How to Organize Daily Instruction, Part II

Can you explain in more detail what you mean by learning goal vs. activity? I think you mean that during word work time their are several different activites that can help students get better at learning about words. And word study is just one of those ways. Is this right?

Hi Tim,
My head is still spinning from encountering at the IRA convention all the literacy experts whose work I cite in the lit review for my doc dissertation. I only wish there were more sessions, workshops, roundtables etc. devoted to postsecondary developmental reading and writing.
I have used some of the Kentucky modules you recommended last year along with EngageNY and California's ERWC. Now I want to add a more directed word study component, as many of my students are non-native speakers of English and would benefit from explicit focus on words - I always tell them that learning one prefix or suffix gives them more bang for the buck! That's a concept they appreciate!!
Any recommendations? My time with them is limited to one semester and their needs are great: Fluency, reading comprehension, summarizing, etc. etc. So much to do, so little time.
Any ideas would be much appreciated. I have no one looking over my shoulder (ah the life of a "contingent"!) so am at liberty to use the time as I see fit. And there's no time to waste.
T. Kafka
SDSU

Mrs. King:
You are concerned that I am "missing the effectiveness of the Daily 5." What effectiveness are you referring to? There is no research on Daily 5 suggesting any kind of effectiveness, nor are there public data from any states or large districts suggesting that adoption of this approach is associated with improved reading achievement for anyone. No teacher can evaluate effectiveness of a method, because there is no way a teacher could measure the opportunity cost (what would have happened had they done it otherwise). Your effectiveness argument is basically that you like the approach. I hear you, but that isn't convincing.

You say direct instruction is not effective with Kindergartners. Hundreds of studies would say you should get out more (NELP, 2008). Such instruction has benefits--including benefits more than 10 years out. There is actually evidence on the effectiveness of such approaches--unlike Daily 5.

I have argued in this space for the role of play within direct instruction, so I agree that play can be a useful tool in this regard--but so are lots of features of effective instruction that aren't included in Daily 5.

The argument also isn't about bad versions of Daily 5 versus good versions. It is just that after hundreds of studies we find a lot more pay off from explicit teaching of fluency, phonics, phonological awareness, etc. than "reading to oneself."

Research would suggest that you are write about the value of small group instruction. It tends to be more effective than whole class teaching. However, no one is quite sure why that is (I suspect it is due to attention, but there are plausible alternative arguments). What is clear, however, is that whatever benefits are gained when students are taught in small group, they are squandered during independent time. Every added achievement point gained in small group instruction is given back when the amount of actual instruction is reduced. I would love it if the activities being emphasized in Daily 5 had been researched or were drawn from the research. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

The problem with the trade described above is that it works that way overall, but when one looks closer approaches with lots of independent learning time tend to slant the field against the economically disadvantaged kids. That means your overall achievement levels don't change, but who achieves is shifted in a way that advantages the wealthier, whiter, etc. and add increasing disadvantage to the poorer kids. I would love to see evidence that Daily 5 overcomes this, but without that it seems like a dangerous recommendation for the most fragile kids we have.

Oh, and by the way, my dictionary's first definition of scheme is "a large-scale systematic plan." I think the term is very appropriate.

Anonymous--

Read to self is an activity. Unfortunately, it is an activity with a real small payoff in terms of kids learning (at best, across large numbers of studies, it affects only about 5% of the variance in reading performance--much less than is obtained with studies that make sense). Reading to someone else is another activity--and a poorly specified one at that. Another is activity is "listen to reading," but there is no goal stated or implied. I love reading to kids and I would read to them everyday in my classroom, but I wouldn't make it a core part of my reading program given that after all these years there still isn't a single study showing that reading to kids has a positive impact on their reading ability.

A goal is something that we want students to be able to do: I want second-graders to be able to read second-grade text with 90 wcpm. I want kindergartners to be able to fully segment orally presented multi-syllable words. I want first graders to be able to pronounce CVC words or nonsense words with a high degree of accuracy. I want them also to recognize on sight the 100 most frequent English words. I want them to be able to read a grade-level story and retell the plot (story map). Those are goals-- word work or working on writing are activities.

