Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Robert Hankes
- PSPA President; PSPA Literary Magazines Evaluation Chair for many years; teaches at Big Spring HS in Newville, PA; co-advises the literary magazine Charisma with PSPA Vice-President Mike McVitty; married with three kids (23, 9, and 6).
1 comment:
Meeting the Needs of Students Who Are Not Reading at Grade Level
The concept of differentiated instruction is getting a lot of play time in higher education these days. The concern is related to schools trying to meet the varying needs of students who come to school with a wide variance of ability. However, most teachers merely give lipservice when it comes to trying to deal with the wide range of readers in any one classroom, and this attitude is understandable given that most teachers have six classes, three preps, and a club or coaching responsibility. Additionally, as the emphasis upon high-stakes testing increases, public pressure increases to force schools to make every town look like Lake Wobegone where each child is above average. In short, we are often forced to overlook the uniqueness of the students in order to insure mastery of a set of normed outcomes. Because of these pressures, it is not unusual to find a heterogenous classroom where the teacher aims at the middle and pulls the trigger hoping that everyone gets a little bit of buckshot. We don't worry about those at the top of the learning curve because they are often self-motivated and will take care of themselves. Those at the bottom of the learning curve are often so disenfranchised, they end up being disruptive, and we are actually more interested in getting rid of these students as opposed to trying to understand and meet their needs.
Attempting to bring all students up to a minimal level of competency regarding the objectives of a standardized test has resulted in a standardized curriculum. For as much as we like to pride ourselves on being progressive and innovative, what is taught in most high school classrooms is strikingly similar. For a majority of English classrooms, our students are reading the same novel, usually a classic, and are on the same page at the same time regardless of students' individual interests, needs, or abilities. Even our methodology is quite similar. We give quizzes to make sure our students do the daily reading which is important since many of them do not like the assigned novel that we have picked out. After the quiz, a discussion ensues based upon what we as teachers think is important. Students who can't read the book or keep up with the pace end up failing. Those who don't enjoy the novel, avoid reading it by piecing the important information together via the classroom discussion. Even our cherished academic students often avoid many touchstone pieces by resorting to Cliffnotes or, these days, finding chapter by chapter summaries at various internet sites such as Sparknotes.com.
Our writing instruction is not much better. Even in spite of all of the work done by Atwell or Calkins or Graves, our writing assignments have an all too familiar pattern. Most writing assignments in the high school involve literary analysis of the required texts. The writing assignment is created and assigned by the teacher. Once completed, it is collected and taken home and graded by exhausted instructors who spend hours writing comments and making corrections in order to return the papers the following week. The students look at the grade and often toss the paper into the trash without regard to all of those notes and corrections because once a piece is graded, as far as most students are concerned, the writing process is over. In fact, too often the entire writing process has been ignored. No student choice is given in the assignment and rarely is provision made for prewriting or conferencing or revision.
We have been entrenched in these patterns for a number of years. Our lockstep teaching of classical literature has been around since 1894 when the Great Books curriculum was created by a group of college professors who developed the Uniform Lists, a collection of "great literary works" that applicants would be tested upon in order to gain entrance into colleges (Bomer). This approach has been more recently popularized by E. D. Hirsch in his book Cultural Literacy or by Mortimer Adler in The Paideia Proposal. A built-in structure for high school curriculums now existed in which courses could be defined in terms of what classics are to be taught at what grade levels. This provided everyone a common core that evolved into the literary canon, and this approach still dominates much of what goes on in many high school classrooms.
But given all of the writing and discussion about what could, and perhaps what should, go on in the English classroom, not much has really changed over the years. In 1933, Dora Smith pointed out that the most common activity in the English classroom was whole-group instruction on a teacher-selected novel with students reading a set number of pages each night for homework. Students wrote responses to teacher questions and then the teacher would lead a discussion that focused upon teacher-generated questions and teacher observations about the text. This method is also documented by Squire and Applebee in 1966 where most of the class time was devoted to studying literature with the balance of the time split between learning grammar and writing essays about literature. Applebee's 1989 study shows very little change: "Literature as such, mostly whole-class study of book-length works by dead white guys, still takes roughly half of the time of English class . . . Pedagogy still consists almost exclusively of teacher centered recitation/discussion that leads to an interpretation the teacher received from someone in a university somewhere, with almost no group work or individualized instruction" (Bomer, 13-14).
