof, friendly vs. caustic tones of voice, initiation vs. absence of warm greetings in group settings, and other social signature behaviors are quickly assigned meaning by observers. In simplest terms, these behaviors lead others to view them as either nice or mean. Explain how sending social inclusion signals, and putting an end to social exclusion, can make children caring and compassionate leaders in their peer groups.

Expose typical exclusion behaviors and suggest ways to respond with inclusion. One of the most insidious patterns is the “messenger of mean information” when a child deliberately delivers another’s hurtful words to a third person with the intention of either destroying a friendship or vengeful retaliation. Another example is incessant ridicule designed to elicit laughter from bystanders and instill humiliation upon the target. Challenge children to stand up to these negative patterns with strong inclusion signals, such as telling others that badmouthing reflects poorly upon them or expressing support for the target within the group when the mistreatment is going on.

Educate children about the harmful social and personal costs of groups that build bonds by badmouthing and excluding others. Certain words—such as weird, nerd, or annoying—can quickly place a caption under a child and subject him or her to exclusion. Similarly, intentional “forgetting” to include or invite a supposed friend sends a clear signal of rejection. Explain how subtle social forces within friend groups may make it hard to speak up in support of the excluded. Encourage them not to give in to these negative rules but to be the advocate for the “forgotten friend,” who wants very much to be included. Ask that they step up to make the call that others won’t.

Build a two-way dialogue where children can ask questions and make comments about the social world of adulthood and childhood. Highlight the ways warm and caring people send inclusive signals to others, and see if they can make some of these behaviors part of their social repertoire. Explain how it is especially vital when meeting new people to make a social first impression of warmth and acceptance, no matter what mood they are in or what they have been told about the person.

Dr. Steven Richfield is a clinical psychologist in Plymouth Meeting, PA. He has developed a child-friendly, self-control/social skills-building program called Parent Coaching Cards and is coauthor of The Parent Coach book. He can be contacted at director@parentcoachcards.com or 610-238-4450. To learn more, visit www.parentcoachcards.com.

About Steven Richfield

Products by Steven Richfield: The Parent Coach

Cyberbullying: What We Know and What We Can Do

By Jeffrey Sprague

What we know

Cyberbullying, or electronic aggression, has emerged as another form of antisocial behavior as students have ever-increasing access to computers, mobile phones, and other electronic devices (David-Ferndon & Hertz, 2009). This form of bullying refers to aggression that is executed through personal computers or mobile phones to send e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, or messaging on social networks (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Though research is limited about the extent of this new form of bullying, available studies report that 9–35 percent of students report being the target of cyberbullying, and 4–21 percent report being the aggressor (David-Ferndon & Hertz, 2009).

Most students report receiving electronic aggression (cyberbullying) via instant messaging, and about a quarter reports being bullied by e-mail messages, in chat rooms, or through posts on websites. Fifth-grade students report fewer problems with this type of bullying, and eighth-grade students report the highest involvement (Williams & Guerra, 2007). These electronic communications can include mean teasing, threats, playing mean tricks, and spreading rumors that are intended to harm the emotional well-being, social status, or peer relationships of another student (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007).

Cyberbullying presents unique challenges for students as well as school administrators. Among these is the ability of the aggressor to remain anonymous—a situation that many believe increases the level of cruelty, mean tricks, and power of the student bullies. Another challenge is the capacity of the bully to engage in the aggressive behavior at any time of day. In fact, 70 percent of students report that 70 percent of the cyberbullying , and the extent to which he or she can send or post damaging messages to a wide audience well beyond the classroom or school (David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2009; Agatston, Kowalski & Limber, 2007).

