Notes, Replies, Likes

short content: a post or status update with just plain content and typically without a title
a reply to content typically on another site
a way to pay compliments to the original post/poster of external content
trenchwarfare

Education reform should not remind me of The Great War. Yet I see a vast wasteland of vitriolic trenches dug deep through the annals of reading research. Battalions of reading experts have barricaded their positions behind barbwire as toxic tweets roll across a devastated wasteland of civic engagement.

On one side you have those who wrote and support the Common Core State Standards who argue for increased text complexity. These scholars and pundits latch on to the idea American scores on international assessments must mean previous efforts and documented research in comprehension must be wrong. They note that the level of text complexity high schoolers read has steadily declined since 1984 (interesting the same year the standards movement was born).

On the other side you have teachers who cling to their approaches to reading instruction. They reject almost anything that favors the Common Core State Standards. They draw connections from the Common Corse State Standards to corporate interests run by the oligarchs in the Gates Foundation, The Broad Foundation, and ALEC.

In this discussion of text complexity and reading instruction both sides miss the single greatest shift in literacy practices in human history. As we evolve into a network society (Castells and Cardosa, 2005)  we must recognize socially complex texts not simply lexile levels  or instructional leveled texts.

 

Accountability Based Reformers

Accountability based edreformers believe we need new approaches to reading as our low PISA scores must prove that strategy instruction and readers’ workshop do not work (they do not mention what happens to international benchmark scores when you control for poverty).

Those on the more conservative side of edreform argue that along with text complexity we need to focus on building Hirsch’s idea of cultural literacy. They stress over and over again the role of content knowledge.

The accountability reformers have come out swinging against Caulkin’s flavored balanced literacy and readers workshop. They cite Tim Shanahan (who has argued against leveled texts long before the Common Core). Every time they testify before a state government in support of the CCSS the conservative edreformers stress how the CCSS require students to read the America’s founding documents over and again.

What they get wrong

We do know that after decoding ability background knowledge is the leading predictor of reading comprehension. (Paris & Stahl, 2005). Even early reading researchers from Gates (1931), Huey (1908), and Gray (1939) noted the relationship between background knowledge and reading.  Content knowledge does matter.

Yet so does motivation and choice. In readers’ workshop students get some degree of flexibility in choosing what they read. Some edrefomers bemoan this activity and state it only works for the middle and upper class. They want a common read in the classroom. The idea that choice should only be available to those born in brownstones rather than those born with brown skin does not sit well with me.

We know that agency, engagement, and motivation matter when teaching reading. In study after study engaged readers outperform less engaged peers (Guthre & Wigfield, 2000). Yet the Common Core State standards do not mention reading for enjoyment. Not once. The standards  do not cite motivation when selecting texts. In fact texts should be selected using some convoluted heuristic that usually just boils down to lexile scores.

We also know from three decades of research that strategy instruction works (Duke & Pearson, 2005). Yet many CCSS supporters attack strategy instruction as a vapid content free approach to reading comprehension. They have called for an end to pre-reading activities. They only want close reading which derives from a philosophy that views all meaning “contained within the four corners of a text” (David Coleman, author of the CCSS). Granted the effect size for strategy instruction (specifically reciprocal teaching) is much larger for less proficient readers than more skilled readers but shouldn’t that be an even greater reason to keep strategy instruction in our neediest schools?

The Opposition

Those who oppose a view of reading instruction that revolves around text complexity and lexile levels cling to approaches that level texts for students as part of instruction. To be clear this is not the only form of reading instruction included in balanced literacy classroom but it is  part of the daily routine. These advocates cite the work of Carol Burris and Fountas and Pinnell.

In these approaches the teacher provides a mini-lesson (usually some strategy instruction) and then students go off and read books at their “independent level” while the teacher provides guided reading lessons at students “instructional level.” Students can choose their books, but within a limited range that is often dictated by a computer program.

What they get wrong

Students are more than a number or letter. The idea that choice must be limited based on how well a student performs on very imperfect reading inventories simply does not make sense. I have seen many students engage in texts well above their reading level because the topic is of interest. Like the accountability based reformers the opposition also discounts motivation (albeit to a lesser degree).

These educators must recognize the importance of building background knowledge and enculturating students into the discourses that are favored by academia. When instructional minutes are precious teachers may have to recognize that independent reading is not always the best use of time nor the fastest approach for developing background knowledge.

What They Both Get Wrong

Both approaches to text difficulty ignore our shift from page to pixel. The Common Core State Standards do mention technology and call for media skills to be taught across all subjects (CCSS, 2010, p. 4) but when you read the anchor standard ten about text complexity you will find no mention of new media skills or socially complex texts.

Henry Jenkins et al. note that “literacy is no longer a set of personal skills; rather the new media literacies are a set of social skills and cultural competencies, vitally connected to our increasingly public lives online and to the social networks through which we operate” (Jenkins et al., 2013 location 1177). We need to redefine text complexity to account for socially complex texts.

Socially Complex Texts

I define socially complex texts as concurrent arguments that unfold in print and social media with varying degrees of authority and amplification. Basically socially complex texts are authored by opposing perspectives discussing an issue often with equal passion and mutual disdain.  

In order to make meaning with socially complex texts readers have to engage in network fluidity. These ideas often have a definitive volume, their is weight attached to them.  In fact the volume of texts around any issue is limitless. Yet these texts have no shape. They do not exist in silos.

Take the debate around text complexity. It is a perfect example of network fluidity and socially complex texts. Readers may have to travel to a Fordham blog, read comments on the Bad Ass Teachers Association Facebook page. They might follow the #CCSS and #edreform hashtags on Twitter. Their RSS feed is hopefully diverse and includes both perspective. They may even follow citations back to Google Scholar.

Reading in Fluid Worlds

How do we prepare students to swim in the meaning found in such a fluid environment? We have to go well beyond the positions staked out by those who support and oppose the Common Core. We need to look at #connectedlearning. Through agency, engagement and academically focused interest driven production we can teach students strategic text assembly.

Reading is no longer a closed event. Especially when we are engaging in civic discourse and activism. Students need to know how to evaluate and try out different perspectives. They need to understand and develop routines for managing external storage devices and having access to the history of human knowledge.

If educational reform debate pigeon holes the reading debate behind the battle lines of text complexity, close reading, and content knowledge then we have already lost the war

image credit: No man’s Land. Public Domain. Wikipedia.

As an e-editor for the Literacy Research Association I am part of an amazing collaborative of folks trying to connect our work to classroom practice. In order to move towards this goal we have started a series of monthly focused netcasts. Each month we highlight a current issue in literacy research.  This month we are focusing on academic vocabulary.

Twitter Introductory Chat

We begin each month by framing the issue using the #literacies hashtag. The preshow Twitter chat is held the first Thursday of the month. Four questions guided the chat

  • What is the role of direct vocabulary instruction vs. learning language through use in context?
  • What is the balance between “academic” vocabulary & technical or discipline specific vocabulary?
  • How does technology impact vocabulary acquisition?
  • What implications in instructional practices and principles should we consider?

Hangout on Air NetCast

We then hold a netcast featuring some of the most important minds in the field of literacy research. The show on Academic Vocabulary will be tonight (5/6) at 8:00 pm es.t Join Freddy Hiebert, Jim Burke, Bridget Dalton, Thomas DeVere Wolsey, and Michael Manderino for the LRA Learning Research to Practice show.

The show is available via Google Hangouts-on-Air. This broadcasts the show live, which means you can watch the show live while it is happening…and ask questions. To get involved in the show, you can view (and ask questions) here. You can also watch it on YouTube after the show has completed, and share with teachers, students, and other educational partners that you believe would be interested in the topics, or the series.

The purpose of the Research to Practice series is to connect current research and “best principles” to what is happening in the classroom.

Twitter Follow Up Chat

Then on the third Thursday of the moth we have a follow up chat once again using the #literacies hashtag. This will be on 5/15 at 8:00 pm.

Come Join Us

The monthly series that the Literacy Research Association have developed can be very rewarding for practicing and pre-service teachers. We encourage you to watch past episodes. Most importantly please join us tonight (5/6) and use the twitter hashtag #literacies during the show.

As a teacher educator I have incorporated these monthly topics into my classroom. I know of school districts that now use the monthly series as part of personalized professional development. Whatever your purpose and goals I hope to see you there,

To get involved in the show, you can view (and ask questions) here: www.youtube.com/user/LiteracyResearch/live

As a teacher, participating in this type of research [Design based] gave me the opportunity to work toward solving challenging pedagogical issues in my classroom with collaborators who were experts in the field; it was fantastic professional development for me. As a researcher, I get to see what happens when a promising practice is put into action in a particular context. Everyone wins – students, teachers, and researchers.  -Sarah Hunt-Barron

Last night the Literacy Research Association sponsored their sixth netcast. We focused on formative research and how this translates to the classroom. Two themes kept reoccurring throughout the talk around new metaphors for education.

  • In order to empower teachers we need to consider teaching more of an engineering career.
  • We also using the principles of design thinking, need to rethink the concept of rigor in research.

This new mindset would help transform research and professional development.

Teaching as Engineering Science.

Formative, or design based research does not begin with a question. Instead you start with a goal in mind. Then you develop learning activities, grounded in literature to reach this goal. As you begin the work you take note of factors that enhance and inhibit the goal and enter into a process of iteration. Basically it boils down to, “How can we design something and what can we learn from designing it?”

Education in terms of practice and research benefit when we draw on engineering and a design metaphor. We need to create situations for students to design their won learning and engage in MakerEd. We need to think of our own practices as teachers in terms of a constant iterative practice based on reflection and a goal for the greater good.

Rigor or Vigor?

The panelists also held a wonderful discussion on what should count as rigor in educational research. They discussed the amount of data analysis necessary to do formative experiments well. It involved a constant examination of quantiative and qualitative factors through numerous design cycles. Just like engineers teachers and researchers need to build things and change what does not work.

I found myself on a train during the show so spent more time on Twitter as wifi on Amtrak did not allow me to watch the live. I brought up the idea that maybe rigor does not work as a modifier for research. After all rigor means to be stiff. That does not seem to share principles with iterative design.

Jeremy Lenzi shared a wonderful idea with me. Maybe we need research with vigor and not rigor.

Vigor, mean to life, to be lively, anyone who has spent time doing classroom research knows fidelity can be out of reach beacuse we are talking about lively spaces. The panelists argued that the greater good and the pedagogical goal should drive research. Sounds more like vigor than rigor to me.

Professional Development and Formative Design

Just before the show I also participated in the weekly #edchat on Twitter. We all discussed ways to improve training teachers get once they work in the field. I see many parallels to the panelists talk in terms of improving education through high quality professional development.

Teachers need to design their own professional development. They shoudl create this design cycle around a pedagogical goal. Then over the course of their “learning cycles” teachers can use a process to see whta works to reach that goal and change what is not working.

The goals can from many places. Teachers might have to develop student learning objectives for their evaluation systems. Maybe the teacher and  her building administrator work together to  develop goals after formal observations. Finally teachers might just choose a goal such as improving internet comprehension and seek out opportunities to learn about pedagogy rooted in research.

The design cycle works for professional development. Teachers just need to build iterative design and reflective teaching into everyday practice.

Professional Development Built on Design Thinking

When selecting professional development to attent teachers should make sure opportunities to make, create, break, and iterate are included. There is no need for districts to spend thousands of dollars to see speakers. We have YouTube for that.

Spires & Young (2012) https://www.citejournal.org/articles/v13i4General1Fig2.jpg
Spires & Young (2012) https://www.citejournal.org/articles/v13i4General1Fig2.jpg

Formal professional development should revolve around the design cycle. For example at the New Literacies Institute we build the class around inquiry. Background knowledge is taught before the conference through learning modules. At the conference itself teachers choose a pedagogical goal. Next researchers work with teachers to  identify digital texts and tools that align to that goal. Using these resources participants  create learning activities that should enhance the goal. Finally they bring the project back to the classroom and iterate.

Conclusion

Design thinking has reshaped my vision of education. Every aspect from teacher preperation, to curriculum, professional development, and research needs new models and metaphors. We need to consider design thinking as a guiding principle, an overarching theoretical perspective. As an end result the act of iterative teaching and reflective practice  will then get ensconced in every classroom at every level.

Many important ideas have bounced around in my head, my writings, and my worlds during the reclaim open initiative.

For those who do not know reclaim open movement (learn more here) seeks to harness the internet so learning occurs as networked events across innovative spaces. When I look across all the conversations happening around reclaim open I coalesce around one common thread: Design Thinking.

Sure open learning involves innovative use of technologies, and  open learning requires a vision  that emphasizes knowledge as  good for the community and not a good to be commidified. Yet after  listening to leaders in the field  I have realized the  transformative power of open learning emerges from  distributed design thinking.

What is Design Thinking?

I am new to this line of inquiry but my nascent reading has pointed me to a history of design thinking that emerged in the fields of architecture and manufacturing. Over time cognitive scientists have (re)desgined many of the ideas. When I translate design thinking into education I borrow heavily from John Chris Jones who put an emphasis on the construct of time:

The main point of difference is that of timing. Both artists and scientists operate on the physical world as it exists in the present (whether it is real or symbolic), while mathematicians operate on abstract relationships that are independent of historical time. Designers, on the other hand, are forever bound to treat as real that which exists only in an imagined future and have to specify ways in which the foreseen thing can be made to exist.

Time. This draws me to the idea of education. In the past we have put so much emphasis on measuring and teaching the past. All this discussion of so-called 21 century skills has made me realize we need to start teaching and assessing for future learning. We need our students discovering solutions to  problems we have yet to realize by using technology that does not exiss. In essence we need to teach a generation of designers.

Design for Teaching

A quick google search as this idea coalesced for me revealed I am not the first one to the design think in education party. In fact the map below from IDEO highlights schools that have made design thinking integral to the curriculum.

