Lets have a debate of the following resolution: Literacy researchers have not produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction.
Research in new literacy studies will continue to grow, but we have to ask how it will be relevant and useful to teachers. Right now we work in environments where test-driven priorities are increasingly dominant. An area of primary concern is assessment. The concern grows over the gap between what we know and what we are actually doing. In the meantime, we continue our attempts at mediating that gap. The previous waves of reforms have done little to change the content of instruction, teaching, learning and student achievement (Goertz, Floden, & O'Day, 1995). Today, literacy researchers are still calling on content-area teachers to provide explicit reading instruction in classrooms. The cries of "Every teacher a teacher of reading" are not new. The message seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Of the eight research based comprehension srategies discussed by the NRP, studies show consistent use of just three: answering questions, summarizing text, and examing text structure(Ness, M., Nov. 2007). Scholars, researchers and teachers need a framework that consider media driven literacy skills. In his adolescent literacy research (2009), D.L. Bruce makes substantial case for media driven literacy skills over those measured by current standardized testing. Bruce further challenges us to consider these skills and the need to include them in the proficiencies we measure because research shows that media literacy is so important to adolescents. Society demands that students be knowledgeable and skillful about emergent technologies. Also, attempts to bridge literacy and culture are gaining attention. Social issues will influence both design and models of analysis as researchers continue to examine literacy practices, community, and culture. This goes against former and current literacy practices, but this is what is important and what is happening now. It is likely to be the direction in which we proceed.
I have to agree and disagree with this statement. Literacy researchers have been trying their best to determine where the issues are within the classrooms and to design a universal program to assist the teachers in improving student’s literacy skills. The hard thing is that not one program will suit every child, and every teachers needs to this is definitely a tough process to ensure will be 100% successful.
I also feel that although there are many different types of materials out there available to teacher, not all of them are accurate, reliable or valid. In the case of Accelerated Reader in the schools, this program was designed to encourage reading, and increase literacy amongst all age groups. Although the program was designed to increase literacy skills, it is not being used in the exact ways as created for. In order to really increase literacy skills with the tools being created today the researchers and program creators should be the ones to come into the schools and show the practitioner’s, administrators and even the students exactly how it should be used. Many people learn from modeling and by using hands on course directed by the creators of the program they would be able to provide corrective feedback and ensure the program is being used as it should. Along with this, extra guidance should be provided over a period of time to ensure the program is still being used in the correct manner, and that literacy instruction is still continuing to be improved.
I disagree with the statement that literacy researchers have not produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. I believe that literacy researchers have been constantly trying to figure out and solve the most critical issues regarding learners’ literacy theoretically and practically, which may also explain why nowadays there are a variety of assessment tools, learning models and theories, and instructional approaches and strategies, etc. available. However, I think the problem is not how much those literacy researchers have done to help practitioners and policy makers improve literacy instruction. Indeed, what they have provided have been very useful and helpful for practitioners to some extent, but the most critical problem is that in the same classroom each individual learner is different, including his language, background knowledge, preferences as well as to “react responsively” and so forth (Hall, T. 2002). I think no matter how explicit the guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction is, educators play an important role in influencing and improving learners’ achievement. Therefore, we as educators need to ask ourselves if we do know explicitly what our students need, if we understand the challenges our students face and how to solve them, and if we implement various instructional methods to better fit our students’ needs, etc. Most importantly, the best instructional approach for one classroom is not necessary the best one for another.
I'm going to agree with my fellow class mates. I believe that literacy researchers have been trying to provide practitioners with many different types of instruction to improve students with a better understanding for comprehension of reading. With all the different types of tools, assessments, instructional reading strategies, and modeling examples it's hard for me not to understand how a teacher can not chose one. These are just a fewon how to help support a students progress in reading. I know every student is different and that each student learns differently, (thats why we got in this line of work) to make a difference. As Unrau, N. J. (2002)we as teachers form a model for readers that provide a window through which we can view a readers mind at work. So as for literacy researchers isn't that what we are as teachers? To study and collaborate, and preform what we learned and become the practitioner.
I believe that my classmates are accurate when they say that literacy researchers are continually on the search for explicit guidance to give to practitioners and politicians. I do however believe that although there are varying techniques and suggestions available to practitioners and politicians that there is not one universal design that will work for all children or all practitioners. As Kayte said, no one program will fit every child. I believe this to be the major underlying problem. So if we are basing our opinion of the productive base of knowledge on a universal explictatly designed curriculum or outline of literacy instruction than we will never be able to say that researchers have made any gains in providing explicit guidance.
First of all, we do not know how exactly the reading process happens. Unrau even states, that “reading is a highly complex and hidden process. .. . , we do have a substantial amount of research and theoretical knowledge about it.” It is a very complex process that will probably never be figured out entirely – so it is highly improbable that we will ever be able to figure out an explicit guideline for all educators to follow for literacy education. The instruction that teachers or practitioners give be need to be research-based methods that work for them and that fits the needs of their children.