 

What we can do

First of all, as educators it is imperative to know what our responsibilities and rights are regarding cyberbullying. If we see it or suspect it, then as professionals there is an implied responsibility to act in a systematic and coordinated manner. Some questions to consider include the following:

• Does your school have a school-wide program that teaches pro-social skills to all students, creating a respectful social climate such as PBIS (Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports)?
• To what extent is socially aggressive behavior, bullying, and harassment (including cyberbullying) a problem in our school?
• Does our school or school district have a specific policy about cyberbullying?
  • If so, what does the policy require us to do?
  • What is the proper response if a student reports a cyberbullying incident to you?
    • What should you say to the student?
    • What information do you need to collect?
    • To whom do you report the socially aggressive behavior or bullying?
    • Does our school have a specific plan or program for bullying prevention and response?
      • Do students know how to report bullying properly?
      • Do students know how to respond to a bullying incident …
        • When they are the victim?
        • When they are “standing by” and watching it happen?
        • How do we respond when the bully won’t stop?

It is important to understand your rights, responsibilities, and available resources regarding prevention and response to bullying and its many forms, including cyberbullying.

Our new book, Best Behavior: Building Positive Behavior Support in Schools (Second Edition), provides the framework to achieve a more effective context for prevention of all forms of problem behavior. We also specifically and simply describe how to integrate school-wide PBIS practices and bully prevention in practical, easy-to-understand terms.

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D., is a professor of special education and director of the University of Oregon’s Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. He directs federal, state, and local research and demonstration projects related to PBIS, RtI, youth violence prevention, alternative education, juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment, and school safety. Sprague is coauthor of the Best Behaviorprogram, several guidebooks and reports, and more than 150 journal articles and book chapters. He currently directs an R01 research project from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to conduct the first evaluation of the effects of PBIS in middle schools and is co-principal investigator on four Institute of Education Sciences Goal 2 development projects.

References

Agatston, P. W., Kowalski, R., & Limber, S. (2007). Students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), 559-560.

David-Ferndon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2009). A CDC issue brief for researchers. Electronic media and youth violence, from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/Electronic_Aggression_Researcher_Brief-a.pdf

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375.

About Jeffery Sprague

Books by Jeffery Sprague:

Wholeschool Leader

Best Behavior

REMINDER: Be a Paid Education Blogger! Ends Soon.

By Sopris Learning

Sopris Learning is looking for passionate educators to share their views with an online community of colleagues through our EdView360 blog. Enter by blogging about your choice of three given topics and submitting of a short video explaining why we should hire YOU! The public will vote, and the winner will write for EdView360 at $100 per blog! Click Here for contest details. END October 21, 2012.

Unraveling the Common Thread of Big Ideas in Geometry and Measurement

By Dr. Michele Douglass

Student achievement in the areas of measurement and geometry has been lacking for years, as evidenced by TIMSS data as well as state-to-state student achievement data. Two contributing factors are that textbooks typically spend less time developing these concepts and teachers often don’t spend the instructional time that is needed for them.

Now is the time to address this deficiency in mathematical understanding by beginning to understand the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

The CCSS bring about many changes from state to state. One of the biggest adjustments is thinking about the topic of geometry as a separate entity from measurement or data and statistics. As evidenced in the standards, statistics is not introduced as a topic until students have had years of working with data, especially as it relates to geometry and measurement.

So, what really is the difference between geometry and measurement, and how do we support in-depth student learning of these concepts?

• Measurement helps us describe shapes by quantifying their properties. Angular measures, in particular, play a significant role in the properties of shapes.

• Geometry is the branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space.

Mark Driscoll describes the importance of having a geometric habit of mind that involves: reasoning with relationships, generalizing geometric ideas, investigating invariants, and balancing exploration and reflection to improve student achievement (Driscoll, 2007, Fostering Geometric Thinking).

These categories of thinking are certainly one way to think about geometry and its connection to measurement. However, when you look across the domains of measurement and data, along with geometry, one might see a blurring of these ideas. It isn’t these categories that will bring clarity to instruction or build deeper knowledge in students. We need to change instruction to include the connections among and between the standards in terms of common big ideas that thread through all the standards.

