Archive for February, 2011

Readability, Text Leveling, and English Language Learners (Part II)

February 24, 2011

Last week we took a look at what the “90% rule” means for text selection, especially for English language learners. Don’t “protect” students, we suggested, from the challenge of the academic vocabulary they need to learn and the academic texts they need to learn it from. But do support them.

First of all, students need support to see themselves as “code breakers” wading into conceptual territory and vocabulary and sentences that they find challenging. Like the immigrant women reading The Babysitter’s Club books, “code breakers” expect to be challenged and can find it satisfying and enjoyable (see Part I).

by Jana Bouc

Support also includes chunking texts for repeated readings, so that students have multiple passes through manageable sections of text. Teacher modeling of the problem solving involved in making meaning of text is a necessary support. And so is the ongoing social collaboration of partners and small groups who can help each other problem solve text challenges. Word-learning strategies are an important subset of the kind of problem solving English learners need support to master: How does context help? How do word parts work?

Learning how to break down text through deliberate problem solving helps students become more independent readers of the challenging and complex texts they will meet in their academic careers. They learn when to rely on their stamina and problem-solving abilities and when to seek help from others. Of course it is still important for the teacher to choose texts that won’t be so difficult that, even with instructional support, students will only be frustrated instead of successful.

The use of “vertical text sets” is one way to keep reading challenge steady and appropriate. For a given unit of study, students encounter easier texts early on to introduce topics and build vocabulary and background knowledge. Increasingly difficult texts follow, introducing and reintroducing concepts and additional vocabulary, like stepping up a ladder. (You can see why ancillary texts, as well as visual texts, are so important in Reading Apprenticeship.)

Equally important is investing students with knowledge about how to make personal choices of books and texts. For recreational reading and when students can choose from a set of texts, students learn things like the Goldilocks rule and the Ten Page Chance to help them decide on books to read. When their interest and motivation to read a book is high, they will be able to tolerate more struggle with unfamiliar vocabulary.

Small chunks, repeated readings, tapping into students’ stores of knowledge and experience, intentional focus on learning words from context and with word-analysis strategies, building up from easier to more challenging texts, and empowering students to select books that are meaningful to them — these will all build students’ reading independence, comprehension, and academic language. It’s hard to put a percentage on that!

Cynthia Greenleaf

Cynthia Greenleaf

Blog Contributor, Cynthia Greenleaf

For over two decades, Cynthia Greenleaf has helped students become more successful readers and writers as Co-Director of WestEd’s Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI). She also directs SLI’s research program and has contributed to several books on literacy and education, including Education Policy and Practice: Bridging the Divide, The Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research, Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction, Improving Reading Achievement through Professional Development, and Bridging the Literacy Achievement Gap Grades 4 – 12, and has co-authored numerous articles appearing in such publications as the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Harvard Educational Review and Phi Delta Kappan. She received a PhD and MA in language and literacy education from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BA in linguistics from the University of California, San Diego, where she graduated magna cum laude.

Readability, Text Leveling, and English Language Learners (Part I)

February 18, 2011

An English Language Development (ELD) teacher wrote to ask whether Reading Apprenticeship supports leveling texts so that students can read the text with 90% accuracy.

The answer: “It depends.”

Level, by Jana Bouc

Level, by Jana Bouc

We know that when students can read a text with ease, comprehension, reading persistence, and enjoyment are much higher than when a text is difficult to read. Text leveling is one method of assessing the difficulty or readability of texts and selecting reading material for students.

However, part of what English language learners need to do is acquire academic English through their reading activity. Oral spoken English simply does not have the necessary input for academic language development. But neither do books in which students encounter little new vocabulary.

In Stephen Krashen’s wonderful book, The Power of Reading, he describes how immigrant women were learning English from reading book series such as The Babysitter’s Club. Because they expected to learn new words as they read, the reading, though challenging, was not overwhelming to them but pleasurable. And the more they read, the more they were able to read, and the more English they knew.

A problem with the “90% rule” is that if we only use texts containing vocabulary students know, we will have consigned them to very impoverished texts. In addition, we will likely be wrong in our guesses about which vocabulary will be “new,” given that each student brings his or her own library of reading experiences, vocabulary, and language attainment to the class.

For English language learners, it also depends on what is meant by “accuracy.” Accuracy in decoding a word is not the same as understanding the word. It is not unusual for ELD students to be able to decode words accurately without actually knowing the meaning of those words. Decoding accuracy may not be a good measure of how challenging a text will be for English learners.

The theory underlying the 90% rule is this: Readers must be able to read a text fluently because readers can only hold so many things at once in their “working memory,” and if the number of things they are holding increases beyond their working memory capacity, comprehension will break down.

But let’s unpack this a little. Reflecting on the reading processes native English speakers use with academic texts, we do not expect fluency. Instead, we know that readers of academic texts hold things in mind and retrace their steps and make annotations to clarify text meanings. We think it is important to teach English learners those same text-based problem-solving strategies for making their way through challenging texts.

What Reading Apprenticeship  proposes is this: English learners and all students need to be both supported and challenged to read academic materials. Come back next week for Part II, with the details about how this can be accomplished.