I believe that literacy researchers have produced a base of knowledge that provides the explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. I also believe that once some of these programs, researchers are suggesting to be successful, get passed down into schools they are not effectively applied in the classroom as they were created to be. I agree with classmates that one reading model or one strategy is not effective for all students. That is why we as teachers have to adjust with new technology and research so that we are up to date with a variety of strategies. Are we ever to believe with our ever changing environment, including new technology, newly discovered disabilities, changes in generations, etc., that we are ever going to have one strategy that works forever or works with all learners? The answer is clearly no, it is impossible. I strongly agree with my classmate who said that programs like Accelerated Reader, that could be effective, need to be demonstrated and fully taught by those who created the successful version of it. I agree that the students should be taught with the teachers, and other faculty and staff involved, the correct way in which it is to be administered. Another example of this would be like how I been told throughout my major, how effective cooperative learning is within the classroom. However, I have been assigned to observe 100 hours of observation in order to enter the Teacher Education Program, and have taken courses that require observation, and still have yet to see a teacher use much other than direct instruction. With that being said, how are teachers suppose to know how to correctly use programs like AR when they aren’t adequately demonstrated or taught? How can I confidently use cooperative learning and thinking aloud strategies if I have never physically seen it applied in a classroom? Furthermore, yes I do believe researchers are discovering a base of knowledge that can make improvements in literacy, but I don’t necessary believe schools are receiving or using the explicit guidance that goes along with delivering the research at hand.
I would have to disagree with this statement. Literacy researchers have not produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. Literacy researchers are going to continue coming up with new ideas about how to improve literacy instruction and ways to improve literacy, but it does not mean that they have not already provided us with explicit guidance for improving literacy instruction. "Our understanding of learning and teaching is constantly reshaped by theory, applied research, and changing media" (Rose&Meyer 2002). I believe this to be true because education is a profession in which it is always changing, and research about all subjects is going to change. The reason why many districts are struggling with literacy is because they buy these expensive reading series programs which they believe with help, and it fails because the teachers do not know how to teach their students and then they blame it on the programs. In order to be an effective literacy teacher, you must address the needs of your individual students and change your instruction to fit his or her needs. I do not believe that their is any program out there that is going to help you to be a successful literacy teacher, but I do believe that if you follow current research about literacy instruction, and are willing to make changes to your curriculum then you will be a successful literacy teacher. Although researchers are always going to come up with new ideas and strategies about how to teach literacy, it does not mean that researches have not already created a base of knowledge with explicit knowledge for improving literacy and literacy instruction, because they have. I do not believe that districts are using the explicit knowledge that comes with the recent research, and I think that districts need to be very knowledgable about the current research before buying into all of these expensive reading series programs. It will not only save a lot of money, but it will make teachers and students more successful if they follow the up to date current research about literacy instruction.
Everybody so far in this discussion has focused on exactly what the discussion question asks of us and everybody has had some great thoughts as to why the literacy researchers have or have not provided explicit guidance for improving literacy. But I personally believe that there is a movement from a political right that wants the public school system to fail. What distinguishes the Bush administration's education plan ( No Child Left Behind — NCLB) from other education agendas through the decades, is the claim that it is scientifically based, that its National Reading Panel report is irrefutable in its research, and most troubling, if a district does not follow the strict guidelines/mandates of the plan, it is "unscientific" in its teaching and thus not qualified to receive the new federal funding (Trelease, 2007). All of you know that AYP must meet 100% on achievement tests by 2014 or the powers that control all of us can step in and systematically begin their hijacking of the public school system. These powers see the potential in the money that they will receive when they maintain control over the school system. NCLB is not transparent and with all of their demands without much representation concerns me as an educator. But what if parts of the NRP report are not scientifically based or in error? It would force veteran, qualified teachers to teach in a way they know to be wrong (Trelease, 2007). What this tells me is we are at a war against time and politics to turn the literacy movement forward. Literacy is essential to gains on achievement tests and without a clear literacy program the future of public schools is in grave danger of passing at 100% in 2014. Literacy is individualized and there are many programs to choose from but let us all be sensible and choose from the most scientifically proven methods and use a multi-literacy approach to incorporate as many programs for our students as possible and provide relevant assessments to see what program will work best for our individual students. We as teachers are at the front lines so we must become experts on reading and interpreting the results of the reading assessments to devise the best plans or strategies/models of literacy that will benefit our individual student/whole class of students. We should not count on the literacy elite to save us because they have had their time to do that already, I feel it is up to us as teachers out in the school systems if we are to save our public schools. But, it would be nice to get some clear instruction form the elite along the way.