The big ideas that are important to use as you design your instruction are as follows:

• Visualization
• Properties that define relationships
• Dimensions and measurement
• Problem solving

Visualization. This is where everything begins. We ask students at an early age to visualize the differences in shapes to sort and categorize them. Categorizing shapes visually leads to the connection of seeing and learning properties. For example, think about quadrilaterals. Students can sort these shapes into parallelograms, or more specifically to see the differences and similarities among squares, rhombi, and rectangles, which connect to the learning of properties of shapes.

Visualization also connects to building meaning of congruence and finding congruent shapes within other shapes, which connects to symmetry and geometric transformations. Think about how a shape might be transformed when you see it appear in a real-life situation. Not only does the shape need to be recognized, but you must also be able to accurately identify the properties of that shape. Think specifically about Pythagorean Theorem. What happens if the right angle of the triangle is actually in the upper right corner of the triangle? This different orientation requires changes in the visualization students have about the location of the sides or legs of the triangle versus the hypotenuse.

Finally, visualization connects to the measurement of perimeter, area, volume, and surface area. Here one must see that, even when a triangle has been rotated and shown in a different orientation, there is still a base and a height, even if the base isn’t in its traditional location – the length at the bottom of the triangle. Furthermore, visualization is a basis for building meaning of the relationship between finding the area of a trapezoid and finding the area of a triangle. One must be able to visualize the triangles that exist in a trapezoid to make meaning of this relationship.

This same type of visualization must occur to build meaning in finding the surface area of three-dimensional shapes. One must be able to visualize all the faces of the three-dimensional shape when it is drawn on a two-dimensional surface in order to find the area of each of the faces. Likewise, it takes visualization to see the two-dimensional shapes that exist within a specific plane that intersect a three-dimensional shape. We need students to have visualized the shapes such as the circle or ellipse prior to learning their specific properties and transformations that occur when graphing.

During your planning, think about how you are providing opportunities for students to visualize the object from multiple vantage points. How do they need to see the shape? Do they need to be able to decompose the shape? Is there reason to make sense of how the object is composed of various other shapes? Do they need to see a shape within an object to build connections to understand a specific relationship or property? These are some examples of questions you should be asking yourself as you are planning with visualization in mind.

Properties That Define Relationships. We often think about our own geometry experience and remember proof, proof, proof. Yes, we must know properties, but what we often miss is that properties define specific characteristics, and many properties connect to one another due to specific relationships. For many students, the learning of properties is extremely challenging because the list of properties is so long, and the relationship of these properties is not explicitly taught.

For example, think about learning the properties of a triangle. This topic begins in third grade and extends into high school. If we think about the relationship of the properties to the triangle, it provides students with a hierarchy as well as an organization for learning the properties. Think about the properties of angles of a triangle. First, angles can be acute, obtuse, or right. Likewise, a triangle can be classified by these same words. The relationship is that these words describe properties of the types of angles that exist within a triangle.

We can also look at the properties that exist for the lengths of the sides of the triangle. The length of the sides of a triangle defines it as being scalene, isosceles, or equilateral. Some of these same words can be used to describe the properties of a trapezoid. When a trapezoid has one right angle, it is a right trapezoid. When the two nonparallel sides are congruent, we name the trapezoid an isosceles trapezoid. As we move up in grades, additional properties of the lengths of the sides of a triangle are discovered and learned, including Pythagorean Theorem as well as trigonometry functions. The use of these two sets of relationships is defined by the type of angles that are present within the triangle.

While you plan your instruction of a geometry or measurement standard, you want to extend beyond visualization to think about properties and relationships. You should consider these questions focused around the big idea of the properties and relationships that exist. What are the properties that you are teaching that link to the concept? How do these properties show a relationship? How does the property connect to another shape? Another formula? Think about the connection between the properties and the relationships so that students are not seeing every property as a new  entity, but rather as an extension of a relationship they already know. 