The whole idea of CAFE, as I understand it, was to try to shift teachers from the Daily 5 activities, to some attention to valued outcomes. It is an add on, not a central premise to the scheme. Focus on learning outcomes, not activities that will allow you to fill the time

What constitutes evidence that a teaching approach confers a learning advantage? Is it the opinions of those who use it? Usually not... there are psychological reasons (cognitive dissonance theory) for doubting the judgment of those who have made an investment in a particular approach. I am not teaching in the elementary school right now, and you must be because you see that as evidence. My questions to you would be: (1) Have you read the research on Daily 5? The answer to that would have to be "no" because there is no research on Daily 5. (2) Have you read the research that led to the formulation of Daily 5? And, again, the answer would have to be no because for the most part it was based on various "experts" opinions. (3) You purport to know something about how it is used in classrooms--besides your own I assume. So, the question is how many classrooms have you visited, observed, or examined observational date from over the past 2-3 years? I haven't spent a lot of time teaching primary grade kids during that period, but I have examined approximately 1000 such preschool and primary grade classes and I'd definitely put my grasp of what is going on in schools up against anyone who spends all their time in a single classroom. I'm glad your family doctor is not operating the same way that you are teaching children--evidence is not an issue of what you like doing.

Michelle--

Good question. A learning goal might be something like: I want all first-graders to be able to quickly, easily, and accurately recognize the 100 most frequent words in English. Or I want kindergartners to be able to fully segment multi-syllable words (Sha-na-han). Or I want second-graders to be able to decode single syllable words/nonsense words with a silent e.

An activity would that I want kids to work with words... I want them to play concentration with their sight word cards... I want them to receive a direct instruction lesson in which I teach them to recognize words that end with e... I want them to fill out a story map.

The goals--or standards--are what you are trying to accomplish and the activities are the actions that you and the children are going to engage in within the classroom.

Yes, there are always many routes to accomplishing a particular goal, though research sometimes suggests that particular approaches are more reliable or more efficient or have a bigger pay off. For example, one could have kids reading self-selected materials on their own to improve reading fluency or one could engage the kids in repeated reading (reading a challenging text repeatedly aloud with feedback). They both probably work, but the latter has a bigger or faster payoff.

Actually, we have used this scheme of focusing on learning outcomes in our adult education programs here in Chicago for several years, and with good results. Time is limited with our adult education populations, but ultimately you have five basic goals that are organized into four time categories. They have to learn words (to decode them quickly and accurately, and to know their meanings); they have to become fluent readers (reading text with high degrees of accuracy, reasonable speeds--the speed of oral language, and with prosody--make it sound like English); they need to be able to read texts with comprehension; and they need to compose their own texts. I would devote time to each of those, allowing the students' reading levels and skills patterns to determine how I apportion the time. In regular elementary classrooms, I assume the mix of kids will need everything. In remedial situations, including adult education, I assume that the patterns might be uneven (this student recognizes words well, but does not comprehend, etc.). In a regular classroom situation, I try to balance the instruction; in remedial situations, I try to balance the student.

How does the structure of Reading Wonders align to this approach to literacy instruction? Does it devote much time to some of the goals that aren't well supported by research at this time?

I will reply to this query in my next post. In that one I want to explore the relationship of CCSS with my outcome-based planning scheme, and to consider the use of core reading programs like Wonders.

thanks.

Dr. Shanahan,

I have been following your blog for about a year. I've found it very interesting and thought-provoking. In your post, you mention that there is little research to support the hypothesis that motivating a love for reading in children impacts overall reading achievement. You indicate that your premise is that "students are going to have to spend a lot of time with literacy to become literate." If your premise is true, then it makes sense to me that nurturing a love for reading in children is at least indirectly connected to overall reading achievement. A child who loves reading will spend more time with literacy than a child who is a reluctant reader.

That's logical. But logic isn't how motivation necessarily works. But even if it does in this case (and it certainly might), many of the things that teachers are told to do to make kids love reading don't seem to have that effect.

Dr. Shanahan,

That's a great point. We need research-based methods to ensure we are getting the desired effect!

Mary

If research suggests that guided reading and small group instruction is beneficial then what alternative do you suggest for instruction while working with a small group? I use Daily 5 but am also only a third year teacher so am open to more informed, research based options. As Kindergarten goes this time is also very valuable when all assessments are done orally, one-on-one...which can be very time consuming.

I think you need to focus on what it is that you are trying to teach and then figure out the most effective ways to accomplish that (from research or from trial and error when there is none). Instead of making the use of small groups a goal, decide when small groups are likely to accomplish something that couldn't be in a larger setting. Sometimes small groups confer advantages because they increase student attention and amount of interaction, and yet, learning is lost when they then have to work alone because the teacher is with another small group. So, how could you keep attention and interaction high in larger groupings. My point is that you shouldn't be trying to implement particular activities (guided reading) or particular organizational plans (small groups, flexible groups); your focus should be on teaching particular things--and choosing the activities that are likely to accomplish those best. You are at a great stage in your own development to make that shift. Good luck.