Cynthia Greenleaf

Cynthia Greenleaf

Blog Contributor, Cynthia Greenleaf

For over two decades, Cynthia Greenleaf has helped students become more successful readers and writers as Co-Director of WestEd’s Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI). She also directs SLI’s research program and has contributed to several books on literacy and education, including Education Policy and Practice: Bridging the Divide, The Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research, Best Practices in Adolescent Literacy Instruction, Improving Reading Achievement through Professional Development, and Bridging the Literacy Achievement Gap Grades 4 – 12, and has co-authored numerous articles appearing in such publications as the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Harvard Educational Review and Phi Delta Kappan. She received a PhD and MA in language and literacy education from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BA in linguistics from the University of California, San Diego, where she graduated magna cum laude.

Capturing Your Reading Process: Feed Two Birds With One “Scone”

February 10, 2011

Literacy Coach Rita Ramstad wrote to tell us of a doubly-successful approach she used recently with the “Capturing Your Reading Process” exercise in a training session with teachers at Centennial High School in Portland, Oregon.

Sketch, Jana Bouc

Birds by Jana Bouc

One of the core Reading Apprenticeship tools, “Capturing Your Reading Process” helps readers become aware of the strategies they use to make meaning. Participants are given a piece of challenging text and asked to pay attention to the strategies they use to make sense of it. When they finish reading they are asked to answer some questions regarding their reading process.

By sharing their reading processes in a group, readers learn from each other and take up new strategies. They also begin to see reading as a complex activity that requires flexible application of many strategies, an important new awareness for many readers.

The challenging text that Rita used for this exercise was two excerpts from the final report of the Strategic Literacy Initiative’s research on the effectiveness of Reading Apprenticeship in high school biology classes!

Sketch by Jana Bouc

Scone by Jana Bouc

Not only did the exercise bring forth a wide range of reading strategies and reading processes, but the content helped build the case for Reading Apprenticeship among the teachers. It also helped to highlight the differences in disciplinary ways of reading. “We had science teachers in the group,” Rita said, “and their process was markedly different than those from other content areas. It helped me meet multiple goals with one activity.”

Rita used pages 5-8 and 31-34 from the report linked below, so that she would have different types of text, including several complex tables.

If you’d like to download the full report that Rita excerpted, click here to download a pdf file of “Integrating Literacy and Science Instruction in High School Biology: Impact on Teacher Practice, Student Engagement, and Student Achievement.” You may also read a summary of the study, “Integrating Reading Apprenticeship and Science Instruction in High School Biology” on our website here.

Blog contributor, Jana Bouc

Jana Bouc

Jana Bouc is the Program Coordinator of the Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI) at WestEd. She works with school principals and district administrators to plan on-site professional development and since 2000 has been working behind the scenes to support and coordinate many facets of SLI’s work. She is also an artist who enjoys sketching and painting and maintains her own art blog at JanasJournal.com.

Content Coverage and Coffee Cups

February 4, 2011

OK. I enjoy alliteration. Guilty. But I heard something today I have to share. Picture an audience of community college faculty gathered to hear about an approach to supporting students’ reading comprehension in academic courses.

Coffee cup, oil painting detail by Jana bouc

Painting detail, Jana Bouc

Now picture an experienced English faculty member addressing the group. She has been leading a campus-wide effort to use this method for a number of years and has seen it make a real difference for students in her classes. She is talking to the group about something she has heard many of her colleagues express: nervousness about “content coverage,” the need to get through the whole textbook whether students actually understand the concepts by the end of the course or not.

She holds a coffee cup upside down. With her other hand she holds a pot of coffee and begins to pour coffee on the upside-down cup. (She has warned the people sitting up front.) Now she asks the group about what happens to students when we just “pour the content on” but the students aren’t prepared to “receive it.”

I can’t begin to count the times my colleagues and I hear teachers worry that they won’t “get the students through the book” if they stop to work on having students do the hard close reading and thinking necessary to create understanding. I know that in some cases teachers really are threatened by “pacing-guide police,” people with authority to tell a teacher, for example, not to have students reading whole books in an English course because their class won’t be on target with the selected excerpts in the required anthology. But it seems to me that in many more cases, teachers themselves are making decisions to sacrifice comprehension, depth, and student ownership of texts for the notion of doing one’s job by marching students through a textbook.

What’s your experience? How real are the “coverage cops” in your schools and districts and colleges? What guesses do you have about how the new assessments based on the Common Core Standards (coming on line in 2013 in some states) might shift educators in our country toward teaching “depth” instead of “breadth”?

Any sense of increased support for helping students learn to make their own coffee?


Blog contributor, Ruth Schoenbach

Ruth Schoenbach is Co-Director of the Strategic Literacy Initiative at WestEd. She taught and led reform initiatives in the San Francisco public schools in the 1980s and early 90s as an ESL teacher, curriculum developer, and professional development support provider in literacy. Since the mid-90s she and Cyndy Greenleaf have led the Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI) at WestEd in developing the Reading Apprenticeship instructional framework and its parallel professional development model.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers