Monday, December 15, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
IRA Talks 2014
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Any suggestions as to how raising text levels will work for students that are learning English? Are the same ideas relevant? I suspect that it isn’t that different across languages in terms of how this works generally or how well it will work. What needs to be scaffolded might differ, however. Usually second language learners will need more vocabulary support or grammar support than will be needed by native speakers (but there can be a lot of individual variation in this). Second language experts have long expressed concerns about text placements that under shot ELL students’ intellectual capacities; that problem will definitely be improved by this approach. For more info on English learners and common core visit http://ell.stanford.edu/
With the huge emphasis on increased text level, it seems that the amount of reading done will decrease significantly. What are your thoughts on this? That is a real possibility and it could be a problem. I think it is something we will need to be vigilant about. I continue to stress the idea that NOT all student reading needs to in the common core ranges and the importance of varied reading difficulty across the school day and school year. Obviously when one is dealing with very hard text, it makes sense to work with smaller doses of that (because it takes longer to figure it out)… with easier text the doses can be bigger. By working with a mix of texts, it is possible to get practice with both the intensity and extensiveness to increase student reading levels and reading stamina.
David Coleman suggests reading 50% informational and 50% literary text. When we present students with "reach" texts, would you suggest we put more informational than literary texts in their hands? No, I generally wouldn’t say that, though in practice it might turn out that way. Kids will need experience in handling a wide variety of more challenging texts. However, I’ve been looking at the texts that elementary teachers report using with kids. The informational texts that they use tend to be harder than the literary texts… so if the harder texts that are available in your classroom are the informational texts, then these texts might very well be the ones that you use as reach texts.
If the vast majority of students in a classroom is reading two grade levels below current grade level, and the teacher is exposing the students to grade level shared text, is this enough? Should the shared text be ABOVE current grade level in this case? I don’t think there is a specific match of text to students (in terms of text difficulty) that facilitates learning. It will always be three variables: how well the student reads now, how hard the text is, and how much thoughtful support the teacher provides to help the student figure the text out. Working with materials two years harder than we would have used in the past is likely a sufficient distance to allow learning – now it is up to the teacher to provide enough support to encourage learning.
What would be the accuracy percentage you'd recommend when you suggest students read at their frustration level/"reach" level? See previous question. There is no set level. William Powell’s work suggests that these accuracy percentages might vary by grade levels, but that they were often in the mid 80-percents for the students who made the greatest gains (which is much lower than we would have encouraged in the past).
What is the role of literary nonfiction? If you want to prepare students to read well you should give them opportunities to work with a wide variety of text types—so they gain experience dealing with different language, text features, purposes, structures, etc. Literary nonfiction—essays, biographies, speeches, criticism—is wonderful and important. However, literature and non-literary informational text (science, history, etc.) are important, too. I fear that many schools will increase literary nonfiction, but will not increase the reading of non-literary informational text. (I also fear the pressure in some schools for the English Department to take on science and history reading—which makes no sense to me).
Can you put a percent on the maximum amount of time allowed for out-of-level reading? No. We definitely don’t know what the best mix of challenging and less challenging might be.
Do these shifts also apply to early intervention reading programs in all grade levels? Early intervention programs focus on learners in preschool, kindergarten, and grade one. I don’t think it would be a good idea to ramp text difficulty up for these students. Stay with the kinds of materials and student-text matches that we have traditionally used at these levels. (For later interventions, I like the idea of the highly skilled intervention teacher in an advantaged situation—smaller groups of children, for instance, working with harder text. Remember to learn from such text a lot more support is needed, so shifting to difficult text in the high support situation makes greater sense.
If this is true for grades 2-12, is it the role of grades K-1 to teach ALL students to the point of being on grade level expectations of CCSS? Grades PreK-1 have a lot to accomplish. The reason why we don’t ramp up the difficulty level of texts is to ensure that students develop their beginning reading and writing skills (e.g., phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, comprehension). Let’s not try to hurry past that part of the process (by raising the texts levels), but let’s give kids he skills that will allow them to benefit from the more challenging texts they will face later.
Using grade level texts (not a steady diet of out of level) is a big shift in thinking. As a literacy coach, how do I convince teachers that what we have been telling them to do is not the CCSS way anymore? I can feel a revolt coming on! However, it makes good sense to me. Are there studies there about how this shift impacts students' achievement?
AND this one:
During the webinar, I asked about research that supported asking students to read above their instructional levels. Dr. Shanahan indicated that there were a few studies. Could you give me the names of some of those researchers?
Here are a couple of past blogs that provide this information.
I work in a small district in Cedar City Utah as a school literacy specialist. Our district does not even have a core reading program that it requires all schools to use. (I use to work in Granite School district in Salt Lake City) My teachers want new curriculum in order to teach these new standards. Any suggestions on how to get the district to realize that new material is a real need with new standards?