Map of design thinking

Teaching as Engineering

My history with examining design in teaching (including stealing the idea for my website tagline) began with my work with David Reinking. Dr. Reinking’s work in literacy research has focused on formative design experiments.  As a fellow with Don Leu’s  New Literacies Research Lab at UCONN we worked closely with David Reinking’s team  to develop learning activities that taught students to read in a learning space that quickly shifted and required each individual reader to construct their own text.

Dr Reinking taught me that engineering, not medical science or agriculture (where many education research paradigms began), serves as the best metaphor for education. We have to start with a pedagogical goal and then identify factors that enhance or inhibit that pedagogical goal.

Teaching as Open

Design thinking not only supports open education but also requires a commitment to open education. I call this the engineering effect. The more we iterate as a community the more we will discover which will lead to even greater iterations and discoveries.

So many scholars  have committed to open learning and this pushes design thinking in education. You have the work of Henry Jenkins, danah boyd, Mimi Ito, Mitch Resnick, John Seely Brown, John Greeno, Howard Rheingold, and Daniel Hickey (to name a few in no particular order) that have helped shaped our belief in open learning.

Teachers have also committed to supporting design thinking by pursuing  open learning. My Twitter feed overflows with ideas from people such as Paul Allison, Kevin Hodgson, Jerry Blumengarten, Starr Sackstein, Ian O’Byrne, and Karen Fasimpaur. In all honestly I could never list all the teachers who regularly think, lead, fail, and learn in the open.

Design For Learning

I debated delineating design for teaching and design for learning. Teaching and learning are inextricably connected. I decided to make the distinction because we learn without teaching and too often teach without learning. I also think we need a consorted effort to design for future learning. This must resonate in our both our  instructional  and curriculum design practice.

Instructional Design

In order to create learning that support design thinking we will have to consider spaces that put an emphasis not so much on targets or skill sets but on the learners. We will need an instructional design that focus on civic problems, engagement, motivation, and of course learning. Creating events that support future learning will be critical. We have come a long way since Gagne.

Backward  Design

Similar efforts to support design thinking have also translated into classroom practice. I see evidence of this phenomenon in the rise of Wiggin’s ideas of backward design where curriculum tries to emphasize understanding over the skills and the content knowledge. There is much debate as to what we should emphasize skills or content knowledge. I believe we ask  the wrong the question. Instead we need to know what pathways get students to deeper learning.

Design for Meaning

Meaning making has always involved the remixing of others ideas. In fact the Greeks originally coined the idea of analysis, literally loosening up, and synthesis, or putting together. In other words “close reading” and “analytical writing” have always involved a bricolage of thinking. The Internet has amplified the speed and reach of these (re)designs of meaning and we see this in the texts we read, the stories we tell, and the languages that emerge.

Design and Text Assembly

As part of my dissertation I spent thousands of hours watching videos of students read online. One of the fundamental characteristics of successful students was engaging in what I called strategic text assembly. These students combined comprehension monitoring strategies and navigational skills to create and read texts that had never existed before. They chose reading pathways that helped them to overcome a lack of background knowledge. They seemed prepared for future learning.

Design and Multimodal Authorship

The signs and symbol systems we use to make meaning have shifted back to the visual, back to the spoken word. The dominance of text, while still the backbone of the Internet, has faded as more traditional non-verbocentric practices have reclaimed a strong position in meaning making. As researchers and educators we need to understand how meaning making when we engage in transmedia and transliteracies practices.

Design and Web Literacies

I am glad all the early talk of Web 2.0, the read/write web, and WYSIWYG editors has faded to the background. I am glad to see such a focus on teaching students computational thinking and coding. We will need cadres of learners who can speak in the language of the web.

Distributed Design Thinking

You do not need to know how to code to be a designer and not all coders,  engage in design thinking. The same reads true for educators. That is my other take away from the reclaim open movement. You can not do design thinking or open education alone.

The issues we face as researchers and educators are too big. The problems too complex. If students are to imagine a future and create things that yet to exist we need to encourage real-time problem solving and emergent literacies in collaborative teams. You can be the idea guy, the coder, the artistic designer. The role really does not matter. As long as students, and us in general, have a shared vision and are willing to reach that goal through multiple pathways of knowledge we will support design thinking in education.

This past week I helped all of us celebrate Open Education Week. I joined Teachers Talking Teachers, participated in the Mozilla webmaker challenges, joined the Teacher badges Alliance, and engaged with many of you on social media.

I am left with one overarching theme. You cannot have Open Ed without community. You cannot have open web standards without community. You cannot have Open Educational Resources without community.

In many ways you cannot have education without community.

Community of  Writers

CC 3.0 UX Designs as Communities of Practice. murdocke23. flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/murdocke/7356625068
CC 3.0 UX Designs as Communities of Practice. murdocke23. flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/murdocke/7356625068

I first celebrated Open Ed by lurking, possibly even trolling, during the ConnectLearning.tv event on #DS106. For those who do not know #DS106 is an open format class on digital storytelling. It exists mainly because a community emerged around a digital hub and then spread like weeds through different social networks.

