Simple Fixes Are a Myth:
How to Help Students Struggling with Literacy
How to Help Students Struggling with Literacy
No silver bullet will cure literacy problems. Although someone periodically promotes a new program or method claiming to end literacy difficulties, no one solution works for every student. In reality, multiple factors that affect the success of any particular child, resulting in a unique mixture of struggles and strengths. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, teachers must use a variety of practices and assessments to prevent struggles and individually determine strengths and weakness. Thus, teachers diagnosis and treat reading difficulties on a case by case basis and to make reading exciting in a supportive environment for those who are progressing well.
PREVENTION
Scientific research shows that some reading problems start with a lack of exposure to language before arriving at school (Lyon & Chhabra, 2004). Thus, one way that educators can alleviate literacy struggles is to inform parents that surrounding their children with language and print will have a huge impact on their later success. Shaywitz describes in great detail in her book Overcoming Dyslexia how parents can simply and easily interact with their pre-school children to increase their understanding of language. Activities such as reading to one's child, singing nursery rhymes, and playing with words like rhymes or alliteration are simple and fun, yet raise the child's awareness of print and phonics (Shaywitz, 2003). We also discussed in class the importance of teachers and parents working in unison, but this can be a challenge when families hold different values in literacy compared to teachers who are usually “super-literate” (Note 1). Sadly, some families suffer from economic or social problems that limit their ability to preform such activities with their children. In these cases, the larger systems of society needs to create programs that result greater equality between all families.
Additionally, teachers can prevent reading problems by creating supportive and caring classrooms that instill curiosity, passion, and expression in students. In these classes, a child's love for learning motivates him while the teachers encourages and supports (Kohn, 2004; Kohn, 2005). When these elements are absent some students lose interest in literacy and fall behind because they no longer practice the skills they have or fail learn new skills to move them along. When problems cannot be prevented educators must then assess with a purpose of determining strengths and weaknesses.
ASSESSMENT
In order to determine the strengths and weakness of students, teachers, and curriculum, assessment's purpose must be to improve teaching and learning. Educators need to remember assessment's huge impact on the lives of students in terms of their motivation, self-esteem, educational opportunities, and understanding literately. The International Reading Association (IRA) and National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (1999) developed eleven standards to guide teachers, administrators, and other community members in developing assessments that evaluate as objectively as possible.
IRA and NCTW assert that assessment must revolve around the student and “encourages students to reflect on their own reading and writing in productive ways, to evaluate their own intellectual growth, and to set goals” (IRA & NCTE, 1999). Students who must relay on others, such as teachers, to show them their progress in learning,are not becoming citizens who can make the choices adults face from day to day. Additionally, assessments that mandate curriculum are detrimental to learning because the assessment creators leave teachers and students out of the planning. Instead, school communities need to shape curriculum and assessment together with a focus on the needs of the students in that community. For example, a case study explains teachers changing an assessment into instruction if that action suited the child's needs; however, when high stakes tests are used teachers cannot pull a student from the test if he needs more instruction or practice (IRA & NCTE, 1999). Furthermore, we looked at an examples of commercial tests in class and saw that all were false reading situations and that some, such as the blending test that really assessed segmenting / spelling, were not valid assessments (Note 2). Even without these flaws, assessments that do not place the needs of the students first do not give teachers the picture they need to determine the correct intervention.
Teachers should not evaluate students with just one type of assessment because “only some aspects of reading and writing will be captured in any given assessment situation” and that “any one-shot assessment procedure cannot capture the depth and breadth of information teacher must have available to them” (IRA and NCTE, 1999). Reading is complex so a teacher needs to see the full student to discover the root of problems and only one type of test will not give the breadth necessary for such a rounded picture. IRA and NCTE believe that “the most powerful assessment for students are likely to be those that occur in the daily activities of the classroom,” and thus recommend detailed notes of observations and student conferences as well as portfolio work instead of high stakes multiple choice standardized tests. Additionally, information that assesses students should not just come from classroom teachers, but instead should include the perspectives of the student, parents, administrators, and other school community members who interact with the student in order to achieve the most accurate understanding of the student's abilities (IRA & NCTE, 1999).