The Common Core is requiring the use of more challenging texts than has been common in the past. It is requiring substantially greater attention to informational text and literary non-fiction. It is requiring greater attention to connections across texts, and to the use of texts that have sufficient intellectual depth to support close readings. I can’t imagine schools reaching the common core without making changes to their texts (how big those changes will need to be will depend on what is in place now, of course).
I would like to ask Dr. Shanahan if the three read, first for key ideas/details, second for craft/structure, and third for integration of knowledge/ideas works for informational text as well as literary? AND Can you briefly describe what a close reading in science might look like?
Yes, attention to those three kinds of thinking makes sense with both kinds of reading though the specifics may differ a bit (a key idea in one type of text is not necessarily a key idea in another). Early on a close reading of science is not that different from other close readings, but as students move up through the grades – and science texts gets more specialized—it can look pretty different. However, the structure of close reading can be pretty similar even when some of the specifics change. Thus, initially, it is important that students be able to identify the main idea and key details. This means students have to learn to focus on the key scientific information that would allow them to summarize the text adequately (so far, not that different from literary reading, and yet what kind of information matters most differs even at this point—character motive is pretty important in literary reading, while material cause or causation without motive is essential to science). A deeper stab at reading science will then require attention to the nature of the author’s language and the structure of the text: this might include teaching students to understand the structure of an experiment or the kind of sentence-to-sentence analysis of text illustrated in Reading in Secondary Content Areas. Then to push even deeper, analyzing the connection among the parts of the text (such as the connections of the data-communication devices, tables and the like, to the prose) or comparing one scientific account with another.
What are your thoughts about using gradated texts? Texts on a variety of levels as a scaffold? I think reading multiple texts on a topic written at different levels of difficulty is a terrific scaffold for dealing with harder text. In the past, if a text was hard for students, reading teachers would have encouraged using a different text to be used “instead of.” The idea here is not to flee from the hard text, but to read some easier “in addition to” texts on the same topic and to climb these easier texts like stair-steps.
Where do learning disabled students fit with regard to these shifts? I think teachers who work with these students may rely less on simply putting kids in easier texts as their response to these students’ needs, and more on trying to help them to deal with whatever they are struggling with.
What recommendations do you have for getting a student, who may be reading 1-2 years below their grade level, to read at their grade level in the shortest amount of time? I would make sure the student had about 3 hours per day of reading and writing work and this should engage the student in reading every day; reading something relatively easy and something challenging. The work with the challenging text needs guidance and support from a teacher with a lot of attention and explicit work on vocabulary. I would also argue for substantial fluency work (that could be with the same challenging text—repeated oral reading of some form or other). Depending on the age and skill level, I might push for explicit decoding instruction. I would encourage/require a lot of writing, too. Yes, it does, but what is a key idea in one kind of text may not be in another.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Cyndie and I published an article about disciplinary literacy in December: Analysis of Expert Readers in Three Disciplines: History, Mathematics, and Chemistry. This is the study in which we had historians, mathematicians, and chemists doing think alouds while they read, and from this we were able to compare how these experts from different disciplines read.
Upon the publication of the study, Cyndie was interviewed about this work and that interview is available to you through the Voice of Literacy, a site I have lauded before in this space. I thought she did great and that you might find this information to be useful. Here is the link. Enjoy.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Recently, Cyndie and I published a study on disciplinary literacy in the Journal of Literacy Research (Shanahan, C. Shanahan, T., & Misichia, 2011). In the study we report on our efforts to identify the special nature of literacy in three disciplines. We looked specifically at history, science (chemistry), and mathematics.
The study was based on the theory that it would be useful to account for such information when teaching students to read. The idea is that if students were taught to read history in a way that corresponds to how historians read they'd be better equipped to handle such materials. Obviously the first step in that journey is to identify those disciplinary differences, and our work was in that vein.
Which raises an important point: Disciplinary literacy is distinct from "content area" reading. Disciplinary literacy is more aimed at what we teach (which would include how to read and use information like a scientist), than how we teach (such as how can students read the history book well enough to pass the test). The idea of disciplinary literacy is that students not only have to learn the essential content of a field, but how reading and writing are used in that field. On the other hand, content area reading focuses on imparting reading and study skills that may help students to better understand and remember whatever they read.
Accordingly, a disciplinary literacy teacher may try to get students to engage in author-centered readings or sourcing (in which students try to identify an author's argument, perspective, evidence)--since that is what historians do when they read; while a content area literacy teacher would push for students to use Cornell notes or KWL, since such techniques can help readers to remember more information from a history text. Disciplinary literacy strives to get students to participate--albeit at a low level--in the reading and discourse of a particular discipline, while content area literacy strives to get students to read and study like good students.