I stress the role of community for my teacher candidates when we discuss the teaching of writing. I explain that the best writing spaces I have seen  have a shared vision, experts and novices, and recognized practices that support developing writers.

The same holds true for Open Learning and Open Educational Resources. One of the greatest writing projects I contributed to this year (and only on the peripheral) was the development of Mozilla’s Web Literacy standards. The initiative, lead by Doug Belshaw, not only epitomizes how open ed works but resulted in the best thinking designed to prepare online research and media skills.

Community Necessary for Assessment

CC 2.0 Badges and Assessment. DML Competition. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dmlcomp/4980762084/sizes/m/
CC 2.0 Badges and Assessment. DML Competition. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/dmlcomp/4980762084/sizes/m/

I realized among all the talk of assessment and badging during the Teachers Badges Network Hangout on Air that community needs to come before competencies. Christina Cantrill, of the National Writing Project, stressed this point over and over again.

Badging will never be about rigor. Badging is about relevance. There has to be a community around a specific credentialing system in order for badging to succeed. This community would then help to establish skill trees. They might decide what constitutes the criteria and  evidence  for a badge.

Plus, maybe most importantly, a community would recognize the value of a badge once it has been awarded.

Community Necessary in the Workforce

Socmed_-_Flickr_-_USDAgov

Those that understand the role of community will have marketable skills. Gina Trapani, an open source advocate and co-founder of Think -Up recently commented on the importance of community on the latest episode of TWIG. She stated that in looking for potential employers and mentees that being a developer goes beyond coding.

Gina, noted that most importantly Think-Up looks for those who understand how different communities work. Only then can they provide insights to users. She also noted that developers need to break from the mindset that you need to know code. Instead the act of developing, takes quality writers, designers, and thinkers. As someone who quit coding in 1989 when I was in 6th grade, this idea resonated with me. We need emergent leaders and thinkers who work collaboratively if we want students to be college and career ready.

So What is Open Ed?

I wonder if I am any closer to answering this question than when I was a week ago.  I have learned while playing in so many new spaces this week that Open Ed, if not a set of principles, is a shared mindset that cuts across so many different communities.

I want my students to learn in the open. I want to model what it means to think, fail, and reflect in the open. I want to try and use OER in my teaching. Maybe, just maybe, I am contributing a little back to the Open Ed community.

[subscribe2]

Related Articles

[relatedkingpro show=”4″ images=true width=”150″ height=”150″ placeholder=false]

Many districts, here in Connecticut, have taken on the task to realign district wide writing assessments to both the Common Core State Standards and the rubrics published by Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

(Please note earlier versions of the post did not correctly refer to SBAC. Images still list it as Smarter Balance and not the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium).

This got me thinking, as a teacher of writing teachers, how would I encourage the use of assessment to not only align to political tailwinds but to help ensure students can write a college level when graduating high school.

I see a few options for schools:

  1. School leader developed rubric
  2. Creating them at the district level

Option One: School Leader Developed Rubric

  • School leader with an SLO  focused on argumentative writing  would be volunteered to develop arubric
  •  Examine smarted balance rubric and CCSS writing appendix (description of how pieces were scored).
  • Choose criterion
  • Develop rubrics
  • Test, ………….etc
Option Two: Developing and Testing Rubrics
  • Have schools that have already developed rubrics test theirs. Offer that same version to others buildings to try.
  • Develop and share a rubric based on the CCSS and Smarter Balance Rubric
  • Administer a pilot assessment
  • Score and develop anchor packets that can be used to calibrate raters.
Either option involves a ton of work. What I think needs the greatest focus though is how the rubric translates into improving learning in the classroom. My basic tenants of belief when assessing writing:
  • Evidence of scores cannot be inferred.
  • Teachers need to know that they do not need to focus on every criterion at once.
  • Teachers should (or district should be) developing a library of mini-lessons
  • The teaching of argumentative writing is closely linked to text based analysis of mentor texts
    • Texts should be annotated using codes aligned to the criterion in the rubrics
    • Text annotation needs to be taught and modeled.

So I decided to share my attempt at creating an argumentative writing rubric that could be used at the high school level:

Click Here to Open Rubric

 

How does it work? Well I attempted to align the rubric to both the Smarter Balance argumentative writing rubric and the Common Core Anchor Standards:

Argumentative Writing Rubric

 

At the top of each domain you will find a CCSS anchor standard. Then each criterion is a grade level expectation. The scale of each criterion is taken word for word from the Smarter Balance Rubric

How would it work?

Improving Writing Instruction

The entire rubric could be used as a summative assessment to give teachers classroom level or building level snapshots. I would NEVER use such an extensive rubric for formative assessment.