I think it is best to agree to disagree. How much more should we shove teachers in a box? Who else is there to blame? According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary the first definition of explicit states: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity: leaving no question as to meaning or intent. To the best of my knowledge the brain itself is not explicit in its functioning. So, can it be possible to teach the brain by an agreed and universal explicit way? The answer sounds simple, no. Perhaps, that is why it is best to move away from the “one size” model. There are such things are schema theory that discuss how information is organized in the brain (Unrau, 2002). It is important to note the term theory. It is a theory because the brain itself is not explicit. You can buy attempts to be explicit that may work for some students that gloats of their “research base.” I cannot miss talking about the “test” and it’s trash affect on instruction. Yes, the National Reading Panel does suggest eight different comprehension based reading strategies that are research based and there is the research that indicates only three are primarily used. Well, let’s ask why. Is it because of the “test” and the skills that are needed for success that are linked to money? I am sure that the answer is quite clear that there is no explicit way to teach coupled with the lack of differentiation that is more than likely due to our policies to “test.” Consequently it may seem that we are using and teaching what is most important using the tools seem to work best. We should not really blame the researchers when there are many more to blame.
I believe that researchers have brought valuable information to teachers as far as reading instruction. But if we look at the numbers, as we have discussed in class, what we are doing with the children is not working. A wire somewhere is not being connected, whether that wire is the curriculum itself or the presentation of the curriculum that is failing our students. There is so much research out there on how to teach reading. My questions include is the research being misunderstood by the administration/teachers and then not presented in an effective manner? Are the right studies being done and is the importance on the correct fields of reading? In the teaching of literature, curriculum practice has been based largely on unexamined assumptions about what is important to the comprehension of literature (Hillocks, G., March 1980). I totally agree with the previous post in that social issues have to start influencing the research. If and when this happens the research will show a need to change reading practices in such a socially diverse community of students. Does the research provide teachers an explicit way to teach the child that’s home life was and is not conducive for learning, the child that’s only worry is if he/she will get dinner that night? Yes, the research explains that all these factors influence reading, but how can we fix it.
Back to a previous comment, I don't think that people want school systems to fail that would imply that people were apathetic to the current situation and that does not appear to be the case. Many people are shocked when confronted with information about high school graduates that are unable to read at a functional level. I think that most people want the public school system to succeed.
It appears that researchers have taken up the cause of reading reseach, but much of what they study could be considered an "invisible" process. How can we really tell if a student comprehends what they read? We can ask comprehension questions and hope that they get them correct, but if they don't then, as educational practitioners, we are charged with attempting to figure out where the connection failed.
I think what I am trying to say is just as there is not a crystal ball that we can use to make assumptions on how our students will do in school, there is not a magic antedote to help struggling readers.
According to Turbill (2002) selecting literacy programs is not a new issue. There has been an on-going debate about the best literacy program. It seems like everyone is looking for a quick fix, simple solution and it may not happen that fast. Some of the research that comes from disabled populations indicates that there is not perfect match for every student. Many researchers advocated for more individualized programs that are students focused. Perhaps, as teachers, the answer is that the best literacy program is something that is related to the community of students that you serve, something that you feel comfortable teaching, takes into account what research has to say, and is supplemented by materials that are relavent and/or interesting to your students. This may be the reason why all of our pre-packaged curriculums are not working.
I agree and disagree that literacy researchers have produced the base of knowledge. Research is ongoing in this area and some of it seems to be more successful than others. I think that researchers are trying to help design successful explicit guidance to improve literacy, but teachers and schools need to realize that all students will necessarily benefit from one kind of instruction so one type of instruction may be considered successful for one student but not for another. Researchers should take this into account when researching literacy instruction and build upon the previous successful research on literacy instruction to help improve this instruction for all students.
I agree and disagree with this statement. Firstly, practitioners and policy makers have tried to give explicit instruction on what they feel with improve literacy understanding. In class, we discuss Accelerated Reader and all of the learning tools it comes with, as well as Kidspiration, and the various textbooks and workbooks that aimto help students achieve literacy. All of these methods claim to be the most efficient because they are based on research. For example, a whole system of texts were developed in response to the NRP's findings. The problem is that not everyone thinks alike and not every child learn the same way. As teachers and educators use the tools that they are mandated to use, they find problems with them. There is new research done then, addressing what works and what does not work with the new tool, and another is designed to fix the flaws of the first. However, the first tool make work for some, but the second tool designed to work for those that the first did not reach may not work for those who did fine with the first. What is so interesting to me is that the search continues for one concept or idea to solve the literacy problems of all children. I do not believe this goal will ever be achieved because of the various uncontrollable factors that play a huge part in a student's ability to read. And so as researchers, pratitioners and policy makers form new and improved ideas and concepts of teaching literacy, they will never find a common solution that applies to all students. Therefore, what one should believe to be the "base knowledge" is continually changing and educators just try their best to keep up with current "trend" in literacy teaching.