I know some reading experts who think disciplinary literacy is nuts. Their argument is that kids are not scientists, mathematicians, or historians; they are students. Thus, the agenda of content area reading (to teach students explicitly how to study and learn information well) is an appropriate one and that teachers and students should focus on content area reading.
Our counter argument is that the development of general reading skills is not an good goal for content area classes at a high school, and that not many teachers are willing to aim for such goals and procedures given that these do not come from their discipline. Identity is very important to human beings. A teacher striving to be a math teacher is dedicated to math goals and is interested in hanging with math teachers. Using instructional methods that bind them closely to the math community (as opposed to the reading community) would be attractive.
We also recognize that content area reading instruction tends to help the bottom kids only. We think this discourages teachers from adopting content area reading. We suspect that reading procedures more in line with the mores of a discipline may be helpful to even better students.
I think the argument between those who are proponents of disciplinary literacy and content literacy are valuable. But the confusion between the two concepts is unfortunate (too many educators think that disciplinary literacy is just a new name for content area reading) It can prevent teachers from understanding what the choices really are.
Monday, November 21, 2011
I had a great time working with my friends in the Ballymun neighborhood of old Dublin last week. For those who have requested copies of the powerpoints of my presentations, the link below should be helpful.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
A few weeks ago, Cyndie and I started doing some work with a gung-ho group of New York city high school teachers. They were great and here is a piece about their project. (You also might want to scroll down in this Ed Week blog--it has some useful information about why so many literacy programs are getting cut these days (something, sadly presaged in this blog in 2008).
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Also, there were questions about sources of practical instructional ideas along the lines of what I shared. There are not yet a lot of sources, but I recommend the following:
These are the common core standards for English language arts. Look specifically at what is required in grades 6-12 in social studies/history and science/technology. These standards don't tell you how to teach these things, but what is to be taught in these areas will be very informative and should support your teaching.
Brozo & Simpson. (2003). Teachers and learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
This is a content area reading textbook. It is probably the best right now and certainly the most sensitive to the specific demands of the disciplines.
Fang & Schleppegrell. (2008). Reading in second content areas: A language-based pedagogy. University of Michigan Press.
This text deals specifically with disciplinary differences and how to teach them (extremely useful), though it is narrow in terms of what it includes--it only focuses on the language differences across the subject areas.
Shanahan & Shanahan. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40-59.
This article lays out the theory that I described in my talk.
Happy new year!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Recently, Diane August and I wrote a chapter for a book published by the California Department of Education, "Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches." Here is a link to information about that publication
So, this week they had us speak with a group of administrators at their Accountability Conference in San Francisco. Although we didn't exactly follow What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards in our determinations, I think the claims are sound. For instance, we say that professional development for teachers was an important ingredient in children's success. WWC would say that's a no-no because none of the studies directly tested this claim (that is none of them compared the success of versions of their treatments that provided professional development with those that did not). However, none of these studies of successful interventions omitted training for the teachers either. Given that the researchers all saw fit across so many studies to make professional training a part of their successful treatments, it would be hard for us to claim that any of these interventions could be made to work successfully in your school districts without such training being part of the package. Similar conclusions were drawn about differentiation as well.
Here is that presentation:
This summer I gave a talk on disciplinary literacy at Teachers College, Columbia University. This was part of a summer conference that they did. They had speakers like Andres Henriquez, Carol Lee, and Elizabeth Moje. They just issued a neat online document that includes copies of everyone's powerpoints along with summaries of their remarks. This should be useful to many readers of this blog.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
I spoke this summer at University of Kansas about Disciplinary Literacy. Earlier I posted the powerpoint slides from that talk, but they have posted a video of the presentation. The link to that speech is included below. If you are curious what all the kerfluffle about disciplinary literacy has been all about, you might enjoy watching this:
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
I just read some emails on a literacy listserv that I subscribe to. They were arguing about whether to use textbooks in science. Some of my reading colleagues who are pro reading, and who are even pro reading in science, expressed animosity towards science textbooks. There were all kinds of reasons for this, some stated, some not. For one thing, they were sympathetic with science educators who want hands-on-scienc, and let's face it, hands on experiments can be cool (let me tell you sometime about burning up my classroom trash pail with a volcano).
The most basic reason these educators oppose science textbooks is their philosophical opposition to textbooks and commercial instructional programs. But that position makes no sense in a science class.
A big part of science instruction is to get kids on board with normal science—to bring them to terms with what is already known. Thomas Kuhn once wrote that science textbooks were not a good resource for learning science history, but that they played an important role in normalizing science (in unifying the conceptions drawn from research).
This is so important that when we interview scientists they indicate that we should not be stressing critical reading much in science books. Instead, they tell us that it is important that kids approach science books as truthful, if not always accurate, descriptions of the natural world as conceptualized by science. So, science being science, textbooks play a critical role in the teaching of science.
This is very different from the situations in history and literature. In history, it is evident from talking to historians that history books are the enemy. Historians see history books as anti-history as they suggest that these books convey the idea of a single correct story—rather than of an argument based on perspective. They would be willing to accept multiple textbooks (with varied positions), but not single text perspectives; that's just the opposite of history.
And, what of literature? For the most part literature textbooks are irrelevant as long as they are faithful anthologies. You could teach literature with tradebooks or with those same tradebooks combined in a literature anthology. Textbooks are neither integral to nor antithetical to the teaching of literature.
We shouldn’t be allowing educator’s philosophies and biases to determine whether students are taught from textbooks. That should be determined by the nature of what is being taught. Science must have textbooks, history needs multiple books, and with literature you can do it either way without fault. Disciplinary literacy, indeed.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Get with the fad folks. It is in now to champion “disciplinary literacy.” I certainly support the idea of disciplinary literacy, but so many of the folks who tout this (that is, those who are in with the fad), don’t seem to have a clue what it is even about.
Traditionally, “content area reading” proponents said the right things about respecting the disciplines, but for the most part their agenda was about teaching reading skills using texts from math, science, and social studies. Their idea was more about how teachers could use K-W-L (or three-level guides or SQ3R) with a science book, than how science books differed from other books and what would it take for someone to learn science from reading and writing.
There was a recent exchange of this type on a listserv on which I lurk. The progressive educator made all the obligatory bows to “disciplinary literacy” but then attacked the idea of textbooks in science. Being anti-textbook is cool in academia, and this person was with it.
However, there is a problem with such a silly position and that is that science textbooks are an important aspect of the scientific enterprise. Unlike history textbooks (which tend to contradict the idea of history) or literature textbooks (that are sort of irrelevant to literature), science textbooks actually play an important role in establishing scientific thought (something that Thomas Kuhn wrote about in the first edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions many years ago in a wonderful appendix on the role of textbooks in the history of science).
Because of the nature of science books, it is critical that they not be replaced by literary treatments of science.
Of course, science educators have long championed “hands on science” over the use of textbooks, but that has been science educators rather than scientists (any bench scientist will tell you that they spend most of their work time reading, writing, and talking about science, not repeating experiments that have already been done). My point isn’t that hands on science should have no place in science teaching (that would be silly, too), but that text, including textbooks needs to play a big role in such teaching. This is one where the scientific community and literacy educators have been closer than have the science educators.
But if we are going to teach students to do things like translate among the tables, graphics, and prose explanations of a science textbook, a good deal of the methods of content area reading will have to be dropped (they simply don’t fit the purposes, the language, the rhetorical strategies, or the nature of the content of science).
By the way, the April 23, 2010 issue of Science is great. It is all about learning the literacy of science and has a number of terrific articles showing why this matters and how different (and sometimes similar) science text is to other texts.
A must read in a burgeoning area!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
IRA is in Chicago and Cyndie Shanahan and I spoke at a preconference institute arranged by Cathy Collins-Block, John Mangieri, and Susan Neuman. Cyndie and I each spoke about disciplinary literacy and strategy teaching. Our presentations are both linked below:
Monday, April 19, 2010
Last week I participated in two conferences: the Eastern Regional BOCES on Long Island, NY held a professional development day for secondary teachers (and they drew attendance from all over the Island--and from Massachusetts, too). Well attended and lively. I made a couple of presentations, one on what we need to do overall to improve literacy in secondary school and one that focused specifically on how to teach disciplinary literacy. Both talks are included below.
A Good start
Death of Content Reading
I also spoke at a meeting of Illinois Reach Out and Read. Given that I serve on the Board of Directors of the national ROR, I was certainly happy to help out locally. I gave a very well received talk on what must be done to engage parents successfully and fully in their children's learning. I think you'll find this one useful if you are interested in recruiting some parent support. The powerpoint is here for you:
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Hi, everyone. I just got back from the International Reading Association convention in Minneapolis. Not quite as big or exhausting as in recent past years (this economy and various organizational snafus and unfortunate occurences such as swine flu conspired to keep the participant count down).
Cyndie Shanahan and I made a poster presentation on disciplinary literacy that had a wonderful and enthusiastic audience. They wanted a copy of the powerpoint that we presented--so here it is. It is clear that this is a very hot issue among practitioners and researchers alike.
To the woman who wanted some recommendations on must-reads on this topic, I'm thinking about that one and will soon post a brief bibliography. I will also add a book by Fang and Schleppergrell to my recommended list on this page.