There are 13 criterion and four level of scales across five domains. That would be 52 individual boxes for a student to have to consider. In no way will that help them to become better writers.

Instead teachers could take a piece, and with the student focus on a limited number of criterion. Possibly they would choose a specific domain. Maybe after reading the student work the teacher and student may choose 1-3 criterion as targeted areas of growth.

A Holistic Score not a Mathematical Equation

The teacher, and the young writer, are the ultimate arbiters of quality. Therefore I do not assign different point values to each scale and criterion. No complicated mathematical equation exist. Instead the rubric relies on teacher expertise and evidence from the writing to assign an overall holistic score for each domain.

Assessment Needs to Drive Instruction

The domain and  criterion in the rubric should be used to read mentor texts with purpose. Teachers should develop an annotation system that has students identify the qualities of strong writing.

Each student may have a different focus to improve their writing. Do not be afraid to have students work on only a small piece of the rubric at once. In fact I believe students will find this practice more rewarding.

Use schoolwide or classroom wide data from the entire rubric to identify gaps in knowledge growth. Take this information and cater your mini-lessons to fit this need. Record minilessons using screencasts. Overtime you will have a library of better writing practices.

Next Steps

Feel free to open the Google spreadsheet and use as much or little of the rubric as you desire. You can also contact me and we can develop ideas together to connect writing instruction and assessment.

[relatedkingpro show=”4″ images=true width=”150″ height=”150″ placeholder=false]

Bike in Kaohsiung(parking)-030

flickr photo shared by 謝一麟 Chiā,It-lîn under a Creative Commons ( BY-NC-ND ) license

Once again our friends from across the globe amaze us. In fact new poets, learners and readers join #walkmyworld every day. To this end we will no longer publish weekly challenges but will shift the focus to learning events. This will allow folks to step in and out of our burgeoning affinity space.

In the last learning event we asked you to think about what it means to name things, and to consider the power of what you name in the pics you share. We considered what Hass meant when he said, “naming things is a way of establishing your identity through one’s surroundings.”

Many turned to to the the poem “Meditation at Lagunitas.”

I was blown away by the work @dogtrax who created a poetic response. Alecia’s exploration of Lagunitas and blackberries captured what it meant to identify oneself through one’s surroundings. Molly Sheilds challenged my definition of what text means.
We even had Robert Hass reach out to a Kate Booth’s kindergarten class involved in the #walkmyworld project.

Next Learning Event

These are just a few of the amazing things to come out of the last learning event. We will continue to share Hass’s poetry over the next few learning events. We will post a poem and a prompt to spark your thinking.
We will not tell you how to respond. Some may just write a paragraph or two based on the prompts. Others may annotate the poem. I am sure @dogtrax will post a series of poems in response. Molly will issue me another challenge.
The goal is for you to focus on your thoughts, your works, your identities.

Letter to a Poet

A mockingbird leans
from the walnut, bellies,
riffling white, accomplishes

his perch upon the eaves.
I witnessed this act of grace
in blind California

in the January sun
where families bicycle on Saturday
and the mother with high cheekbones

and coffee-colored iridescent
hair curses her child
in the language of Pushkin–

John, I am dull from
thinking of your pain,
this mimic world

which make us stupid
with the totem griefs
we hope will give us

power to look at trees,
at stones, one brute to another
like poems on a page.

What can I say, my friend?
There are tricks of animal grace,
poems in the mind

we survive on. It isn’t much.
You are 4,000 miles away &
this world did not invite us

In your response explore some, all, or none of these prompts:
What words or phrases spoke to you and influence the overall meaning of the poem?
What does this poem suggest about human connections and isolation?
What does Hass suggest about the ways we are, and are not, part of the world?
How do your walks demonstrate a connection  or isolation to the natural world?
 
I have often wondered if the Common Core State Standards have a dead white guy bias. It seems that advocates of the common core continuously try to reinforce the idea that reading the classics is the solution to all educational issues. This applies to both nonfiction and fiction

In fact when Michael Petrilli, executive vice president of the Fordham Institute, testifies in support of the Common Core one of the first things he mentions is that the Common Core requires the reading of our Founding Documents. If I would have known reading the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address were the highest priority in education I would have done it years ago.

I have come to see the bias in the CCSS based on the Fordham Institute recent report “Common Core in the Schools: A First Look at Reading Assignments.” I find thinly veiled ethnocentric beliefs in the suggested instructional approaches and in the suggested reading.

Bias in Instructional Approaches

Throughout the report on Common Core implementation is the idea that our educational woes are driven by a lack of content knowledge. In order to overcome systemic inequalities we just need to increase the cultural capiltal by focusing on knowledge and not the skills of what good readers do.

Let us ignore the research from the last thirty years and entertain this line of thinking:

The forward of the report states:

“In trying to improve reading comprehension, schools made a tragic mistake: they took time away from knowledge-building courses such as science and history to clear the decks for more time on reading skills and strategies. And the impact, particularly on our most disadvantaged students whose content and vocabulary gap is so great, has been devastating”

It assumes that strategy instruction is the root of our social woes. The only way to fix the achievement gap is with a heavy dose of dead white guy literature. Background knowledge and comprehension are linked. That is one of the most stable findings in educational research. The more knowledge you have the more you can comprehend. The more you can comprehend the more knowledge you gain. The pendulum may have swung too far towards instruction in disciplinary literacy strategies and comprehension strategy instruction but eliminating these in favor the Great Gatsby and Gettysburg Address will not serve children well.

Instead what we need to do is build in opportunities to read and write like historians and scientists into out content area classrooms. I am hopeful the CCSS will help move us in this direction. However, it cannot be about content alone.

According to Common Core supporters high quality dead white guy literature is also important for English Language Leaerners. In a recent speech to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference Kathleen Porter-Magee, who wrote the forward to the report, spoke of the need of complex text for ELL learners. She gave an example of a leveled “Great Gatsby” text.

Porter Magee highlighted

In a “retold” version that is given to intermediate readers, that opening is boiled down to this:
“My name is Nick Carraway. I was born in a big city in the Middle West.”
Even more distressing is the version given to “beginning” readers:

My name is Nick. This is my friend. His name is Jay. Jay has a big house. See his house.

I agree with Porter-Magee that the beginning reading is not complex and does not allow for the intellectual capital of our second language learners to flourish. Yet if I am trying to teach a student who just arrived in this country to read English I would never use the full version of “Great Gatsby”. That seems even more inhumane.

The best approach is a bilingual education that would allow for translated or native works supported with beginning reading texts. Yet many states are openly hostile to bilingual education and even try to outlaw these approaches.

Giving a student who does not speak English the “Great Gatsby” will not end the achievement gap. It is silly to think so.

Bias Against Culturally Relevant and Young Adult Literature

Most gregarious in Appendix B is the list of recommended readings. What follows is a collection of books by dead white people about dead white people. In fact Appendix B states that the only selection criteria used was complexity, quality, and range. Representing the underrepresented with books about characters that actually look like the children we teach was not even considered! That is a national tragedy.

The authors of the report note that the appendix is not a suggested reading list, but they then go on to judge reading programs using the same list. So programs that use contemporary and culturally relevant literature would score low.

For example the report states that,

As a result, classic literature has, in many classrooms, been replaced by popular teen novels (often made into movies) such as The Hunger Games and Twilight. Indeed, the former, according to Renaissance Learning (more below), became the most widely read book in grades 9-12 following its theatrical release in 2012

It goes on to say:

Similarly, research published in 2009 by Renaissance Learning (the company that produces the “Accelerated Reader” program) found that “Ten of the top 16 most frequently read books by the 1,500 students in the top ten percent of reading achievement in grades 9-12 in the database for the 2008-2009 academic year were contemporary young adult fantasies.”

To say modern fantasy has no place in the reading programs of today’s high school is a travesty. The character development and conflicts are often quite complex and more than make up for some inadaquete readability scale. After all, if the students  choosing to read modern fantasy are in the top percent of reading ability there must be an instructional value.

This bias towards dead white guy literature is actually inherent in the anchor standards of the Common Core State Standards:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.7 Analyze multiple interpretations of a story, drama, or poem (e.g., recorded or live production of a play or recorded novel or poetry), evaluating how each version interprets the source text. (Include at least one play by Shakespeare and one play by an American dramatist.)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.9 Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics.

The only required documents students have to read are: our founding documents, Shakespeare, and dated dead white guy novels.

How to fight for Culturally Relevant and Young Adult Literature.

Be informed. The Text Complexity Triangle contains Quantitative, Qualitative and Reader and Task. The report mentions readability (quantitative) 14 times. The other two corners of the triangle were quickly dropped. If you want to argue that culturally relevant or modern fantasy are complex text use the other two corners of the triangle to your advantage.

Know the research. Get involved. Follow the work of leading African American, Hispanic, or literacy scholars who advance the field of culturally responsive curriculum.

Do what is right. Our students need to read about characters that look like they do. They need stories with conflicts that reflect the realities of their lives. Include these in your program. Fight against those who say the woes of our urban youth are caused by a lack of dead white guy literature.

I support the Common Core State Standards. I believe the anchor standards (not grade level expectations) provide a holistic approach to educating well prepared and well rounded students. I just want a better Appendix B.

[subscribe2]

CANTAB

Karen Brennan sparked my thinking today. She presented her work on using Scratch. The programming, games, and stories children created made a large impact on everyone at the conference.

For me it wasn’t the take away of creative computing I found most moving. It was Brennan’s point that making take two things: creating and community. She argued that you can’t have interactive writers without both.

I witnessed this yesterday, but it wasn’t with coding,computers, or even a classroom. I saw the synergy of creating and community in a dingy basement in a dark dusty bar.

Ian and I were heading home after dinner and wanted to stop in somewhere. We like dives. Dust on the floor, ripped stools, and low lights. That brought us to CanTab in Cambridge. It also brought us to a community of creators.

After sitting down we saw a steady stream of people heading to the basement. We asked what was going on. Turns out CanTab is the home venue for the Boston Poetry Slam team. Turns out Wednesday is Open Mic night. Turns out this was the last open mic before Boston hosts the National Poetry Slam.

What we witnessed encapsulated Brennan’s lesson about community. The camaraderie among the poets flowed through the room. Poets did parodies of each other’s work. Talked about revising together. Read about being struggling artists.

For the CanTab crowd community leads to creation, and creation leads to community. This was Karen Brennan’s take away. So what does this mean for teachers and participants at MNLI?

Community of Writers and Readers

When I am awed by quality literacy teachers it always comes back to community. The students in the room feel, no they know, that they are among readers. They know they can turn to other writers for support. Just like the students in Brennan’s study who remixed, offered feedback, and helped each other grow. A great literacy classroom builds upon community.

PLC???

Each year at MNLI some of the administrators choose the creation of a PLC, professional learning community as their project. I cringe a little. You can’t force community. Most PLC’s that exist in schools are simply committees that meet more frequently than others. Can schools use PLC’s? Yes, but they need to be interest driven and faculty lead. They need to have open memberships and recognize and build expertise.

Coding as Poetry

The CanTab experience was a serendipitous connection for me. I have little experience with code. In 6th grade I did a show and tell using Basic and made a rocket ship take off based on a dice role. Then during my dissertation work I had to edit XML files as we made a simulated environment. I do not know code but I do see poetry in code. I see these patterns that somehow standout like stanzas. What I saw at CanTab was the type of creating Karen Brennan wants out our students.

It isn’t just about creative computing and interactive writers. We also just need learning experience that create a community of learners both offline and online. We need interest driven classrooms that recognize student expertise. We need connected learning.

poetry

flickr photo shared by Rudolf Getel under a Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons ( CC0 ) license

<

h3 class=”MsoNormal” style=”line-height: 200%; >Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory

Rosenblatt’s
literary theory (1938/1995; 1978) diverges from the New Critical perspective that readers examine texts in order to extract “the meaning.” Rosenblatt states that during transactions with literary texts, readers draw on past and present literary and life experience to create meaning and posits that “'[t]he poem’ comes into being in the live circuit set up between the reader and ‘the text’” (1978, p. 14). Faced with traditional curricular and new highstakes testing requirements, today’s literacy educators are pressured by technology’s promise to expand the repertoire of students’ literacy experiences. At this juncture, Rosenblatt’s theory offers an important reminder thatregardless of, and perhaps even becauseof increased pressures, it is the role of the teacher to “fosterfruitful… transactions” (Rosenblatt, 1995, p. 26) between readers and allkinds of texts.  Transactional theory also highlights the active, recursive, and multifaceted nature of reading andresponse, creating a model of classroom reading that values students’ initial responses as a significant first step in meaning negotiation toward mature,
considered responses (1938/1995; 1978).

Transactional Theory and Technology

Bridging Rosenblatt’s theory with 21st-Century technologies, McEneaney (2003) explored hypertext as rooted in transactional theory, suggesting, “[a] transactionalview of text structure… requires us to reject the notion of structure as aproperty of text in the same way [the transactional] theory rejects the notion that meaning is a property of text” (p. 273). As students make meaning fromtoday’s variety of texts, they transact linearly, laterally, and
unsystematically— not only with words but also with infinite combinations of images, sounds, and videos (Kress, 2003). Thus, today’s teachers must not only help students respond to text but also must acknowledge that when students transact
with literary texts, they do more than establish a “live circuit”: they add new transistors and switches (McVerry, 2007).

Transactional Theory, Technology, and Poetry

To enrich the content and affect of the poetry classroom, technology may seem like an unwelcome stranger. Research has found, however, that “multimedia texts and multimodal composingmay actually shift classroom culture toward a more learner-centered paradigm” (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2003, pp. 381-2).  Thus, with careful embrace, technology may create fertile classroom conditions; robust, dynamic new texts, contexts, and representations show promise to crack into marble of New Critical and five-paragraph essay monuments that historically mark reading and writing in English classrooms (Pirie, 1997). We propose that by responding to poetry through non-verbocentric activities and becoming authors of multimodal texts, students will not only explore and refine 21st-century skills, but also, by building contemporary live circuits, they may benefit from new understandings of poetry and a powerful means of self-expression.