Goodlad in his book A Place Called School found that instruction in non-academic classes to be even more predictable. "The dominant emphasis throughout was on teaching basic language use skills and mastering mechanics – capitalization, punctuation, paragraphs, syllabication, synonyms, homonyms, antonyms, parts of speech, etc. These were repeated in successive grades of the elementary years, were reviewed in the junior high years, and reappeared in the low track classes of the senior high schools" (p. 205) "For kids who don't love school, we just make it more boring. In nonacademic classes, students do more seat work, worksheets, precis, more grammar and skills, and much, much less writing" (Bomer, 14). These same findings are echoed in A Nation at Risk where the time set aside for reading or writing is actually filled with students filling in blanks on handouts.
These findings can be substantiated by walking down the hallway of most any high school in the country. It may be that this method is used so consistently because it works. Perhaps. But it does not address the variance of ability found within any given classroom. In hopes of addressing the many differences found among students within a classroom, schools have tried four major approaches: ability grouping, programmed instruction, thematic units, and more recently, the reading/writing workshop.
Ability Grouping
Ability grouping or tracking has an intuitive logic to it -- put students of like ability together and adjust the difficulty of the curriculum to cater to what they can handle. Ability grouping works very well – if you're in the upper ability group. Newfield and McElyear (1983) found that high achieving students who were grouped with their peers "rated their school higher on academic instruction, expressed more interest in school, had more positive attitudes toward themselves, and perceived English as more useful" (Glatthorn, p. 447). It is very reinforcing to be told that you are bright and academically gifted. In fact, Rosenthal pointed this out years ago showing that most students, when labeled as being "early bloomers," actually rose to meet this expectation whether it was warranted or not.
This approach continues to be used throughout the country in spite of the damage it does those "exceptional students" who find themselves on the lower half of the learning curve. Lower achieving students also buy into their institutionalized labels. Their labels essentially say "You don't measure up" whether their grouping is called remedial, non-academic, or non-regents. The self-perception that follows creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Students in such groups can be heard to say, "I can't do this," and teachers begin to accept that prognosis as well (Rosenbaum). But as Dar and Resh (1986) have pointed out, lower achieving students actually benefit more from being in heterogeneous groupings.
One of the things ironic about ability grouping is that after we place students into groups and institutionalize the label, we don't really change the curriculum that much. Quite often, the students in the academic and general classes read many of the same novels and complete most of the same assignments. When asked about this, most educators respond that the pace of instruction is slower and the expectations of students are lowered for the non-academic classes. How advantageous this mind set is, might be questionable.
Programmed Instruction
Another common approach is programmed instruction which attempts to measure the ability of every child and then place each one in a series of gradated reading folders housed in a kit. Beginning in the late 1950's, programmed instruction took the form of "teacher-proof" packets that were adopted by many remedial labs. Currently this approach takes the form of reading kits found in some reading classrooms such as produced by Science Research Associates. Their SRA Reading Series pretests students in order to measure their entering reading ability. Students are then assigned a set of color-coded folders which characteristically include a three page story followed by a set of comprehension questions. Each color represents a different level of text difficulty and each card within the same color is organized in a gradated fashion by difficulty. If students respond to the questions with 80% or better correctness, then they proceed to the next folder or next color-coded set of cards.
A more current application of this approach is found in computer assisted instruction where what is taught and how it is taught is controlled by a software package. Even though computers have more bells and whistles than reading kits, the approach to reading is based upon a the same model, a behavioral model of mastery learning. Learning tasks are broken down into small, incremental steps that are sequenced according to difficulty. Students must master one level before going onto the next. Although this method is not usually considered a viable approach to teaching literature, it is often used in classrooms for struggling readers.
Thematic Units
Thematic units and theme cycles have found success in accommodating the variance in reading abilities since both approaches use a number of titles focusing on a common theme. If the titles range in difficulty and students are allowed to choose from among them, then students are able to adjust the difficulty of the material within the limits of the novel selections. A thematic unit identifies titles and weaves activities around a particular theme (e.g. death and dying, heroism, rites of passage, being different, relationships, etc.).
In order to meet the varying needs within a classroom, the teacher may select more than one novel which provides students with some choice. For example, a teacher might use Ordinary People, Dicey's Song, Walk Two Moons, A Child Called It, Jacob Have I Loved, and Make Lemonade as possible novels to examine the theme of family relationships. In order to accommodate the range of abilities and interests found in a single classroom, the books should provide a range of difficulties, provide both strong male and female protagonists, as well as include strong, positive characters from a variety of cultural groups. After brief book talks on each of the works, students then sign up and read the novel of their choice. The teacher then facilitates small group discussions using general questions that can be applied to any novel (e.g What is the significance of the book's title? What types of changes has the main character gone through and what events have initiated these changes? Is there a particular object or event which seems significant or perhaps symbolic; what is it and what might it represent?). The teacher can also develop discussion questions for specific works. Each reading group then creates some type of culminating experience designed to share their book with the rest of the class. These cooperative activities can be as simple as a panel discussion of the novel or as involved as a small group reenactment of a crucial scene from the book.
Edelsky, Altwerger, and Flores (1991) introduced theme cycles which parallel thematic units in that they are both based upon a central problem or motif. However, the main distinction is that thematic units are designed and implemented by the teacher and theme cycles are initiated and carried out by students. Together the students and teacher negotiate what topics or themes they are to study and what novels they are to read.
Students and the teacher brainstorm a list of themes that they are interested in and then vote upon the one which will be looked at. The teacher and class then decide upon what novels might be included in the theme. This is done through brief book talks about novels which either the students or the teacher may have read. They would also consult booklists and published bibliographies such as Books for You (Abrahamson and Carter, 1989). After discussion, novel selections are made by the students. A student may choose an individual book from the classroom or school library that fits into the theme, or students may read a novel in small groups using titles available in the bookroom or that can be ordered from a book club. Again, the students must respond to their novels at some point. This may be done through reflective journals, literary letters, or small group projects or presentations. Teachers might want to consult lists that provide alternative suggestions to book reports for ideas on how students can respond to their novels (Fisher, 1979; Fry, 1984; Ohanian, 1988).
The Reading Workshop
Influenced by the work of Donald Graves and Donald Murray, Atwell (1987), Rief (1992) and others developed and implemented the reading/writing workshop. In this setting it would be common to see students sitting all over a classroom reading different novels at the same time. Some might be huddled in a corner quietly discussing a book they are reading together or a piece of writing that one of the students is working on. In the workshop, students are allowed to select their own novels based upon their reading ability and interests. They are given classroom time to read and are allowed to set their own pace. They are also encouraged to respond to their reading in journals which then serve as a basis for student writing. In the writing section of the workshop, students are allowed to select their own topics and are given opportunities in the classroom to write, obtain peer and teacher feedback, revise their work, and seek opportunities to publish their writing.
So how does the workshop accommodate exceptional students, however they are defined? Because students are selecting their own books, they can adjust the difficulty of the material based upon their ability. Students are allowed to select reading based upon their interests as well. Students are also given the freedom to put down a novel they are not enjoying, an option that most real-world readers allow themselves. Students are encouraged to make personal connections to and insights about what they are reading. And just as in a thematic unit, students are often allowed a choice about how to respond to a novel.
Regarding writing, students are allowed to select their own writing topics in addition to determine what the purpose of the writing is, what genre to use, and who their intended audience is. Students give each other feedback on their writing and hence each writer is allowed to choose who they feel comfortable working with -- again, a consideration afforded to most real-world writers.
This is not to say that the reading/writing workshop doesn't come with some of its own flaws. One of the biggest problems I've had is accountablility -- making sure students are actually reading what they say they are reading and that they are challenging themselves instead of putting their cruise controls in low gear. Also, students miss being able to look at a particular work as an entire class and trying to analyze it in more depth with the help of classroom discussion.
Conclusions:
It may be that there is no one best curricular approach to teaching because no matter what approach we use, there will always be a group of students who thrive, a group who survive, and a group who fall through the cracks. For teachers who are looking for THE right answer, the one approach to teaching and learning that will be best for all students, theirs will be a never ending search. However, if one of our goals is to accommodate the wide range of abilities and interests found in our classroom, it seems that the reading/writing workshop may be the best fit. A traditional approach tends to focus more on what is taught instead of who is taught, and thereby exceptionalities become a secondary concern.
Perhaps a compromise might be in order in which elements of the reading/writing workshop need to be used in conjunction with some predetermined literary selections. In her book, Constantly Seeking Diversity, Linda Rief discusses using the reading/writing workshop in addition to having some whole-class novels in addition to using a thematic unit. It is not a purest approach, but rather a reasonable balance that can include different teaching philosophies while still embracing the basic tenets and strengths of the reading/writing workshop.
Post a Comment