Dimensions and Measurement. Dimensions and measurement is where the properties that we just discussed become quantified. Measurement is an issue of understanding the attribute that is being quantified. Attributes are measured in various ways and with different tools. For example, length is an attribute that is often measured in feet or inches using a ruler as a tool, whereas a table has the additional attribute of the space it takes up in a room. Space is the attribute of volume, which could be measured using cubic inches or cubic feet.

The dimensions of an object dictate the type of attributes that can be measured. For example, a line is in a plane, and when two lines intersect, you have two attributes that you could measure: length of a segment or angle measure. However, if you think back to the table, which is three-dimensional, you have multiple attributes. You could measure angles, lengths, area, volume, weight, and more. Each of these measurements is determined using specific tools such as a protractor for angles, rulers for lengths, and scales for weight.

Measurement has another aspect to it in the concept of conversions. The idea that is often lost in the act of unit conversions is making meaning of the inverse relationship that exists between the measurement and the unit of measure. More specifically, think about measuring the length of your bedroom using inches vs. feet. The length could be 120 inches or 144 inches versus 10 feet or 12 feet long. Notice how the quantity of units decreases. Many times students get confused if they only are paying attention to the total measurement without considering the size of the unit. Good instruction involves building meaning of the relationship that exists between a measurement and the unit size.

Since we are now measuring with a unit that is greater in length, it takes less iterations of that unit to match the length of the object. This is the inverse relationship – a greater unit of measure takes less iterations of the unit. Notice how understanding this relationship is critical in building meaning of dimensions and measurements.

Measurement also connects to some properties that we learn are specific measurements, such as a right angle or complementary angles. If you think back to the dialogue about properties, you may recall the number of properties that exist based on the angle measures of a shape. For example, when you have a regular polygon, you know all the angles are congruent. Vertical angles are two angles formed by intersecting lines, and they are congruent. A square has four right angles. While we often think of measurement as area or perimeter, let’s not forget the impact angle measures have within geometry and measurement.

As you are planning to teach a specific standard, you should be asking questions about measurement as well. Consider some of these questions:  What is the attribute that is being measured? Is one unit of measure better to use than another? Which tool would I use to make this measurement? How can I help students understand the inverse relationship that exists between the measure and the unit size? How does the measurement link to the properties we know about the shape? 

Problem Solving. Most likely, the hardest part of geometry is the problem solving. This is hard for many reasons, but at the top of the list is that students don’t have enough opportunities to see how the visualization, properties, and measurement connect to everyday life. For this reason, problem solving must be a focus of every lesson. From classifying shapes to solving for a missing angle, students need multiple opportunities to connect the learning to everyday life, as this is most often the way the concept is tested.

Student achievement will not improve if the instructional approach is not enhanced to meet the demands of the Common Core State Standards. You can make a difference for students by investigating the standards to see the connections described in this blog.

As you begin with a standard, go back to each of the sections above and use the questions posed as a starting point for your planning. Design your instruction to place emphasis on how visualization, properties and relationships, and dimensions and measurement can support students in learning the intended content.  Use these connections to support students to build a greater understanding of geometry and measurement.

Michele Douglass, Ph.D., is the president of MD School Solutions Inc., a company that contracts with school districts on content and pedagogy with teachers and leaders. Her experience ranges from math instructor to director of curriculum and instruction at Educational Testing Services. She has authored several math curricula, as well as professional development and technology programs.

About Michele Douglass

Reading Fluency: We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby! Part Two

By Dr. Jan Hasbrouck

Definition of Fluency:

reasonably accurate reading, at an appropriate rate, with suitable prosody, that leads to accurate and deep comprehension and motivation to read

Reasonable? Appropriate? Suitable? 