When assessing, it is extremely important that assessments are “fair and equitable” for all students. Students with varying ethnic, gender, nationality, religion, socioeconomic, sexual, mental, and physical characteristics must all receive equal opportunities for success on assessments (IRA & NCTE, 1999). Particularly, educators must ensure that assessment does not penalized students because of their disabilities or differences, yet these students receive no advantages that allow them to achieve more than they are capable (IRA, 2000). Specifically, individuals make different meaning of language based on their unique experiences and backgrounds, so it is crucial for school communities work together to eliminate problems with assessments that relate to narrow interpretations of language (IRA & NCTE, 1999). “Once students are assigned to systematically different curricula, uneven access to subsequent experiences and jobs becomes not only a possibility, but a probability” (IRA & NCTE, 1999), so equality and fairness remains crucial in determining a student's future path including perceptions of literacy.
Also, when choosing assessments and materials that teachers and administrators use scientific research (Lyon & Chhabra, 2004). Yet, just because something totes the term “scientifically based” teachers still need to be critical. Many resources claim research, but when examined closely the researchers misinterpreted the data or poorly conducted the study (Arllington, 1997). Similarly, teachers should choose prepackaged materials carefully. In fact, experts recommend modifying materials according to the student's needs in order to recieve the best results (Kress). Lastly, teachers should be highly wary of allowing a machine to do the work for them (Aim; Kress). Kress states this sentiment as follows: The data collected by computer programs is “of value as a part of the collection of data that clinicians and teachers consider in placement and other instruction decisions; its difficult to see how they can ever become the single – or even major – informant of such decisions, however.” As one adult enrolled in a literacy program put it: the computers can't care nothing about you (Amoroso).
Some assessments in addition to conferences, observations, and portfolios are running records, miscue analysis, cloze activity, and oral reading analysis. Yet, each one of these assessments has specific uses, so teacher must decide which assessment will gather the information they seek. For example, during a miscue analysis the teacher notes the errors a student makes while reading orally and then analyzes the mistakes to discover why the student made them. This assessment allows teachers to determine what skills, mostly dealing with decoding, need working on to help the student move past the types of mistakes present during the oral reading. Meanwhile, a cloze activity investigates more closely how a student uses the context of a passage to determine missing words in a short passage. The cloze activity assesses a student's vocabulary and comprehension instead of decoding (Steineger, 1998). Thus, if a teacher wants to know specific information about a student, the teacher needs to choose the assessment that will give that information or it will be a waste of time. Moreover, for the teacher to learn about decoding and comprehension, the teacher must preform both assessments, which demonstrates that multiple assessments provide a more accurate picture of a student's abilities.
INTERVENTION
Lyon and Chhabra (2004) state that “the majority of children who enter kindergarden and elementary school at risk for reading failure can learn to read at average or above average levels – if they are identified early and given systematic, intensive instruction” in the major components of reading. Shaywitz (2003) agrees and promotes explicit, systematic phonics intervention for struggling readers, particularly dyslexics. She details the activities students should work on at school and reinforce at home at all ages in order to become fluent readers (Shaywitz, 2003).
On the other hand, some experts disagree with the idea that phonics is the best approach, even though it is endorsed by the National Reading Panel. Allington (1997) believes teachers have been misled into thinking that phonics must be taught in a “direct, systematic, and sequential” manner. Other experts, such as Nancy Atwell agree that phonics is not the only approach. Atwell (2007) believes that reading workshops provide the best methods for teaching all readers. Her whole language approach allows students to choose their own books and spend copious amounts of time reading. Unlike phonics, this approach is not systematic; instead, students are taught skills as needed through mini-lessons. Atwell's approach workshop approach is based on student choice breading joy in reading (Atwell, 2003).