I definitely agree that researchers have yet to come up with a base for practitioners to assist in literacy. They have had some progress, like in the article about having a visual of the process of reading. If there were more researchers looking at this process, the gap of literate and illiterate would be closer to being gone. Unfortunately, as we discussed in class people do not listen to what is going on in the literacy world and therefore we have many practitioners confused as to how to go about teaching literacy. As Turnbill (2002) discussed, the literacy debate has been an on going thing in the world of education. Everyone wants to be the person with the fastest program to "cure" illiteracy. This won't happen until we start to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't work.
Although I do not believe our government literacy programs are designed for student failure, evidence shows that the United States has a very high rate of illiterate or struggling readers and has a high rate of school failure due to lack in reading ability. However, I do not blame this on the work conducted by the literacy researchers, administrators, or educators, but rather on the lack of communication between everyone involved. I believe literacy researchers have developed a solid foundation for teaching literacy and have generated good activities and strategies to focus on to better teach reading, but do not make sure that their research is available or utilized by every single teacher and administrator across the country which is not their job to do. In my opinion the problem is with communication and compliance regarding these findings. With more studies and the rapid increase of technology new ideas are often added to the many aspects that comprise the research on how educators should approach and teach students to read fluently and understandably which depends on the instruction they receive. "It is imperative, I believe, that teachers of reading -- and particularly teachers of early reading -- broaden their view of what reading is in today’s world. (Turbill, 2001) Although a hard task for many, teachers need to get up to date and make sure their students are receiving the most beneficial instruction to aide in their reading development. It is hard for a school to constantly adapt and alter their methodology and form of instruction especially with the lack of support needed to make sure everyone is utilizing these findings and implementing them effectively for each student. In order for us to close the gap on low levels of literacy and for the literacy researchers findings to be useful and beneficial, all people associated with literacy and education have to come together and develop a system of how to move forward and communicate effectively as a whole in order to account for every student. Sadly, I do not see this happening anytime soon which is a shame for the students who deserve a better education. In conclusion, there is valid research and documented activities and strategies created by literacy researchers that in use would aide in developing literacy potentially nationwide across most learners but making sure everyone associated with literacy education understood and utilized these findings would be an extremely hard task to accomplish. The best way to start bridging the gap to getting everyone up to current date is by educating future teachers, so they can go in the field and make a difference in their student's lives and educate others on a new age of approach and thinking about literacy.
I have to say that I agree that researchers have not yet found the best practices that we as teachers can use to help teach literacy. There are many researches that say "they work" but there has been little research to prove that they actually do work. After reading Turnbill (2002), it's not hard for teachers to find a literacy program, it's finding one that is valid, and has the research to prove that the program actually works. I also feel, that without enough funding from the school system, it makes it very hard for teachers to have the most accurate technology in their classroom. Every year research will find that what they thought was proven to work before, actually didn't. I think that this is something that is going to be a never ending battle. This is something that I feel will never get resolved until we as teachers collaborate with one another to fnd what works.
I do believe there has been enough research and knowledge provided for us to make a difference as teachers of reading. As Dr. Glassett has stated in class, the research is out there. We, as teachers, need to make ourselves aware of the knowledge by taking classes and workshops, discuss ideas and strategies with peers, and try new methods. We have to trust ourselves as teachers and also get to know our students, communities, and administrations. We cannot settle for the status quo, but must become dilligent in our search for knowledge.
Teaching reading is not a "one size fits all" subject (if there is such a thing anyway). As a reading teacher there will be trial and error. You have to find what works best for you. As Rubin(2007) stated, "The instructional pattern that teachers use to help students gain comprehension will vary based on the concept being learned, the composition of the class, and the ability of the teacher."
After reading many of the responses from my classmates I begin to think about the extremely different ideas that all of us have. There are not real set guidelines of how teachers and educators can improve literacy and literacy instruction but that is what makes each and every classroom unique. This relates to the fact that teachers are educated in thousands of ways across the country but essentially have the same degree. Giving teachers a specific way to teach literacy would be insulting I think because that is the freedom that teachers have to spark ideas into their students as well as to instruct students in different ways to unlock the interworking of their minds. If policy makers were the ones to come up with explicit guidelines that scares me even more as a future educator. This is what I think makes each state unique. There are different requirements for instruction but it is left up to the state legislatures to decide. If policy makers were to set up guidelines I wonder how special education would fit in. I am a realistic person and I do not think many of the requirements of No Child Left Behind even consider students with a variety of disabilities but to set even more policies would affect special education as well. I think it is true that literacy practioners have come up with guidelines because strategies that have been researched based. The problem in many cases is that teachers are not aware and do not research these methods to use in their classroom enough.