The above definition, which Dr. Deb Glaser and I developed for our training manual Reading Fluency: Understanding and Teaching This Complex Skill(2012),states that reading fluency is comprised of reasonably accurate reading, at an appropriate rate, with suitable prosody or expression. We conclude, along with most educators, that the performance standards for these three components of fluency should, in fact, vary depending on the demands of the task.

“Reasonably” Accurate

Poor accuracy leads to compromised comprehension and requires teacher attention to repair. However, precisely defined standards for reading accuracy have not been scientifically established. Some suggest that, for most reading tasks, we should aim for at least 95 percent accuracy (Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Thompson, 2011).It may be that, for younger emerging readers, acceptable levels for accuracy should be even higher (perhaps 97 to 98%). However, there are circumstances where much higher—even nearly perfect—accuracy is necessary, such as reading the directions required to complete an important task. In other situations, such as recreational reading, the level of reading accuracy is essentially unimportant.

“Appropriate” Rate

Norms for Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)—as measured in words correct per minute (wcpm)—such as those created by Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) have been established. Researchers generally agree that performance at the 50th percentile of these ORF norms can serve as a reasonable benchmark for determining an appropriate reading rate.

While there is ample empirical evidence that it is important, even essential, for students to maintain wcpm rates minimally at the 50th percentile, there is no research to suggest that pushing students to have wcpm scores above the 50th percentile has any benefit. It is preferable and more accurate to think about ORF scores like we think about blood pressure or body temperature or cholesterol levels: all three of these measures have established “norms,” and there are significant findings from medical research to indicate that it is important for healthy people to maintain their blood pressure, body temperature, and cholesterol at “average” or expected normative levels. Unlike I.Q. or athletic prowess, there is absolutely no benefit to having significantly higher (or lower) scores in these three areas! Likewise, ORF scores can serve as “indicators” of health and wellness, and scores at the “average” level are, in fact, optimal. While the data provided by Hasbrouck and Tindal demonstrate that there are students whose words correct per minute performance is above the 50th percentile, there is no research to confirm a benefit to these students in terms of higher levels of comprehension or motivation.

“Suitable” Prosody 

As with the other two components, there is no “one size fits all” for measuring optimal prosody or “expression.” There are times when we read—especially when reading silently—that expression is of little or no help to our understanding and enjoyment of the text. In silent reading, we simply want a reader to understand and attend to the diacritical markings of periods, commas, exclamation points, and quotation marks provided by the author to assist in the interpretation of the text. In oral reading, prosody is more fully evident. When oral reading sounds as effortless as speech, and mirrors the melodic features of spoken language, we can say that the reader is using suitable prosody.

Fluency Instruction and Intervention

In order to plan appropriate lessons to help develop students’ fluency or to provide intervention to students who are struggling, teachers must assess all the components (accuracy, rate, prosody) as well as the underlying mechanics of fluency (word and text fluency skills and comprehension fluency skills). Then, using the results of these assessments, teachers can plan instruction for students that is appropriate and effective.

Hasbrouck and Glaser (2011) suggest using the “AAA Rule” to guide fluency instruction: Make sure that the instruction emphasizes ACCURACY, AUTOMATICITY, and that students always ACCESS the meaning of what is being read.

Fluency is an essential, but not sufficient, component of successful and joyful reading. Professional educators must have an understanding of this complex skill to ensure that all students achieve solid levels of reading fluency.

Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D., is an educational consultant with Gibson, Hasbrouck & Associates; an author; and a researcher. She served as the executive consultant to the Washington State Reading Initiative and as an advisor to the Texas Reading Initiative. Dr. Hasbrouck worked as a reading specialist and literacy coach for 15 years before becoming a professor at the University of Oregon and later Texas A&M University. She is the author and coauthor of several assessment tools, research papers, and books, including The Reading Coach: A How-to Manual for Success and The Reading Coach 2: More Tools and Strategies for Student-Focused Coaches. 

References:

Hasbrouck, J., & Glaser D. R. (2011). Reading fluency: Understanding and teaching this complex skill. Wellesley, MA: Gibson Hasbrouck & Associates, www.gha-pd.com

Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (Spring 1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2–5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24 (3). pp. 41-44.

