Showing posts with label independent reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label independent reading. Show all posts

Sunday, August 21, 2016

How Much Teacher Guidance Versus How Much Independent Work?

I've been reading your blog articles very carefully, and in one entry you recommended having the kids read a lot during the literary block time (and all other subjects), suggesting possibly 50% of the time should be spent reading. My question is how much of that reading time should be teacher-led (for close reading and complex text), and how much should be just independent work?

          All of the school reading time—or almost all of it—should be teacher-led. Kids are sent to school to learn things. Teachers are paid to teach things. There is no question that kids can learn things on their own. However, then one wouldn’t need a school or a teacher for that.

            Kids don’t learn as much on their own as when provided with explicit teaching. Hence we pay you to teach the kids. If you send them off to learn on their own instead, you reduce the benefit kids get from schooling.

           The trick is to use the school day effectively to guide kids to learn as much as possible, and then to entice them to continue on their own when they don’t have a teacher available to guide them (after school, before school, weekends, summers, etc.). 

            How close this interaction or supervision needs to be is an open question. If a teacher scaffold’s kids half way through a story, and then has them finish reading the story on their own, perhaps followed by some kind of written response, is that teacher guided or independent, or both?

           My sense of that is that, even though the kids are sitting someplace separate from the teacher for the second part of that lesson, it would be a teacher-guided activity. It was the teacher who assigned the text, got kids engaged, focused their attention on key elements through questions and other directions, and then who, even though the kids were going off to work, had focused their attention on the writing outcome.

           That is very different from those situations in which kids pick reading materials themselves, go off and read on their own—with neither guidance nor supervision (e.g., observation, feedback)—and without outcomes to focus the activity (e.g., the discussion, the writing response).

           Or what about the teacher who has developed a sequence of instruction comparable to reciprocal teaching? The series of lessons might have started out with the teacher doing almost everything; perhaps demonstrating how one can interrogate a text. The ensuing lessons would likely be under teacher control, too; these are the “we do its.”

           But what about the “you do its” or the “you do it togethers.” At that point, the students have watched the teacher carry out the activity, and would have engaged in questioning too, though under the teacher’s supervision. Now what if she has 3 or 4 groups each trying to work there way through a text, asking and answering certain kinds of questions. Or maybe it is individual assignments and the kids are reading, coming up with questions for each section, and recording these questions and answers in their notebook?

           An observer who parachutes in for those last lessons might think them very independent and far outside of teacher control, but I would disagree. Because of the context that the teacher created, those kids would simply be mastering the skills the teacher was teaching. Looking at the entire sequence of lessons, it would be more obvious that the teacher was actually still guiding the process and enhancing the learning.

          Again, kids definitely can and do learn on their own. The purpose of teaching is to focus that learning on socially determined outcomes and to make learning more efficient and powerful.

          Good teaching activities are going to have kids very much under teacher leadership. Sometimes specific lessons might require students to work away from the teacher, in a manner that allows the teacher to observe and to provide feedback.

          Giving assignments alone is not teaching. But giving assignments—even those that require kids to work on their own—are a part of teaching, if there is scaffolding, explanation, direction, purpose setting, opportunity for feedback or adjustment, and the like. Don’t look for opportunities for kids to do independent work, but look instead, to figure out the combination of activities and guidance that will allow students to accomplish particular learning goals most effectively.

          The ultimate goal is for kids to be able to do, on their own, what they are being taught to do. Kids eventually have to be able to demonstrate that they can carry out whatever the task is or that they have acquired the requisite knowledge. What combination of activities will allow them to accomplish such outcomes with maximum efficiency? 

          With activities like reciprocal teaching, we often talk as if the progress from "I do it" to "we do it" to "you do it" is a linear path (and one that may suggest two-thirds of the time--the "I" and the "we"--should be directly and immediately under teacher control, with one-third for the somewhat more distant independent work). It doesn't really work that way. I might demonstrate the skill to the kids and then try to guide their efforts. Those efforts might be terrific in which case I have made a great choice, or they might be feeble in which case it would make more sense for me to demonstrate yet again. The same kind of thing happens when the teacher tries to have the kids do the task on their own: they might struggle and the teacher may find she needs to re-intervene. 