Research in new literacy studies will continue to grow, but we have to ask how it will be relevant and useful to teachers. Right now we work in environments where test-driven priorities are increasingly dominant. An area of primary concern is assessment. The concern grows over the gap between what we know and what we are actually doing. In the meantime, we continue our attempts at mediating that gap. The previous waves of reforms have done little to change the content of instruction, teaching, learning and student achievement (Goertz, Floden, & O'Day, 1995). Today, literacy researchers are still calling on content-area teachers to provide explicit reading instruction in classrooms. The cries of "Every teacher a teacher of reading" are not new. The message seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Of the eight research based comprehension srategies discussed by the NRP, studies show consistent use of just three: answering questions, summarizing text, and examing text structure(Ness, M., Nov. 2007). Scholars, researchers and teachers need a framework that consider media driven literacy skills. In his adolescent literacy research (2009), D.L. Bruce makes substantial case for media driven literacy skills over those measured by current standardized testing. Bruce further challenges us to consider these skills and the need to include them in the proficiencies we measure because research shows that media literacy is so important to adolescents. Society demands that students be knowledgeable and skillful about emergent technologies. Also, attempts to bridge literacy and culture are gaining attention. Social issues will influence both design and models of analysis as researchers continue to examine literacy practices, community, and culture. This goes against former and current literacy practices, but this is what is important and what is happening now. It is likely to be the direction in which we proceed.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree and disagree with this statement. Literacy researchers have been trying their best to determine where the issues are within the classrooms and to design a universal program to assist the teachers in improving student’s literacy skills. The hard thing is that not one program will suit every child, and every teachers needs to this is definitely a tough process to ensure will be 100% successful.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that although there are many different types of materials out there available to teacher, not all of them are accurate, reliable or valid. In the case of Accelerated Reader in the schools, this program was designed to encourage reading, and increase literacy amongst all age groups. Although the program was designed to increase literacy skills, it is not being used in the exact ways as created for. In order to really increase literacy skills with the tools being created today the researchers and program creators should be the ones to come into the schools and show the practitioner’s, administrators and even the students exactly how it should be used. Many people learn from modeling and by using hands on course directed by the creators of the program they would be able to provide corrective feedback and ensure the program is being used as it should. Along with this, extra guidance should be provided over a period of time to ensure the program is still being used in the correct manner, and that literacy instruction is still continuing to be improved.
I disagree with the statement that literacy researchers have not produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. I believe that literacy researchers have been constantly trying to figure out and solve the most critical issues regarding learners’ literacy theoretically and practically, which may also explain why nowadays there are a variety of assessment tools, learning models and theories, and instructional approaches and strategies, etc. available. However, I think the problem is not how much those literacy researchers have done to help practitioners and policy makers improve literacy instruction. Indeed, what they have provided have been very useful and helpful for practitioners to some extent, but the most critical problem is that in the same classroom each individual learner is different, including his language, background knowledge, preferences as well as to “react responsively” and so forth (Hall, T. 2002). I think no matter how explicit the guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction is, educators play an important role in influencing and improving learners’ achievement. Therefore, we as educators need to ask ourselves if we do know explicitly what our students need, if we understand the challenges our students face and how to solve them, and if we implement various instructional methods to better fit our students’ needs, etc. Most importantly, the best instructional approach for one classroom is not necessary the best one for another.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to agree with my fellow class mates. I believe that literacy researchers have been trying to provide practitioners with many different types of instruction to improve students with a better understanding for comprehension of reading. With all the different types of tools, assessments, instructional reading strategies, and modeling examples it's hard for me not to understand how a teacher can not chose one. These are just a fewon how to help support a students progress in reading. I know every student is different and that each student learns differently, (thats why we got in this line of work) to make a difference. As Unrau, N. J. (2002)we as teachers form a model for readers that provide a window through which we can view a readers mind at work. So as for literacy researchers isn't that what we are as teachers? To study and collaborate, and preform what we learned and become the practitioner.
ReplyDeleteI believe that my classmates are accurate when they say that literacy researchers are continually on the search for explicit guidance to give to practitioners and politicians. I do however believe that although there are varying techniques and suggestions available to practitioners and politicians that there is not one universal design that will work for all children or all practitioners. As Kayte said, no one program will fit every child. I believe this to be the major underlying problem. So if we are basing our opinion of the productive base of knowledge on a universal explictatly designed curriculum or outline of literacy instruction than we will never be able to say that researchers have made any gains in providing explicit guidance.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, we do not know how exactly the reading process happens. Unrau even states, that “reading is a highly complex and hidden process. .. . , we do have a substantial amount of research and theoretical knowledge about it.” It is a very complex process that will probably never be figured out entirely – so it is highly improbable that we will ever be able to figure out an explicit guideline for all educators to follow for literacy education. The instruction that teachers or practitioners give be need to be research-based methods that work for them and that fits the needs of their children.