Rasinski, T. V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., & Thompson, S. L. (2011). Reading fluency. In Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Volume VI, NY: Longman.

About Jan Hasbrouck

Books by Jan Hasbrouck: The Reading Coach

Reading Fluency: We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby! Part One

By Dr. Jan Hasbrouck 

I started my career as a reading specialist nearly 40 years ago, initially teaching students who were struggling with reading at the elementary and middle school levels. I found that many of my students had learned the basics of decoding, and many even had sufficient vocabulary and background knowledge to understand what they were reading … but something was getting in their way.

In those days, teachers weren’t often using assessments to examine things such as accuracy and rate. But just by working closely with these students and observing them carefully, it was clear to me that the rate at which they were reading—and the many other components that we would now refer to as “fluency”—was often a major stumbling block.

Now, almost four decades later, we have learned so much about the process of learning to read, and specifically we know much, much more about the essential skill of reading fluency! This year, in a collaboration with my esteemed colleague Dr. Deb Glaser, I have finally had the chance to share some of what we now understand about fluency.

The following information is taken from a book Dr. Glaser and I cowrote titled Reading Fluency: Understanding and Teaching This Complex Skill.

Learning to read is like constructing a structure with blocks. Fluent readers have established a firm foundation for reading by integrating various component skills so well that the act of reading occurs without the reader having to intentionally will the skills into action. When these various skills are fully established, reading happens automatically.

What is reading fluency? Many questions surround the definition of fluency as a concept, in part because fluency has many subtle mechanics that are interdependent and therefore difficult to separate. We define fluency as:

Reasonably accurate reading, at an appropriate rate, with suitable prosody, that leads to accurate and deep comprehension and motivation to read.

Component #1: Accuracy

We purposefully listed accuracy first to underscore its crucial role. In order for a reader to understand what a text means, clearly that text first must be read with a certain level of accuracy. This may sound simplistic. However, to read text accurately a reader must read individual words accurately, which requires learning letters (graphemes) have associated sounds (phonemes) that need to be accurately identified and skillfully processed. Irregular words must also be read accurately. The recognition of common letter patterns as well the correct spellings of words also play roles in text accuracy. Then, of course, the correct meaning of words must be accessed. All this must happen simultaneously and automatically for a reader to be fluent.

Component #2: Rate

Rate is often mistakenly used as a synonym for fluency. Fluency is far more complex than rate alone! An all-too-common fallacy about rate is that “faster is better,” although most teachers likely know from their own experience that this cannot be true. Teachers know students who read quickly but still may not have good comprehension. Certainly, the rate at which text is decoded and recognized represents an important aspect of fluency. However, reading fast is not the same as reading fluently!  

 

Component #3: Prosody

Prosody is the technical term for what most teachers refer to as “good expression.” Prosody includes the pitch, tone, volume, emphasis, and rhythm in oral reading. Another aspect of prosody is how readers “chunk” words together into appropriate phrases. There is only minimal evidence that prosody influences reading comprehension. At this point, researchers in this field believe that prosody may be an outcome, rather than a contributor, to comprehension.

You may have noticed that we used some rather vague descriptors in our definition of fluency. Accuracy must be “reasonable.” Rate “appropriate.” And prosody “suitable.” What does that all mean? Stay tuned for my next EdView360 blog, Part 2.

Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D., is an educational consultant with Gibson, Hasbrouck & Associates, an author, and a researcher. She served as the executive consultant to the Washington State Reading Initiative and as an advisor to the Texas Reading Initiative. Dr. Hasbrouck worked as a reading specialist and literacy coach for 15 years before becoming a professor at the University of Oregon and later Texas A&M University. She is the author and coauthor of several assessment tools, research papers, and books, including The Reading Coach: A How-to Manual for Success and The Reading Coach 2: More Tools and Strategies for Student-Focused Coaches. 