I personally believe more in Atwell's approach than Shaywitz for several reasons. First, students with no interest in reading have a much greater change of struggling, and Atwell's methods keep students engaged by letting them feel the joy of reading. I have witnessed this with my own students; when they are not interested in an activity, their motivation and understanding drops. Secondly, in class, we looked at various phonics exercises and even though most of the class could not preform these tasks easily, we all are accomplished readers (Note 3). To me, this experience demonstrates that systematic teaching of phonics does not equate reading. Lastly, I believe in whole language more than phonics based on my personal experiences with dyslexia. Shaywitz states that explicit phonics remediation is the only answer for dyslexia, yet I have no memory of receiving such intervention after my diagnosis in the second grade. However, I was immersed in literature through my family and other school experiences.
No matter the approach statistics show “failure to read by nine years of age portends a lifetime of illiteracy for at least seventy precent of struggling readers” (Lyon & Chhabra, 2004). Thus, teachers must assess students often and deeply so that problems can be discovered in the early grades so that intervention can start.
Even with all these methods of prevention, assessment, and intervention, many students arrive at the secondary level struggling with literacy. Older students build up years of failure and anxiety over reading; additionally, when part of a heterogeneously grouped classroom setting, teen readers have their social standing to protect. Thus, the approaches that work for younger readers do not necessarily work for older students. Teachers can try organic primers and working with multiple literacies as alternatives.
Organic primers are stories created by teachers that illicit emotional response from the student. To creat an organic primer a teacher must get to know the student to learn what he values. The primer increases in length and complexity, yet that still uses comfortable dialogical language and structures. These primers are meaning to the student because they connect to him as an individual and because the teacher makes it especially for the student (Amoroso; Note 4).
For students who have struggled for years with literacy, an affect intervention might move away from print and allow the student to explore other media. One study described students who created projects which started with non-print literacy and then branched to print. These multimedia projects increased literacy skills because the students were passionate about the topics they chose and thus were excited to learn more and to express that learning (O'Brien, 2003).
CHANGING TEACHERS
To help students struggling with literacy, teachers, one of the many causes of this struggle, need to change. First, teachers need more training during their pre-service and professional development time that will help them meet the realities of teaching. Almost half of the states do not require elementary teachers to be trained in teaching reading (Birth of a Syndrome). This needs to change. Aim discusses “unrealistic readability levels and limited comprehensibility of texts due to concept loading and related problems,” and then describe an instance where a history teacher's students struggled with the textbook. This teacher, much like myself when I started teaching, did not realize that the students had difficulty navigating the text structures (Aim). If this teacher received instruction on reading, particularly that of textbooks, he could have helped his students understand the text starting the first time they picked it up. Thus, all teachers, not just elementary or ELA teachers, need to understand how one learns to read and how to support students in reading the materials for their particular subject. Simply put, the more knowledge teachers have about literacy, the more productive their assessments and interactions with students will be (IRA & NCTE, 1999).
Pre-service experiences also need to show teachers how to avoid practices that negatively affect their students such as classroom environments that value some students above other or that lack passion and curiosity in the content. Stienger (1998) explains that “the goal is to create readers who challenge themselves to read frequently and who tackles books above grade level.” To met this goal, teachers need instruction on how to center the materials and methods they use around the interests and needs of the students, particularly when it comes to reading materials. Students should use texts that grab their attention and make them excited to keep reading. For example Stienger (1998) describes the drastic increase in interest and motivation from a lesson using a basil to a lesson using a rich literary text. In fact, the organic primers and multiple literacy projects described above are also based on this same principal that the reader should be central to choosing the text and methods.
Teachers of all subjects should also be taught about writer-based prose. When students begin to write, they pull their knowledge or memories to the surface to get them on the page. They often use words that are “saturated” in meaning for them, but not the reader, or the student may list instead of going into detail. The writing may also have grammatical mistakes, particularly with run-on sentences, because they try to get the ideas on to the page so quickly (Newkirk). Teachers instruction on this topic to understand how to not be harsh with such efforts and instead encourage the students to revise.