I believe that literacy researchers have produced a base of knowledge that provides the explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. I also believe that once some of these programs, researchers are suggesting to be successful, get passed down into schools they are not effectively applied in the classroom as they were created to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with classmates that one reading model or one strategy is not effective for all students. That is why we as teachers have to adjust with new technology and research so that we are up to date with a variety of strategies. Are we ever to believe with our ever changing environment, including new technology, newly discovered disabilities, changes in generations, etc., that we are ever going to have one strategy that works forever or works with all learners? The answer is clearly no, it is impossible.
I strongly agree with my classmate who said that programs like Accelerated Reader, that could be effective, need to be demonstrated and fully taught by those who created the successful version of it. I agree that the students should be taught with the teachers, and other faculty and staff involved, the correct way in which it is to be administered. Another example of this would be like how I been told throughout my major, how effective cooperative learning is within the classroom. However, I have been assigned to observe 100 hours of observation in order to enter the Teacher Education Program, and have taken courses that require observation, and still have yet to see a teacher use much other than direct instruction. With that being said, how are teachers suppose to know how to correctly use programs like AR when they aren’t adequately demonstrated or taught? How can I confidently use cooperative learning and thinking aloud strategies if I have never physically seen it applied in a classroom? Furthermore, yes I do believe researchers are discovering a base of knowledge that can make improvements in literacy, but I don’t necessary believe schools are receiving or using the explicit guidance that goes along with delivering the research at hand.
I would have to disagree with this statement. Literacy researchers have not produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy and literacy instruction. Literacy researchers are going to continue coming up with new ideas about how to improve literacy instruction and ways to improve literacy, but it does not mean that they have not already provided us with explicit guidance for improving literacy instruction. "Our understanding of learning and teaching is constantly reshaped by theory, applied research, and changing media" (Rose&Meyer 2002). I believe this to be true because education is a profession in which it is always changing, and research about all subjects is going to change. The reason why many districts are struggling with literacy is because they buy these expensive reading series programs which they believe with help, and it fails because the teachers do not know how to teach their students and then they blame it on the programs. In order to be an effective literacy teacher, you must address the needs of your individual students and change your instruction to fit his or her needs. I do not believe that their is any program out there that is going to help you to be a successful literacy teacher, but I do believe that if you follow current research about literacy instruction, and are willing to make changes to your curriculum then you will be a successful literacy teacher. Although researchers are always going to come up with new ideas and strategies about how to teach literacy, it does not mean that researches have not already created a base of knowledge with explicit knowledge for improving literacy and literacy instruction, because they have. I do not believe that districts are using the explicit knowledge that comes with the recent research, and I think that districts need to be very knowledgable about the current research before buying into all of these expensive reading series programs. It will not only save a lot of money, but it will make teachers and students more successful if they follow the up to date current research about literacy instruction.
ReplyDeleteEverybody so far in this discussion has focused on exactly what the discussion question asks of us and everybody has had some great thoughts as to why the literacy researchers have or have not provided explicit guidance for improving literacy. But I personally believe that there is a movement from a political right that wants the public school system to fail. What distinguishes the Bush administration's education plan ( No Child Left Behind — NCLB) from other education agendas through the decades, is the claim that it is scientifically based, that its National Reading Panel report is irrefutable in its research, and most troubling, if a district does not follow the strict guidelines/mandates of the plan, it is "unscientific" in its teaching and thus not qualified to receive the new federal funding (Trelease, 2007).
ReplyDeleteAll of you know that AYP must meet 100% on achievement tests by 2014 or the powers that control all of us can step in and systematically begin their hijacking of the public school system. These powers see the potential in the money that they will receive when they maintain control over the school system. NCLB is not transparent and with all of their demands without much representation concerns me as an educator. But what if parts of the NRP report are not scientifically based or in error? It would force veteran, qualified teachers to teach in a way they know to be wrong (Trelease, 2007). What this tells me is we are at a war against time and politics to turn the literacy movement forward. Literacy is essential to gains on achievement tests and without a clear literacy program the future of public schools is in grave danger of passing at 100% in 2014.
Literacy is individualized and there are many programs to choose from but let us all be sensible and choose from the most scientifically proven methods and use a multi-literacy approach to incorporate as many programs for our students as possible and provide relevant assessments to see what program will work best for our individual students. We as teachers are at the front lines so we must become experts on reading and interpreting the results of the reading assessments to devise the best plans or strategies/models of literacy that will benefit our individual student/whole class of students. We should not count on the literacy elite to save us because they have had their time to do that already, I feel it is up to us as teachers out in the school systems if we are to save our public schools. But, it would be nice to get some clear instruction form the elite along the way.