About Jan Hasbrouck

Books by Jan Hasbrouck: The Reading Coach

Professional Development Must Engage Math Teachers in the “Big Picture”

By Dr. John Woodward

We understand the issue more and more every day. For years, we’ve been told that our students don’t stack up in math when compared with their peers in other countries. Our performance isn’t that bad at the fourth grade, but TIMSS and PISA data clearly show significant comparative declines as our students end eighth and tenth grade. One of many interpretations of these data is that math at the intermediate and middle grades is an exceedingly weak link in our educational system.

Were that not enough, the link between mathematical competence and success in the workplace is becoming ever clearer as the economy slowly emerges from a deep recession. A recent and fascinating issue of the Atlantic Monthly (Davidson, 2012) provides a lucid account of the extraordinary gaps in knowledge between highly successful manufacturing workers and their less-skilled counterparts who are employed, at least for now, on the same factory floor.  The former possess increasing amounts of quantitative knowledge, while the latter live in fear of automation or outsourcing. Success in math at the middle grades, which is obviously fundamental to success in high school and beyond, is a cornerstone for securing the future for American students.

Standards such as the Common Core are one way to renew our commitment to raising mathematical performance. Yet the challenges are significant, as evidenced in a recent survey of school districts from around the country (Center on Education Policy, 2011). Most districts agreed that the Common Core State Standards are more rigorous than most state standards and that, if implemented well, they will improve student math skills. Yet respondents also felt that new curricular materials, as well as fundamental changes in instruction, would be needed.

The Need for Professional Development

Every business organization, including school districts, wants to hire “turnkey” employees. These are teachers who can hit the ground running and deliver instruction at a high level. Yet with changing standards and what we know about how long it takes any professional to develop a high level of skills, this desire is unrealistic. The hope for turnkeys also puts aside the millions of teachers who already work in our schools. Again, the international message is clear and consistent: high-achieving countries hire the best candidates they can, but they continue their professional development through many years of employment (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; McKenzie & Company, 2007). We need to adopt this thinking if we have any hope of raising the math performance of our students in today’s schools.

There are distinct features to high-quality professional development in mathematics for today’s teachers. First, it is crucial that teachers understand the concepts they are teaching. Some would argue that this means extensive refresher courses in college-level mathematics, most of which are taught in a traditional, symbolic fashion.

Learning more formal mathematics can possibly help some teachers, but it is an unlikely solution for most. Also, there is little guarantee that any of this kind of professional development transfers to the classroom. Instead, teachers need vivid demonstrations of key concepts (or “big ideas”) as well as opportunities to engage in learning activities that promote the kinds of instruction advocated in the Mathematical Practices component of the Common Core. Teachers – and their students – need opportunities to analyze, discuss, and reason about concepts. They also need to solve the kinds of problems that promote strategic thinking and persistence. Naturally, how to integrate thoughtful skills practice is also part of the picture.

Teachers also need to see the “big picture” within the different strands of mathematics. For example, they need to see how rational numbers develop in complexity over grades 3 through 7. This kind of connected understanding of a strand helps teachers see how the big ideas link together, how what was taught at a previous grade level needs to be reviewed, and how what students do at one grade level is important for the next grade level.

Vivid examples of classroom practice are also critical. How do I use fraction bars effectively? How do I orchestrate a classroom discussion with an eye toward students who do not normally participate? How do I assist students when they get stuck grappling with rich mathematical problems? Well-designed video examples can go a long way to improve practice, and they are something teachers can return to again and again.

Finally, teachers need a tremendous amount of assistance when it comes to instructional planning. Linking the contents of a district’s math adoption to Common Core State Standards is challenging in itself. Even more, creating opportunities within a unit of instruction for students to engage in mathematics at a high level is new to many teachers. It is easy to skip this kind of instruction, particularly if it is a new kind of classroom practice. Teachers need guided assistance doing this as well as developing a variety of assessments that tap into the kind of thinking we want today’s students to do in math.