Lastly, a most crucial change requires teachers to bring more strength to their profession. Government or district educational policies limit teachers' ability to teach using their knowledge of their field and students. IRA and NCTE (1999) state that teachers must show how assessments “benefit and do not harm individual students.” Additionally, they assert that “assessment information should not be used for judgmental or political purposes if that use would be likely to cause harm to students or to the effectiveness of teachers of schools” ( IRA & NCTE, 1999). Currently, government and districts use high stakes assessments in just this way. These assessments determine the effectiveness of schools and teachers, which is then linked to funding. Teachers need to fight against such practices because this type of assessment does not improve learning and teaching. So, tests such as the MEA, the NWEA, and the SAT that are “group administered” and “multiple choice, machine scored tests used to hold teachers accountable” need to receive less value in the community because they do not “stimulate reflective teaching and learning” ( IRA & NCTE, 1999). Assessments like these cause teachers to devalue their own knowledge about literacy development and make teachers and students feel like assessments are “done to them rather than something in which they are involved” (IRA & NCTE, 1999). As stated above, teachers need more training on literacy so they can use their knowledge to end destructive practices. Teachers need the power of being informed so that they can speak up for the needs and best interests of their students instead of just following orders.
CONCLUSION
Illiteracy is often like the hydra Hercules fought as part of his labors. The simple solution to cut off the beast's head only reveals more struggles in its place. In comparison, educators can not seek the easiest solution, but rather must assess literacy problems more fully. The solution to literacy struggles is multifaceted to address the many causes of illiteracy and aliteracy. Prevention is furthermost, followed by fair, varied, and valid assessment of the student as a whole. After strengths and weakness and causal factors are determined, the teacher chooses an intervention that works best for the student addressing his academic needs as well as other mental, emotion, and social needs. Only with a multifaceted approach centering on the student as a whole can we overcome literacy struggles.
Notes
1. EDU621Understanding Literacy Problems at USM in Lewiston, ME. July 25, 2008.
2. EDU621Understanding Literacy Problems at USM in Lewiston, ME. July 25, 2008.
3. EDU621Understanding Literacy Problems at USM in Lewiston, ME. July 24, 2008.
4. EDU621Understanding Literacy Problems at USM in Lewiston, ME. July 24, 2008.
Works Cited
Aim, R. The educational causes of reading difficulties. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621
Understanding Literacy Problems Web site: http://www.usm.maine.edu/%7Eamoroso/edu621/causes.htm
Allington, R. L. (1997, Aug/Sept). Overselling Phonics. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621
Understanding Literacy Problems Web site:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/%7Eamoroso/edu621/phonics.htm
Amoroso, H. On becoming literate: personal perspectives. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621
Understanding Literacy Problems Web site: http://www.usm.maine.edu/%7Eamoroso/edu621/personal.htm
Amoroso, H. Organic primers for basic literacy instruction. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621
Understanding Literacy Problems Web site:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/%7Eamoroso/edu621/organic.htm
Atwell, N. (2007). The Reading Zone. New York: Scholastic.
International Reading Association, (2000, April). On Assessment for Children in Special Education
Experiencing Reading Difficulties. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621 Understanding
Literacy Problems
International Reading Association, National Council Of Teachers Of English, (1999). Standards for the
Assessment of Reading and Writing.IRA/NCTE Joint Task Force on Assessment.
Kohn, A. (2004, Nov). Challenging students ... and how to have more of them. Retrieved July 10, 2008,
from Alfie Kohn Web site: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/challenging.htm
Kohn, A. (2005, Sept). Unconditional teaching. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from Alfie Kohn Web site:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/uncondtchg.htm
Kress, R. (1988, Nov). Remedial reading: some caveats when applying two trends in diagnosis.
Retrieved July 10, 2008, from Eric Digest Web site:
http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d31.html
Lyon, G.R., & Chhabra, V. (2004). Science of reading research. Educational Leadership. 13-17.
Newkirk, T. It's dirty to keep yelling digression . Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EDU621
Understanding Literacy Problems Web site:
http://www.usm.maine.edu/%7Eamoroso/edu621/digression.htm
O'Brien, D. (2003, March). Juxtaposing traditional and intermedial literacies to redefine the
competence of struggling adolescents. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from Reading Online Web site:
http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=obrien2/index.html
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia. New York: Random House.
Steineger, M. (1998). Creating eager readers. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from Northweat Education
Magazine Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/fall_98/article7.html
No comments:
Post a Comment