I think it is best to agree to disagree. How much more should we shove teachers in a box? Who else is there to blame? According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary the first definition of explicit states: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity: leaving no question as to meaning or intent. To the best of my knowledge the brain itself is not explicit in its functioning. So, can it be possible to teach the brain by an agreed and universal explicit way? The answer sounds simple, no. Perhaps, that is why it is best to move away from the “one size” model. There are such things are schema theory that discuss how information is organized in the brain (Unrau, 2002). It is important to note the term theory. It is a theory because the brain itself is not explicit. You can buy attempts to be explicit that may work for some students that gloats of their “research base.” I cannot miss talking about the “test” and it’s trash affect on instruction. Yes, the National Reading Panel does suggest eight different comprehension based reading strategies that are research based and there is the research that indicates only three are primarily used. Well, let’s ask why. Is it because of the “test” and the skills that are needed for success that are linked to money? I am sure that the answer is quite clear that there is no explicit way to teach coupled with the lack of differentiation that is more than likely due to our policies to “test.” Consequently it may seem that we are using and teaching what is most important using the tools seem to work best. We should not really blame the researchers when there are many more to blame.
ReplyDeleteI believe that researchers have brought valuable information to teachers as far as reading instruction. But if we look at the numbers, as we have discussed in class, what we are doing with the children is not working. A wire somewhere is not being connected, whether that wire is the curriculum itself or the presentation of the curriculum that is failing our students. There is so much research out there on how to teach reading. My questions include is the research being misunderstood by the administration/teachers and then not presented in an effective manner? Are the right studies being done and is the importance on the correct fields of reading? In the teaching of literature, curriculum practice has been based largely on unexamined assumptions about what is important to the comprehension of literature (Hillocks, G., March 1980). I totally agree with the previous post in that social issues have to start influencing the research. If and when this happens the research will show a need to change reading practices in such a socially diverse community of students. Does the research provide teachers an explicit way to teach the child that’s home life was and is not conducive for learning, the child that’s only worry is if he/she will get dinner that night? Yes, the research explains that all these factors influence reading, but how can we fix it.
ReplyDeleteBack to a previous comment, I don't think that people want school systems to fail that would imply that people were apathetic to the current situation and that does not appear to be the case. Many people are shocked when confronted with information about high school graduates that are unable to read at a functional level. I think that most people want the public school system to succeed.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that researchers have taken up the cause of reading reseach, but much of what they study could be considered an "invisible" process. How can we really tell if a student comprehends what they read? We can ask comprehension questions and hope that they get them correct, but if they don't then, as educational practitioners, we are charged with attempting to figure out where the connection failed.
I think what I am trying to say is just as there is not a crystal ball that we can use to make assumptions on how our students will do in school, there is not a magic antedote to help struggling readers.
According to Turbill (2002) selecting literacy programs is not a new issue. There has been an on-going debate about the best literacy program. It seems like everyone is looking for a quick fix, simple solution and it may not happen that fast. Some of the research that comes from disabled populations indicates that there is not perfect match for every student. Many researchers advocated for more individualized programs that are students focused. Perhaps, as teachers, the answer is that the best literacy program is something that is related to the community of students that you serve, something that you feel comfortable teaching, takes into account what research has to say, and is supplemented by materials that are relavent and/or interesting to your students. This may be the reason why all of our pre-packaged curriculums are not working.
I agree and disagree that literacy researchers have produced the base of knowledge. Research is ongoing in this area and some of it seems to be more successful than others.
ReplyDeleteI think that researchers are trying to help design successful explicit guidance to improve literacy, but teachers and schools need to realize that all students will necessarily benefit from one kind of instruction so one type of instruction may be considered successful for one student but not for another.
Researchers should take this into account when researching literacy instruction and build upon the previous successful research on literacy instruction to help improve this instruction for all students.