There is good news.  We can provide the kind of professional development our teachers need. Our challenge is to accept the fact that this kind of work is an unavoidable feature of today’s successful school systems.

Dr. Woodward is a professor and dean of the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound. In a project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, he worked with the REACH Institute on a collaborative five-year program that examined teaching methods for helping students in grades 4-8 with disabilities succeed in standard-based instruction. Dr. Woodward is coauthor of the TransMath mastery-based intervention solution for middle and high school students and a lead trainer for NUMBERS math professional development.

References

Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teacher workforce in a global context. New York: Teachers College Press.

Center on Education Policy. (2011, September). Common core state standards: Progress and challenges in school districts’ implementation. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Davidson, A. (2012, January/February). Making it in America. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/8844/

 

McKenzie & Company. (2007). How the world’s best-performing countries come out on top.  Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf

Stop Hitting the ‘EASY’ Button!

By Jill Jackson

I remember when my local office supply store started stocking the big red “EASY” button on the counters near the register. I had visions of carrying it with me when I embarked on my weekly, travel-for-work exploits! Just the thought of stepping out of the line as my flight is delayed for the umpteenth time and finding a quiet corner at O’ Hare and smacking that “EASY” button seemed somehow soothing … if only it worked that way!

Oddly enough, I think that quite a few folks in education are trying to bring that “EASY” button into their offices or classrooms.

Here’s what the “EASY” button sounds like: “Gee, teaching didn’t used to be this hard; what happened to the good ole days?” or “Wow! I need to figure out an easier way to do this!” or “Isn’t there a way that I can make this faster?” or “If only the parents/prior teachers/board/administrators/community would do ____, then I wouldn’t have to spend so much time.”

Here’s the secret: THE EASY BUTTON HAS LOST ITS POWER! Well, it never really had any power, but let’s not get hung up on that.

The real deal is this: Teaching is hard. There, I said it! Teaching is hard, and it’s not for the faint of heart —or the faint of spirit, for that matter.

So we really need to level with ourselves and change the conversation from “How can I simplify this?” to “How can I make this more powerful for the students?”

By switching the conversation, we are placing the focus on the STUDENTS we serve. We organize around what is best and most efficient and effective for the kids—even when it’s tough on the adults … even when it stretches us and causes us to stay a little later, prep a little longer, ask a zillion more questions, or ask for help and risk admitting that we don’t have the answer. And who benefits? The kids AND the teachers.

Why is dumping the “Easy” button helpful to teachers? Because we gain confidence in what we’re capable of doing for our students. That’s the way confidence grows: by trying something you didn’t think you could do and actually doing it! And NOTHING tops a confident teacher!

So once we dump the “EASY” button, what will things look like on our campuses?

• We will discuss options for fixing teaching problems without the filter of “How much time will this take?”
• We will analyze our current practices and ask: What practices serve me well, but don’t necessarily pay off for my students?
• We spend the time in the lesson prep, knowing that excellent teachers make teaching look easy because they’ve planned for lessons so thoroughly.
• We will remind each other during team meetings that just because something is difficult or time-consuming doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.

I’ve been working with struggling schools for more than 10 years now, and what I have learned over time is that teaching is NOT magic, and it IS difficult. But more than so many other professions, it’s worth it because the return on the time/energy/expertise investment is off the charts!

Commit with me to working through the difficult, even when the “Easy” button seems like the thing to do. We won’t regret it.

Jill Jackson is owner and managing director of Jackson Consulting, a full-service literacy consulting and school improvement company serving the nation’s lowest-performing/high-poverty school districts. Check out Jill’s tell-it-like-it-is tools and tips at www.jackson-consulting.com, Tweet her at www.twitter.com/TheJillJackson, or post to her wall at www.facebook.com/jacksonconsulting.