          The proper division of time between teacher-led and independent is unknowable, because it depends on the kids. Their performance will lead you to either conclude that they have mastered the skills/knowledge or that they haven't; and pulling back to teacher-led activities might be the right response if they haven't. Of course, if they have, you should be moving forward to teach something else.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Sorting Out the Arguments Over "Independent" Reading

Teacher question:
I am confused. You claim that independent reading has almost no benefit, but another article I just read says, "In one of the most extensive studies of independent reading yet conducted, Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988) investigated a broad array of activities and their relationship to reading achievement and growth in reading. They found that the amount of time students spent in independent reading was the best predictor of reading achievement and also the best predictor of the amount of gain in reading achievement made by students between second and fifth grade." Which is correct?

Shanahan's snappy response" 
Oh, that's an easy question. My ideas are correct, of course.

Let me explain. There are different kinds of research. Here the two pertinent kinds of investigation are correlational studies and experimental studies. In the former, the researcher tries to see if there is any relationship between two variables, in this case the relationship of interest is between amount of reading and amount of student literacy learning. In the experimental studies, on the other hand, someone tries to determine if one variable “causes” another or influences another.

Here’s how it plays out in this case. The Anderson, et al., study that you cited above is a correlational study. They tested students’ reading ability and they measured (using diaries) how much reading students did on their own. Despite the quote, they didn’t actually measure how much learning the students were doing (they estimated this based on the original reading scores). In any event, the correlation was quite high… which means the kids who were reading the most had the highest reading scores (and, perhaps, the biggest learning gains).

That may seem like convincing evidence, but one problem with correlations is that you can’t be certain of their direction. What I mean by that is that no matter how strong a relationship, the analysis can’t reveal whether it is higher reading practice that leads to higher reading achievement or whether it is just that the best readers read more than the other kids. 

But even if the direction of the relationship were clear, you wouldn’t be sure about what was causing it. Maybe the kids with the highest achievement also have the best-educated parents—parents who expect them to read at home. That would mean that parent’s level of education was the determining factor for both learning to read and choosing to read. (Thus, if you made everyone read a lot, it wouldn’t necessarily have the effect you were hoping for because you wouldn’t have those educated parents in all the homes.)

In contrast, experimental studies allow you to attribute causation to a particular variable. An experiment may randomly assign students to a treatment group that would get DEAR (Drop Everything and Read) time during their school day, and to a control group that would not be required to do this extra reading. If the DEAR group learned more over the period of the study we would know that the gains were due to the extra reading time since the other variables would have been controlled or randomized.

There is a substantial body of correlational studies showing that better readers read more than other kids; just as that article that you quoted indicated. But the experimental studies of this problem reveal how hard it is to encourage students to read enough to raise their reading achievement (Kim, 2007; NICHD, 2000; Yoon & Won, 2001). In many studies encouraging kids to read more, through actions like independent reading time during the school day, have no impact at all, and the average impact across studies is tiny (so tiny it is of questionable value).

Why is this the case? We don’t really know, but here are some possible explanations. Perhaps the various interventions (DEAR time, SSR time, book floods, etc.) do not actually get kids to read more than they would without the interventions; a basic flaw in this research is that it rarely monitors how much of an increase in reading, if any, was instigated by the intervention. Or maybe these approaches get kids to read more, but not enough to make a difference in learning. Or maybe this kind of reading improves something else like oral vocabulary, world knowledge, or love of reading. Studies of reading to younger children show that those kids end up knowing more vocabulary, so that relationship seems possible, while studies of encouraging reading have usually not found any relationship to attitude. Still another possibility is that independent reading is terrific, but when compared with the reading that kids do under a teacher’s supervision during instruction, it doesn’t come out so well (put it up against skateboarding or playing video games and it would do much better).

Final word: I don’t actually say “independent reading has almost no benefit.” My point is that independent reading time during the school day has little or no impact on reading achievement, so I wouldn’t make setting aside such time a priority in my classroom. Nevertheless, I think independent reading is great and I encourage kids to be independent readers—which means reading on one’s own, not when required to by the teacher. Use your school day to teach kids to read, and then when teachers are not available to the kids let’s hope they will choose to read on their own, too (independently).