I agree and disagree with this statement. Firstly, practitioners and policy makers have tried to give explicit instruction on what they feel with improve literacy understanding. In class, we discuss Accelerated Reader and all of the learning tools it comes with, as well as Kidspiration, and the various textbooks and workbooks that aimto help students achieve literacy. All of these methods claim to be the most efficient because they are based on research. For example, a whole system of texts were developed in response to the NRP's findings. The problem is that not everyone thinks alike and not every child learn the same way. As teachers and educators use the tools that they are mandated to use, they find problems with them. There is new research done then, addressing what works and what does not work with the new tool, and another is designed to fix the flaws of the first. However, the first tool make work for some, but the second tool designed to work for those that the first did not reach may not work for those who did fine with the first. What is so interesting to me is that the search continues for one concept or idea to solve the literacy problems of all children. I do not believe this goal will ever be achieved because of the various uncontrollable factors that play a huge part in a student's ability to read. And so as researchers, pratitioners and policy makers form new and improved ideas and concepts of teaching literacy, they will never find a common solution that applies to all students. Therefore, what one should believe to be the "base knowledge" is continually changing and educators just try their best to keep up with current "trend" in literacy teaching.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that researchers have yet to come up with a base for practitioners to assist in literacy. They have had some progress, like in the article about having a visual of the process of reading. If there were more researchers looking at this process, the gap of literate and illiterate would be closer to being gone. Unfortunately, as we discussed in class people do not listen to what is going on in the literacy world and therefore we have many practitioners confused as to how to go about teaching literacy. As Turnbill (2002) discussed, the literacy debate has been an on going thing in the world of education. Everyone wants to be the person with the fastest program to "cure" illiteracy. This won't happen until we start to take a hard look at what works and what doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not believe our government literacy programs are designed for student failure, evidence shows that the United States has a very high rate of illiterate or struggling readers and has a high rate of school failure due to lack in reading ability. However, I do not blame this on the work conducted by the literacy researchers, administrators, or educators, but rather on the lack of communication between everyone involved. I believe literacy researchers have developed a solid foundation for teaching literacy and have generated good activities and strategies to focus on to better teach reading, but do not make sure that their research is available or utilized by every single teacher and administrator across the country which is not their job to do. In my opinion the problem is with communication and compliance regarding these findings. With more studies and the rapid increase of technology new ideas are often added to the many aspects that comprise the research on how educators should approach and teach students to read fluently and understandably which depends on the instruction they receive. "It is imperative, I believe, that teachers of reading -- and particularly teachers of early reading -- broaden their view of what reading is in today’s world. (Turbill, 2001) Although a hard task for many, teachers need to get up to date and make sure their students are receiving the most beneficial instruction to aide in their reading development. It is hard for a school to constantly adapt and alter their methodology and form of instruction especially with the lack of support needed to make sure everyone is utilizing these findings and implementing them effectively for each student. In order for us to close the gap on low levels of literacy and for the literacy researchers findings to be useful and beneficial, all people associated with literacy and education have to come together and develop a system of how to move forward and communicate effectively as a whole in order to account for every student. Sadly, I do not see this happening anytime soon which is a shame for the students who deserve a better education. In conclusion, there is valid research and documented activities and strategies created by literacy researchers that in use would aide in developing literacy potentially nationwide across most learners but making sure everyone associated with literacy education understood and utilized these findings would be an extremely hard task to accomplish. The best way to start bridging the gap to getting everyone up to current date is by educating future teachers, so they can go in the field and make a difference in their student's lives and educate others on a new age of approach and thinking about literacy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I agree that researchers have not yet found the best practices that we as teachers can use to help teach literacy. There are many researches that say "they work" but there has been little research to prove that they actually do work. After reading Turnbill (2002), it's not hard for teachers to find a literacy program, it's finding one that is valid, and has the research to prove that the program actually works. I also feel, that without enough funding from the school system, it makes it very hard for teachers to have the most accurate technology in their classroom. Every year research will find that what they thought was proven to work before, actually didn't. I think that this is something that is going to be a never ending battle. This is something that I feel will never get resolved until we as teachers collaborate with one another to fnd what works.
ReplyDeleteI do believe there has been enough research and knowledge provided for us to make a difference as teachers of reading. As Dr. Glassett has stated in class, the research is out there. We, as teachers, need to make ourselves aware of the knowledge by taking classes and workshops, discuss ideas and strategies with peers, and try new methods. We have to trust ourselves as teachers and also get to know our students, communities, and administrations. We cannot settle for the status quo, but must become dilligent in our search for knowledge.
ReplyDeleteTeaching reading is not a "one size fits all" subject (if there is such a thing anyway). As a reading teacher there will be trial and error. You have to find what works best for you. As Rubin(2007) stated, "The instructional pattern that teachers use to help students gain comprehension will vary based on the concept being learned, the composition of the class, and the ability of the teacher."
After reading many of the responses from my classmates I begin to think about the extremely different ideas that all of us have. There are not real set guidelines of how teachers and educators can improve literacy and literacy instruction but that is what makes each and every classroom unique. This relates to the fact that teachers are educated in thousands of ways across the country but essentially have the same degree. Giving teachers a specific way to teach literacy would be insulting I think because that is the freedom that teachers have to spark ideas into their students as well as to instruct students in different ways to unlock the interworking of their minds.
ReplyDeleteIf policy makers were the ones to come up with explicit guidelines that scares me even more as a future educator. This is what I think makes each state unique. There are different requirements for instruction but it is left up to the state legislatures to decide. If policy makers were to set up guidelines I wonder how special education would fit in. I am a realistic person and I do not think many of the requirements of No Child Left Behind even consider students with a variety of disabilities but to set even more policies would affect special education as well.
I think it is true that literacy practioners have come up with guidelines because strategies that have been researched based. The problem in many cases is that teachers are not aware and do not research these methods to use in their classroom enough.